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

r
The cutoff trench would extend into bedrock for the length of the dam.
The outlet works, road relocation and uti lities relocation -would be
similar to Alternative A except longer. The upstream face would have
a 3:1 slop (i.e. 3 horizontal to 1 vertical) and the downstream face
would have a 2:1 slope. The construction schedule is shown on Fi gure
2 - 3.
2.3.2.2 Spi llwey Design - For comparison purposes it is ~ssumed that
the spillway capacity would remain et 65,300 cfs t1B49 m /s) for all
Alternatives. Due to the height of the dam, Reinforced Earthr walls
would not be used to form part of the dam. Therefore, the spillway
would consist of an over-the-crest concrete chute the full length of
the downstream face. with a roller bucket at the base of the dam to
dissipate the discharge. A stilling pool at the base of the dam would
be used to control the dissipation. The spillway would be 504 feet
[154m) long and contain approximately 7,000 cubic yards (5,352 m3] of
concrete. The difference in elevation between the spillway crest and
the top of the dam would be 10-feet (3m] . Tha spillway would be
ungated for the Length of the crest.
2.3.2.3 Out let Works - The out let works would be the same as
Alternative A except longer. The conduit would be sized to accomodate
a 2,000 kw (7,200 MJ) hydroelectric plant in the future.
23.2.4 Material Sources - Approximately 432,000 cubic yards [323,400
m ) of material would be needed to construct a larger dam at Taylor
Draw. This represents a 60% volume increase over Alternative A
because Reinforced Earthr cannot be used for the downstream face. The
majority of barrow material would come from the reservoir basin.
There are two borrow areas located outside of the reservoir basin.
Figure 2 - 3 shows the location of the borrow areas. Roughly 5 acres
(2.Oha) of Borrow Area E and. 20 acres (B.Oha) of riprap source would
be disturbed. Concrete aggregate would be trucked in from Jensen,
Utah.
2.3.3 R e s e r v o i r _Q~,g.Lg t,j_g!!
2.3.3.1 Alternative B would operate the same as Alternate A except a
larger quantity of water would be stored for future release,
regulation, and use. The reservoi r, during normal spring runoff,
could fill in 5 to 6 days. The outlet works would be operated to
regu l~te the flow over the spi L lway to mai ntei n a mini mum of 1 ,000 cfs
(28 m•/s] for hydraulic purpo~es. During the winter when normal flows
are less then 1,000 cfs (28 m /s} the outlet works would pass the flow
of the river to eliminate the problem ice jams. Additional water
rights would need to bs secured to completely fill the reservoi r.

2.3.3.2 The comparablle firm annual yield for this alternative would 1
be 36,700 AF [45 X 106m3) and would utilize 25,450 AF (31 X 106m3) of
storage. With the same conditions assumed for Alternative A. the
water budget far this alternative would be:
-18-