7620

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7620
• Author: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
• Title: Taylor Draw Reservoir Project Environmental Impact Statement
• USFW Year: 1982.
• USFW - Doc Type: Draft.
• Copyright Material: NO

7
2) Eliminate the flooding that occurs in Rangely
once every 7 to 10 years as a result. of ice jams
3) Be small enough that the anti re funding could
come out of a local bond election without outside
participants

4) Provide local waterborne recreational benefits
,, 2.1 .0.6 The alternatives of the Taylor Draw Reservoir deemed to meet
one or more of these project conditions, are evaluated in detail.
2.1.1 Projects Not Considered In Detail as Alternatives
2.1 .1 .1 Wolf Creek Reservoi r
2.1 .1 .1 .1 Wolf Creek Reservoi is proposed location is 18 mi les [29
km) northeast of Rangely. The dam site is such that ~ reservoir wit
capacities from 50,000 to 105,000 acre-feet f61.7 X 10 to 129.5 X 10
m ) could be built economically. Due to the potential for
constructing a larger reservoir at the site when additional water
demand requires it, Water Users Association No. 1 desires to construct
a smaller dam elsewhere to meet immediate needs. Insufficient water
demand and lack of funding make the planning and construction of Wolf
Creek Reservoir uncertain in the near future and thus not considered
as an alternative.
2.1.1.2 Yellow Jacket Reservoir
2.1.1.2.1 The Yellow Jacket Project, as originally proposed and
decreed, would~be developed to supply wa"ter primarily for municipal
end industrial uses and for the irrigation of lands in-the vicinity of
Meeker. It is considered a feasible project, but continues to be
involved in environmental controversies. Therefore, it is difficult
to predi ct when and in what configuration this project would be
authorizes.
2.1 .1 .2.2 The Yellow Jacket Project would requi re Congressiona l
approval if constructed under the auspices of the Colorado River
Storage Project Act with partial repayment coming from the Upper
Colorado River Basin Fund. Currently there is a proposal pending
between the Yellow Jacket Water Conservation District end a consortium
of approximately 15 oil shale and coal companies to build certain
features of the Yellow Jacket Project. Under this arrangement the
consortium and the State of Colorado would make the repayment.
2.1.1.2.3 Water Users Association No. 1 considers the Yellow Jacket
Protect to be too far upstream to provide the same recreational and
flood contra l benefits as a dam closer to Rangely wou ld provide. The
expense of purchase and transport of water 35 or more miles (56 km) to
the Rangely area would be excessive. The above considerations coupled
with the uncertainty of whether the project will ever be built ere the
reasons for eliminating Yellow Jacket as a potential alternative to
-5-