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

accomodate a 2,000 kw (7,200 MJ) hydroelectric plant in the future.
The location of the outlet works would require the excavation of an
inlet and outlet channel.
2 2.2.4 Material Sources - Approximately 265,700 cubic yards (203,140
., m3) of material would be Headed to construct the dam. The majority of
the borrow materials lie within the reservoir basin. There are two
borrow areas located outside of the reservoir basin . The first area
ties approximately 300 yards (274m) east of the right abutment and
covers roughly 5 acres (the). The gravelly material would be used for
Reinforced Eerthr well fill and filter material. The second borrow
area consists of a hard sandstone Ledge to be used for riprap. It is
estimated that approximately 10 acres [4he) will be disturbed.
Concrete aggregate would most likely come from Jensen, Utah.. The
borrow area locations are shown on Figure 2 - 4.
2.2.3
2.2.3.1 A water supply study by Western Engineers, Inc. indicates
that if .the future water development outlined in the report becomes
reality, the reservoi r, during average6y~ars would be drawn down 3,000
to 4,000 acre-feet (3.7 to 4-.9 X 10 m ) every other year based on
historical records.(26) No way exists to predict at what rate
development in the White River Basin will take p-lace. In a
supplemental water supply study it was assumed development would be
uniform over a 20 year period starting in 1982. The results of the
study i ndi ceted the reservoir would remain full during the first 18
years except in a drought year such as occured in 1977. After the
first 16 years the reservoir would draw down approximately every other
year as indicated above,
2.2.3.2 During a drought year, the ~ater supply studies assumed a
minimum bypass of 200 cfs (5.6 m /s) or the flow in the river,
whichever was less. In the first 18 years of operation, the reservoir
water surface would drop a maximum of 17-feet (5m). The majority of
the time the reservoir would be operated with the run of the river and
remain full. During the spring and summer the spillway end out let
works would operate wi th the out let works somewhat th rottled to try
and maintain a 1,000 cfs (28 m3/s) flow over the spillway. During the
winter when ice flow is a problem, the outlet works would be regulated
to pass the anti re flow in the river to prevent ice from moving
downstream and reduce the flood potential. Under normal spring flows
the reservoir could fill in 2 to 3 days i f needed. A combination of
discharge through the outlet works and spillway could be used to
control algal growth. Because the reservoir wi l L be ful L the majority
of the time, recreational benefits will be maximized.
2.2.3.3 The actual yield from the reservoir under Alternative A would
b~ 10,200 AF (12.6 X 106 m3]~ t~e water right for 13,800 AF (17 X 106
m ) less 2,00 AF (2.6 X 10 m ) of recreation/dead pool and 1,500 AF
(1 .9 X 106 m ) of evaporation. The an nua L evaporation has been used
in the hydraulic analysis, but has not been included in the water
budget because the actual evaporation during administration of the
-13-