Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I II <br />I <br />II <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />II <br />II <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />nn~~3- <br />~,;'(! 2 <br /> <br />1. It would cost less. <br /> <br />2. It would inundate fewer acres upstream, thus displacing <br />fewer resident families. A smaller inundated area would <br />mean that more riparian habitat would be left undisturbed, <br />more wildlife would retain their habitat, less of the <br />river would be usurped, and more opportunity for wildlife <br />migration routes would remain. Otherwise the environment <br />would be affected similarly to the proposed project. <br /> <br />3. The hydroelectric power generation facility would be <br />eliminated as a feasible addition. <br /> <br />4. The reservoir created would impound considerably less <br />water. Potential benefits would thus be drastically <br />reduced or eliminated. <br /> <br />5. Nearly the same amount of sediment would settle in the <br />dead storage area. The ratio of dead storage to live <br />storage would be much greater with a small dam than with <br />the one proposed. <br /> <br />6. The smaller reservoir would provide considerably less <br />flood protection. The ability to protect Rangely from <br />ice jam floods would also be reduced. <br /> <br />7. Recreational capacity would be reduced; it is likely <br />the attraction would also be less than with a larger <br />facility. <br /> <br />C. Build a Larger Dam at the Proposed Site <br /> <br />A larger dam and reservoir have been considered for this site. <br />Originally the dam was conceived to be either 80 feet or 107 feet <br />high with storage capacities of 31,000 AF or 74,000 AF respectively (1). <br /> <br />VIII-3 <br />