My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10826
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10826
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:14:52 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:34:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.131.J
Description
Yellow Jacket Project
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
4/1/1976
Author
USDOI/BOR
Title
Yellow Jacket Project Colorado: Progress Report Part I
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /><=> <br />en <br />C\J <br />N <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY <br /> <br />Of the six plans evaluated, one was considered by the planning team <br />to be the most likely blend or compromise of features needed to meet prob- <br />able future conditions. This "MOP Compromise" plan is only a tenative se- <br />lection at present and is subject to improvement or complete elimination <br />as the study continues. The plan provides water for all purposes consid- <br />ered, including coal and oil shale uses, irrigation, and municipal use. <br />The plan includes two reservoirs. A reservoir on Milk Creek would pro- <br />vide a regulated water supply for irrigation and coal uses. Enlargement <br />of an existing reserVoir on Big Beaver Creek, a tributary of the White <br />River, would provide regulation of flows for oil shale and coal industry <br />uses, for municipal and domestic uses, and far irrigation of lands near <br />the White River east of Meeker, Colo. A diversion dam and conduit would <br />convey the water supply from the White River to turnouts for the various <br />project uses or to the enlarged reservoir for storage. A key concept in <br />the plan is the flexibility of operation afforded by the system without <br />the necessity of a reservoir an the White River itself. Project water re- <br />quirements could be met mast of the time by gravity flow through the con- <br />duit from the river, but water stared in the enlarged reservoir could be <br />returned to the conduit when needed by means of a pumping plant. Recrea- <br />tional facilities would be built at each reservoir and fishing access <br />easements would be acquired. The plan also provides far acquisition of <br />private land to be managed for wildlife use. <br /> <br />Comparisons of the six alternative plans are summarized below. <br /> <br />.I <br /> <br />Comparison of alternative plans <br /> <br />Without 011 ahale <br />Sprinkler <br />Surface and surface Coal <br />lrrl~atl~n irrlxation emphasis <br /> <br />With oil shale <br />Oil shale <br />and <br />lrrhation <br /> <br />Federal en- <br />vironmental <br />management <br />Mop com- with private <br />promise development <br /> <br />0' <br /> <br />Water supply (1,000 acre-feet) <br />Surface irrigation 30.4 8.5 10.3 8.9 8.5 <br />Sprinkler irrigation 17.9 17.9 26.8 17.9 <br />Oil shale industry 30.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 <br />Coal industry 37.2 35,0 54.5 30.9 35.0 30.0 <br />Municipal 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.5 <br />Toul 72.6 66.4 112.7 131.6 126.4 to< <br />Areas served. by irrigation (acres) 8,800 <br />Full service 8,000 8,800 9.150 12,430 <br />Supplemental service 3,140 3,140 3,030 3.140 3.140 <br />Total 11,140 11,940 12,180 15,570 11,940 <br />Construction costs ($1,000) $68,250 $68,610 $87,150 $95.160 $79,800 <br />Ben~f!t-co8t ratio 1,06:1 1.10:1 1.44:1 1. 53: 1 1. 71:1 <br /> <br />As investigations continue, the Yellow Jacket Project is being ab- <br />sorbed as a unit of the broader Upper Colorado Resource Study initiated <br />in January 1976. This broader study covers the Lower Yampa River Basin <br />below Craig, Colo., and the entire White River Basin in Colorado and Utah. <br />The study will identify reasonable alternatives, including non-Federal de- <br />velopment, to meet the water requirements far prototype oil shale de"elop- <br />ment on tracts C-a and C-b in Colorado and U-a and U-b in Utah. Prim~ry <br />considerations also include water requirements for Indian lands of the <br />Ute tribe east ~f Ouray, Utah, ~nd far development of the tribe's mineral <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.