7620 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 INTRODUCTION t r 2.1.0.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations require that all alternatives considered in an envi ronmental report be identified under the following categories: 1) within the capability of the applicant and within the jurisdiction of the Corps; 2) within the capability of the applicant but outside the jurisdiction of the Corps; 3) reasonably foreseeable, beyond the capability of the applicant but- within the jurisdiction of the Corps; and 4) reasonably foreseeable, and both beyond the capability of the applicant end outside the jurisdiction of the Corps. These categories of alternatives are indicated by the number in parentheses following each alternative. 2.1.0.2 The alternatives that were considered in detail ere: a. Taylor Draw Dam [Applicants' Preferred) [1 ) Crest El. 5329 b. Larger Taylor Draw Dam [3) Crest El. .5345 c. Smaller Taylor Draw Dam [1) Crest El. 5321 d. Dam 1 .3 miles upstream [1 ) Crest El. 5321 e. Groundwater from infiltration galleries [1) f. No action [2) 2.1.0.3 The Rangely Project has been in various stages of study since 1965. Two feasibility studies, one issued in 1966 and the most recent in 1979, were developed to assess the need for a water project, the size of any proposed project, and the location of the project. 2.1.0.4 The report in 1966 studied two reservoi rs at the T~ylor Draw Da~ Ste with capacities of 31,000 AF and 74,000 AF [38 X 10 to 91 X 10 m ). At the comp lotion of the study, the lack of firm commitments for water caused the project to be postponed. 2.1.0.5 In 1979, after the town of Rangely experienced the severe' drought of 1977 and various stages of flooding, Water Users Association No. 1 authorized another feasibility study for the Rangely Project. The scope of the study was limited to a reservoir that would satisfy the following conditions: 1) Meet the immediate needs for municipal water supply for the town of Rangely during drought years, such as 1977 -4-