Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ALTERNATIVE 1 <br />MANAGEMENT CHANGES <br />OF EXISTING FACILITIES <br /> <br />~3TANOLEY <br />-"'''\, i I "" o ('-","Off SO" (\ <br /> <br />FA" ~ ' GOLDEi .-- /-U---, . I <br />;.....-st~.... I ~- . -r' \' <br />-." ~ --.r-. ~ER' -L... <br />j...(' ~, <om j;.. J CH~;~- C~~~- <br />:..,..~"-l ~~. ~., '~rI "- (I) ..~ <br />::..~ -4..OWr~ - · HATFlE\. (I}r-- <br />..~ .q~~L:0~ \1 I <br /> <br />/' 'l \ <br /> <br />The U,S, Army Corps of Engineers <br />currently operates Chatfield. Bear <br />Creek and Cherry Creek Reservoirs <br />as flood control projects; this alterna. <br />tive considers the reallocation of the <br />flood control storage, Change in man. <br />agement in reservoirs would result in <br />the delivery of an estimated 75.000 <br />acre.feet per year. <br /> <br />Chatfield Reservoir is located on the <br />mains tern South Plalte River. about <br />two miles south of the City of Denver. <br />The reservoir stores approximately <br />235,000 acre.feet. If operational proce. <br />dures for flood control were changed <br />at Chatfield, the reservoir could <br />deliver 45.000 acre. feet annually. <br /> <br />Bear Creek Reservoir. which is <br />located three miles so~thwest of <br />Denver, was designed with a total <br />capacity of 28.600 acre. feet. with <br />26,600 acre.feet allocated for flood <br />control. Changes in operational <br />procedures for the reservoir could <br />result in the potential delivery of up to <br />15,000 acre.feet, <br /> <br />Cherry Creek Reservoir is located <br />about ten miles southeast of Denver. <br />The reservoir has a total storage <br />capacity of about 245,000 acre. feet. A <br />change in the storage allocation from <br /> <br />flood control could result in deliveries <br />of about 15,000 acre.feel. <br /> <br />Evaluation <br /> <br />The market,valued outputs of this <br />alternative would be municipal and <br />industrial water supply, Project costs <br />for operation. maintenance and <br />replacement are believed to be min. <br />imal. However. flood control and/or <br />recreational benefits might be reduced <br />as a consequence of new operating <br />rules designed to provide water supply <br />benefits, If so, the net annual eco. <br />nomic benefit estimate would be <br />reduced. This alternative requires no <br />initial investment, and therefore it can. <br />not be directly compared with the <br />other alternatives by using a rate of <br />return criterion. <br /> <br />The additional municipal water sup. <br />plies could indirectly affect population <br />growth and related employment in the <br />Denver metropolitan area. Indirect <br />effects on government and services <br />should be fairly minor. Impacts on <br />water quality in the South Plalte River <br />basin would be minimal. Existing fish <br />and wildlife and recreational use in the <br />reservoirs would be enhanced by con. <br />sistently higher lake levels, <br /> <br />: <br />() <br />;! <br />\ <br />i <br /> <br />l <br /> <br />) <br />-1- <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />3 <br />