Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"". '1'" 5 I 7 <br />u v.1 't <br /> <br />Dam Removal <br /> <br />the riverbed. The dam design would permit upstream fish passage in a manner similar to the <br />riffle-pool design used at the GVIC Diversion Dam. <br /> <br />Other options for protecting the Ute Water pump plant intake were too costly to consider further: <br />1) acquire alternate water sources, possibly from the Rapid Creek drainage; and 2) construct a <br />new pump plant at a different location. <br /> <br />Construction <br /> <br />Removal of the Price-Stubb Dam would be completed under a construction contract. Approval <br />of the owners of the dam, the Mesa County and Palisade Irrigation Districts, would be required. <br />Temporary construction easements or permits would also be acquired from all affected land <br />owners before construction. Reclamation would negotiate protective measures to reduce impacts <br />to private property, right-of-way(s) and facilities. Following construction, any damaged area <br />would be restored, as near as practicable, to its original condition, Access to the dam would be <br />from Highway 6 along a trail that lies within the railroad right-of-way. Construction staging and <br />material storage would be on adjacent vacant land. Construction access is limited near the dam <br />because of its proximity to the railroad tracks. <br /> <br />A cofferdam would be needed to direct the river around the work area and river flows would not <br />be affected. Reclamation and the contractor would obtain any necessary approvals required by <br />the Clean Water Act before construction begins. Reclamation would request Section 404 <br />approval under Regional General Permit No. 057 for projects that benefit recovery of endangered <br />fish, along with water quality certification under Section 401. If discharging water from <br />dewatering is needed, the contractor would obtain a Section 402 permit. Construction would be <br />scheduled during low flow conditions in the fall and winter of 1999 or 2000. <br /> <br />Reclamation estimates the total costs for dam removal to be $1,900,000. This cost includes all <br />preconstruction activities, permitting, construction, construction administration, mitigation <br />measures for the Ute Water pump plant and mitigation of adverse effects to historic qualities of <br />the dam. To facilitate comparison with the Fish Ladder alternatives, costs for a fish trap at the <br />Grand Valley Project Diversion Dam are not included in this total. <br /> <br />Operation and Maintenance <br /> <br />If the dam is removed to restore natural passage, no regularly scheduled actions related to <br />operation and maintenance of a passage facility are anticipated. The passage would operate as a <br />natural river channel, so maintenance would be minimal. <br /> <br />Water Supply for Fish Passage <br /> <br />Because of downstream senior water rights, a flow of at least 640 cfs is present in this reach of <br />the river under all but the most severe drought conditions. Therefore, no measures would be <br />needed to augment existing water supplies to enable fish to swim upstream after dam removal. <br /> <br />15 <br />