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

X 106 m3) at the norm~L high water line elevytion of 5.310 feet MSL

(1,618m). The surface arse of the reservoir at the high water line
would be approximately 500 acres 6 (23Q 2ha) . The dead pool storage
volume of 2,100 acre-feet (2.6 X 10 m would inundate approximately
257 acres (104ha) at an elevation of 5,290 feet .MSL (1,612m).
Recreation and flood control benefits would be essenti a L ly the same as
Alternative A.
2.4.1.3 A smaller dam at Taylor Draw would require less road and
utility relocation than either Alternative A or B.
2.4.2 Cgn st ruc#~gn~I~thQds,rEge~,gtes and Sc~ig•d a~.gs
2.4.2.1 Dam Design - The dam would be identical to Alternative A
except 8-feet (2.4m) lower. T~e dam would require approximately
213,000 cubic yards [162,850m ) of material. The construction
schedule would be the same as Alternative A. Figure 2-5 depicts the
dam conc ept and featur es.
2.4.2.2 Spillway Design -The assumed design capacity of the spiJ~lwey
is the same for all the dam alternatives or 65,300 cfs [1,649 m /s).
The crest-length and the amount of concrete in the spillway would be
the same as Alternative A except the height of the Reinforced Earthy
walls would be 8-feet (2.4m) less than for Alternative A.
2.4.2.3 Outlet Works - The arrangement of the out let works would be
the same as Alternative A except 40-feet (12.2m) shorter. Because of
the reduction of heed, the capacity at the high water line would be
951 cfs (27 m3/s).
2.4.2.4 Material Sources - Roughly 213,000 cubic yards (162,850 m3) of
material would be required to build the dam. The proposed sources of
materia is would remain unchanged from A lternati vas A and B. S li ght ly
less material from the Riprap Source area and from Borrow Area E would
be required for the construction of Alternative C than for Alternative
A or B.
2 .4.3 R a s e LY.o i ~4.P.~~i.Q.L~
2.4,3.1 The only difference in reservoi r operation between
Alternatives A and C would be the operating relationship between
outlet works and spillway. The intent would be to have the outlet
works operate to pass the entire flow of the river during the winter
time to eliminate the problem of ice jams that occur in Rangely.
Proportionally Less water would be available for sale due to the
smaller reservoir volume .
2.4.3.2 The comparably ~irm annual yield for this a~te~native would
be 15,000 AF f18 X 10 m ) requiring 7,650 AF f9 X 10 m ) of storage.
The water budget for this alternative. with the same assumptions as
Alternative A, would be:
-21-