Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OOlG76 <br />Revised Supplemental Draft Environmental Assessment-Chapter 2-Alternatives <br /> <br />directing fish to the passage entrance. In discussions with CDOT, a 20 foot offset of the <br />fish passage channel was established to allow for widening of Interstate 70. <br /> <br />Construction <br /> <br />This alternative would also be completed under a construction contract. Recreational <br />interests would secure non-Recovery Program funding for the construction of the <br />whitewater features and the second notch in the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam. Before the <br />fish passage and white water features could be constructed, authorization for the dam <br />modifications would be obtained from the owners ofthe dam. Temporary construction <br />easements or permits, and permanent easements and access would be required from <br />Palisade and Mesa County Irrigation Districts, E.R. Jacobson, CDOT,and the Union <br />Pacific Railroad for the fish passage. Reclamation would negotiate protective measures <br />to reduce impacts to private and State property, rights-of-ways, and facilities. Additional <br />easements needed for the whitewater features would be obtained the sponsoring public <br />entity (possibly the Town of Palisade). Following construction, any damaged area would <br />be restored, as near as practicable, to its original condition. Access to the dam would be <br />from Highway 6 along an existing trail that lies within the railroad right-of-way and <br />CDOT property. Construction staging and material storage would be on adjacent vacant <br />lands owned by E.R. Jacobson and CDOT. Construction access and staging area is <br />limited near the dam because of its proximity to the railroad tracks. Similar to the <br />Downstream Fish Passage Alternative, the fish passage would be located in the river <br />channel and not between the dam headgates arid the railroad. Therefore, construction <br />access would not be as constricted when compared to the conventional fish ladder <br />alternative. <br /> <br />A cofferdam and/or bypass channel may be used to direct the river around the <br />construction area and river flows would not be reduced. Before construction, <br />Reclamation and the contractor would obtain necessary approvals required by the Clean <br />Water Act. Reclamation would request Section 404 authorization for the fish passage <br />under Regional General Permit No. 057 for projects that benefit recovery of endangered <br />fishes. A separated Section 404 authorization would likely be needed for construction of <br />the whitewater features. If discharging water for construction dewatering is needed, the <br />contractor would obtain a Section 402 permit. Reclamation would also coordinate <br />construction activities within the 100-year floodplain with Mesa County. Construction <br />would be scheduled during low river conditions in the fall and winter of 2005-2006. <br /> <br />Reclamation estimates that this alternative would cost an additional $400,000 when <br />compared to the Downstream fish passage alternative. Recovery program costs are <br />estimated at $4,600,000 and recreational interests costs at $400,000, unless it can be <br />demonstrated that the 2,5 percent ramp would address public safety concerns, then <br />Recovery Program cost are estimated at $5,000,000. The non-fish passage portion of the <br />2,5 percent ramp would likely require additional whitewater features. Any additional <br />cost, beyond the $400,000 increment, would also require non-Recovery Program funding. <br /> <br />17 <br />