Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(2) relocation. Either alternative would be much more costly than <br /> <br />providing upstream protection in the Two Forks Reservoir. <br /> <br />The Bureau of Reclamation has recently been advised by the <br /> <br />District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, that a review <br /> <br />of the hydrologic factors and flood damage potentials indicates that <br /> <br />flood control storage of 115,000 acre-feet would be required at the <br /> <br />Two Forks site with the flood control outlet sized to release a <br /> <br />maximum of 5,000 cubic feet per second. That capacity in the Two <br /> <br />Forks Reservoir would be in exchange for the conversion of 55,000 <br /> <br />acre-feet from flood control storage to conservation use in the <br /> <br />Chatfield Reservoir. The District Engineer further stated that <br /> <br />projection of economic development over a lOO-year period indicates <br /> <br />that the desired 115,000 acre-foot flood control capacity in the Two <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />Forks Reservoir would yield average annual benefits of $1,488,000. <br /> <br />This increased benefit evaluation will raise the 100-year benefit- <br /> <br />cost ratio of the total Upper South Platte Unit from 1.43, as computed <br /> <br />in the reconnaissance report, to 1.69. <br /> <br />The District Engineer's request for flood control storage capacity <br /> <br />in the Two Forks Reservoir will insure coordinated planning, and ulti- <br /> <br />mate integrated operation, of the two reservoirs. Inasmuch as both <br /> <br />reservoirs are needed now for flood control, and the Two Forks Reservoir <br /> <br />will be needed in the near future for additional purposes, such coordi- <br /> <br />nated planning will be most beneficial and should result in overall <br /> <br />economics. <br /> <br />4 <br />