WSPP286 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000941 CHAPTER 2-PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVl:S Alternatives evaluated in this final environmental assessment include the No Action and Proposyd Action Alternatives. No Action Alternative: Under thisaltemative, the Recovery Program would not construct or provide funding for operation and maintenance of a fish screen in t~e Redlands Power Canal. Adult and sub adult Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker could continue to become entrained in the Redlands Power Canal and be harmed, harassed or killed (take) by continued Redlands Water ar1d Power Company (RWPC) operations. Proposed Action.=. Under the Proposed Action, the Recovery Program would construct a fish screen in the Redlands Power Canal to prevent canal entrainment of adult and sub adult Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. Reclamation would design and construct the fish screen. The Re~overy Program would provide funding for operation and maintenance of the fish screen and maintenance of the existing Redlands Fish Ladder to R WCP through the execution of an O&M agreement between Reclamation, the Service and RWCP. RWPC would assume ownership of both the fish screen and fish ladder. The Service would continue to operate the fish ladder. Available funding would be dependent on cOl).gressional appropriations. Fish Screen Design-the fish screen was designed based on the biology and characteristics of the Colorado pikeminnow'and razorback sucker. Figure 1 provides a general site plan for the fish screen structure, which includes a fish screen, a bypass channel, and a fish return pipeline. The fish screen would be a "V-type" configuration with each leg of the screen being 160 feet long. The screen is desigp.ed for a total diversion of 890 efs, returning 40 cfs for the fish return pipeline, for a total screened flow of 850 cfs. The mesh size used for the fish screen would be 3/32-;inch. The fish pipeline would be constructed using 36-inch PVC pipe with a total length of , approximately 460 feet. Maximum screen pipeline flow would be 5% of the diversion or 45 cfs. Upstream and downstream bulkheads would be used for isolation during screen fouling, icing, and other times when the fish screen is bypassed.. The canal bypass ch<mnel would be constructed to bypass 850 cfs around the fish screen. ' Construction-The fish screen would be completed under Reclamation construction "contracts. RWPC would continue to participate in the design process to ensure that the fish screen facilities would not conflict with the RWPC operations. Temporary construction easements and! or permits would also be acquired from all affected landowners before construction. Reclamation would negotiate protective measures to reduce impacts to private 6