Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001678 <br /> <br />Revised Supplemental Draft Environmental Assessment-Chapter 2-Alternatives <br /> <br />Recreational interests have been working with a private consultant to design the <br />whitewater features and develop cost estimates. The additional costs would be funded by <br />non-recovery program funding. Operation and maintenance costs for this alternative <br />would be negligible. <br /> <br />Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Measures <br /> <br />This alternative would require no regularly scheduled actions related to operation and <br />maintenance other than inspection for the fish passage. Reclamation would enter into a <br />contract with Palisade and Mesa County Irrigation Districts to provide-inspection and <br />maintenance as needed. Recreational interests and possibly the Town of Palisade would <br />provide maintenance, as needed, for the whitewater features including but not limited to <br />removing trash and debris, and adjusting and/or resetting boulders after large flow events. <br /> <br />Dam Removal <br /> <br />This alternative would involve partial removal ofthe dam to restore natural fish passage <br />in the river channel. This alternative would not be compatible with hydropower <br />development. Before Reclamation could remove the dam, four outstanding issues <br />(discussed 'in Chapter3) would have to be resolved: <br /> <br />1) Develop mitigation measures to resolve the Ute Water pump plant issue <br />2) Determine whether a hydropower plant would be developed at the dam site <br />3) Obtain permission for dam removal from owners of the dam. The Mesa <br />County Irrigation District expressed support for dam removal, but the Palisade <br />Irrigation District is currently opposed to dam removal. <br />4) Geologic investigations indicate landslide stability is an issue; however, <br />no impacts to the slide movement caused by dam removal are anticipated. If <br />the dam is removed and a landslide were to occur, potential for damage <br />liability exists. <br /> <br />Design <br /> <br />The Dam Removal Alternative would allow the foundation, abutments, and canal <br />headworks to remain in place (see Figure 8). The left abutmene ofthe dam may provide <br />some erosion protection for Interstate 70. The right abutment may protect the Union <br />Pacific's railroad tracks from erosion. The portion of the dam below the riverbed does <br />not present a barrier to fish and leaving it in place would help reduce scouring of the <br />riverbed. <br /> <br />Removal activities would require measures, such as placement of boulders or riprap in <br />the riverbed or along the banks, to restore or enhance natural fish passage in the river <br />channel by native and endangered fish. <br /> <br />3 The left abutment is on the left side of the dam, as viewed when looking downstream, <br /> <br />19 <br />