|
<br />ALTERNATIVE 4
<br />EXPANSION OF
<br />EXISTING FACILITIES
<br />
<br />The expansion of existing reservoirs:
<br />Chatfield, Gross, Carter Lake. Horse.
<br />tooth and Jackson Lake are consl'
<br />dered in this alternative,
<br />
<br />Chatfield Reservoir, located about
<br />two miles south of the City of Denver.
<br />could be raised to deliver an additional
<br />water supply of 34,300 acre.feet
<br />annually,
<br />
<br />Gross Reservoir. located on South
<br />Boulder Creek, could be increased by
<br />about 71.000 acre.feet which would
<br />provide an additional annual water
<br />delivery of 12,900 acre.feet,
<br />
<br />Carter Lake and Horsetooth Reser.
<br />voir are parts 01 the ColoradoBig
<br />Thompson Project which imports
<br />water from the Colorado River basin
<br />into the South Platte River basin.
<br />Dams forming these two reservoirs
<br />could be raised to provide an esti.
<br />mated 24,000 acre, feet of additional
<br />storage at Carter Lake and 42,000
<br />acre-feet of storage at Horsetooth
<br />Reservoir, Additional storage at Car.
<br />ter Lake could be used to deliver 4,200
<br />acre.feet, Expansion of Horsetooth
<br />Reservoir would result in the delivery
<br />of 4.700 acre.feet. In both cases, it is
<br />assumed that inflows would be
<br />derived from mountain tributary
<br />streams.
<br />
<br />Jackson Reservoir. located in Morgan
<br />County, is privately owned and oper'
<br />ated by the Jackson Lake Reservoir
<br />Company, Increased capacity would
<br />result in delivery 016.100 acre.leet,
<br />
<br />municipal and industrial water supply,
<br />Net annual economic benefits are esti-
<br />mated to be $4,9 million, This amounts
<br />to a 2,0 percent rate 01 return on the
<br />estimated required investment of $251
<br />million,
<br />
<br />Evaluation
<br />
<br />High water levels maintained for
<br />longer periods. would increase the
<br />existing aquatic productivity and
<br />enhance existing lake lisheries,
<br />r
<br />
<br />The market. value outputs 01 this alter.
<br />native would be irrigation water and
<br />
<br />'-,J' , ~"'=J "-,.FO", '1""'" ) )
<br />. ~(~...... ~~ ~\,...
<br />/ ~ \ (4) \ ~, ,.'
<br />I :: -"'<'" HORSET OTH .:1.' ~~ 1#" !.~.~-
<br />J \ ~ )-~r. qj~r.~~ .''"'-'' '';j . \ JAQKsai;W" r~.
<br />--':4J!! r~~~. ~~~~rGI1[r_(1.;:r.~ .'v:::r>l t4)D 'c
<br />7~r,ft;!..., E Jj.rr"~ -,,, ~> :;r- I([FlS[Y. _'--. ~CFCH~(.'~-"""*tL[ :IliA
<br />~: I "~"'" '~'...... "',' .../ .J ,""" - ~~,"('rrTl '-
<br />~~.'.>~,'f;;;,j). >'_. .., ,jl\ '~:ro// ':~:' 1.( \ ....?-.~n
<br />'.:",~I!.- c,'~r .' L.JNGMCWT' \~:{ I (
<br />t' __,- \, 'i\ (
<br />-(~ -.....-.I-.C"". ~ . ..:t-o
<br />.;-. ,"8"""" ~ 18 \ ..,,,,,, I .,'j ~
<br />lie~~>>..... ..' ._.-=--_ '- ~~---L.~_ ._
<br />GROSS (4) '11:,,13/ / --rv..o~u clt[~T-- .~
<br />-'- --:-/: /";'-'~'--~' ) ~'~~~, \ ". ~I' f(~
<br />_ :i ~"''''L 0 ("-"'["lOn<soN. i . \ "...'
<br />,,:::~'- ! GOeDEn _ /-w-', (I '; ('I ,_.~r, ,/
<br />r' -:.....-~~..1. -.r---~~ I~[~q~----~-_._- f ~
<br />,] :, ...",V-' )CHERfJ\y CifEK r I :,
<br />J .. /".~. ~~ ~ .,,1"1......... C"lIlU)('~H" j}'
<br />~~~fk~~"~ "', ~,~~r._~L:. iiKL._ -i+--+---L
<br />~ ."tS~ I,' j
<br />
<br />ALTERNATIVE 5
<br />MINIMAL DEVELOPMENT
<br />
<br />This alternative considers a combina-
<br />tion of Alternatives 1 and 4, Alterna-
<br />tive 1. previously discussed, present-
<br />ed an analysis 01 possible manage.
<br />ment changes in existing facilities.
<br />including Chatfield, Bear Creek and
<br />Cherry Creek Reservoirs, Changing
<br />operational procedures of these reser'
<br />voirs could result in a delivery of
<br />75,000 acre. feet of additional water,
<br />Expansion 01 Gross, Carter Lake,
<br />Horsetooth and Jackson Reservoirs,
<br />as discussed in Alternative 4, would
<br />result in the delivery 01 27,900 acre.
<br />leet per year of additional water.
<br />
<br />6
<br />
<br />The market.valued outputs 01 this
<br />alternative would be irrigation water
<br />and municipal and industrial water.
<br />Net annual benelits are estimated to
<br />be $9,0 million, This amounts to a 3,6
<br />percent rate of return on the esti.
<br />mated required investment of $251
<br />million.
<br />
<br />Nonmonetary impacts would be min.
<br />imaf for development of this alterna.
<br />tive.
<br />
<br />(See map above)
<br />
|