Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00lG81 <br />Revised Supplemental Draft Environmental Assessment-Chapter 2-Alternatives <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 separate Section 404 authorization would likely be needed for construction of <br />the whitewater features. If discharging water for constructio~ 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 the total costs for dam removal to be between $1,900,000 and <br />$2,900,000 depending mitigation measures selected for impacts to the Ute Water pump <br />plant. The cost includes all preconstruction activities, permitting, construction, <br />construction administration, and mitigation measures. <br /> <br />Operation and Maintenance <br /> <br />If the dam is removed to restore natural fish passage, no regularly scheduled actions <br />related to operation and maintenance is anticipated. The passage would operate as a <br />natural river channel, so maintenance would be minimal. <br /> <br />Water Supply <br /> <br />Because of downstream senior water rights, a flow of at least 520 cfs is present in this <br />, reach of the river under all but the most severe drought conditions. The Service also has <br />up to 37,650 acre-feet of upstream reservoir storage water available for endangered fish <br />uses in drought years. Therefore, no measures would be needed to augment existing <br />water supplies to enable fish to swim upstream after dam removal. <br /> <br />Environmental Commitments <br /> <br />The fish passage alternatives include measures as needed to: <br /> <br />· protect the ability of Ute Water to pump from the Colorado River <br /> <br />· protect Interstate 70 and the railroad bed from erosion <br /> <br />· ensure ease of fish movement and selectively reduce upstream passage of <br />nonnative fish at the Grand Valley Project Diversion Dam. <br /> <br />· mitigate impacts to the historic qualities of the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam <br /> <br />22 <br />