Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2.6.5.2 This alternative cannot be compared directly with the other <br />alternatives because It does not provide any flood control, <br />recreational benefits, large reliable Industrial supply, or <br />hydroelectric power. A flood Insurance study prepared for the town of <br />Rangely Identified three major contributors to flooding of the town, <br />State Highway 64 bridge downstream from the town and two undersized <br />culverts on Dragon Wash.(22) The culverts on Dragon Wash have since <br />been enlarged leaving the bridge as the major cause of flooding. <br />Modifications of this structure could significantly reduce the <br />flooding potential within the town of Rangely at a reasonable cost. <br />Flooding at other locations on the river would still occur. This <br />alternative has been retained for comparative purposes even though It <br />does not fully meet the project purposes. <br /> <br />2.7 ALTERNATIVE F: No Action <br /> <br />2.7.1 Under this alternative It Is assumed that no project would be <br />bu 11 t to sat Isfy the needs I dent I fled for the town of Range 1 y. The <br />existing municipal water Intake would continue to be used. It Is <br />assumed that no new sources of water would be available and that no <br />further flood control works would be constructed. <br /> <br />2.7.2.1 The town of Rangely could face shortage of domestic water <br />during drought years such as 1977. <br /> <br />2.7.2.2 The town of Rangely would continue to utilize Its direct <br />3 <br />diversion right of 30.95 cfs (0.88 m Is). During below no nna 1 water <br />years, this diversion would decrease the flow In the White River and <br />could contribute to reduction of the fishery habitat. <br /> <br />2.7.2,3 No water based recreation facll ity would exist In the Rangely <br /> <br />area. <br /> <br />2.7.2,4 The town of Rangely would continue to be subject to <br />Infrequent flooding as In the past. <br /> <br />32 <br />