Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />2.1 INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />2.1.0.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations require that all <br />alternatives considered In an environmental report be Identified <br />under the follcwlng categories: 1) within the capability of the <br />applicant and withIn the Jurisdiction of the Corps; 2) wIthin the <br />capability of the applicant but outside the JurisdIction of the Corps; <br />3) reasonably foreseeable, beyond the capability of the applicant but <br />within the Jurisdiction of the Corps; and 4) reasonably foreseeable <br />and both beyond the capability of the applicant and outside the <br />Jurisdiction of the Corps. These categories of alternatives are <br />Indicated by the number In parentheses follcwlng each alternative. <br /> <br />2.1.0.2 The alternatives that were considered In detail are: <br /> <br />a. Taylor Draw Dam (Applicants Preferred) (1) <br />Crest El. 5329 <br /> <br />b. Larger Taylor Draw Dam (3) <br />Crest El. 5345 <br /> <br />c, Smaller Taylor Draw Dam (1) <br />Crest El. 5321 <br /> <br />d. Dam 1,3 miles upstream (1) <br />Crest El. 5321 <br /> <br />e, Ground water from Infiltration galleries (1) <br /> <br />f. No action (2) <br /> <br />2.1.0.3 The Rangely Project has been In various stages of study since <br />1965. Two feasibility studies, one Issued In 1966 and the most recent <br /> <br />4 <br />