Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />["1'- -- <br />J ~ i.,: I ( : <br /> <br />9. Current efforts are centen:d around dct<:.ileJ analysis of tbe <br />flood proble~s and potential ber-efits, do~nstrc~m r.ceds for water <br />supply, water quality concrol, recreation and fish and wildlife, <br />and irrigation. /!',:ch of the data shmm in t~e Bu:-eau reports, <br />ir.clucing ccsign. storage allocation, a~d cost esti~3tes are $ubj~ct to <br />adci.:t~Jn<::.l rt:::inelT.eu': to reflect the other conse=v<:!.tio:1 ,JUrpcses that <br />would be inclurlpd In the Corps pl~n. <br /> <br />10. Present studies point up the need for 5 of the 6 ad~itional <br />res~rvolrs as shown in the follo~lng table 2. The reservoir near York <br />on Beaver Creek does not appear feasible at this time and it appears <br />unlikely that both Angus and WatervlIle could be j~stlfied. All ele- <br />ments ~ust return benefits 1n excess of costs. <br /> <br /> Table 2.--Bis:: BI~ver basin....g.!:.2p...5t>::..~ reservoirs <br /> Surface <br /> area <br /> Total cons. <br /> Stream store.ge pool Approximate <br />Reser~ location Purposes ~ac.-ft.) (acres) -----.f..o.~__ <br />Haterville Little Blue R. F.e. , I.[Q, <br /> Rec, F&P . . . <br />or <br />Angus Little Blue R, Le. , Irr. <br /> Rec. 440,000 5,080 $27,320,000 <br />Beaver W. Fork, Big F.e. lrr. <br />erosBin~ Blue River t..'Q, Rec. <br /> F&W 534,500 8,000 27,300,000 <br />Seward Vie.... Lincoln Creek " 227,300 4,500 1&,500,000 <br />Surprise No. Branch, <br /> Big Blue R. " 176,700 4,100 16,600,000 <br />Shestak Turkey Creek " 180,500 4,300 13,000,000 <br />*Not yet detem1ned <br /> <br />11. Delineation of the recomr.::cnuatiom: w1ll have to a....ait completic,n <br />of the detailed plan formulation stu~ies. It is anticipated that these <br />investigations will be sufficientl:, advanced so as to ma:<'e tit1al plan <br />selection possible by about July 1967. <br /> <br />8 <br />