Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001081 <br /> <br />Final Environmental Assessment-Chapter 3-Affected Environment and <br />Environmental Consequences <br /> <br />Impacts <br /> <br />No Action: The No Action alternative would have no affect on existing water <br />rights. The opportunity to use PID's power right to lift irrigation water if the Government <br />Highline Canal was unable to make deliveries would continue. The probability of using <br />the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam to provide an emergency irrigation water supply is very <br />remote. Pumping and conveyance facilities to support this use no longer exist, and it <br />would require a substantial amount of time and money to reestablish them. Likewise, the <br />opportunity to use the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam as a fore bay to pump domestic, <br />municipal and industrial water would continue. However, the probability of using this <br />water right at this location is remote, since the City of Grand Junction and the Clifton <br />Water District do not have distribution systems in this area. In addition, FERC <br />established a prescriptive easement for fish passage and providing fish passage as a <br />condition of the Jacobson Hydro No.1 Project license which has been terminated by <br />FERC. <br /> <br />Conventional Fish Ladder: This alternative would have the same effect on <br />water rights as the No Action Alternative. If constructed, only about 1,000 cfs of the <br />2,100 cfs water rights associated with the terminated Jacobson Hydro No.1 Project <br />would be available under the amended FERC license (FERC, 2001). <br /> <br />Downstream Rock Fish Passage: This alternative would have the same effect <br />on water rights as the No Action Alternative. . <br /> <br />Downstream Rock Fish Passage with Whitewater Recreation Features: <br />Under this alternative, the Jacobson Hydro No.1 Project and the Town of Palisade would <br />enter into an agreement to ensure adequate flows over the dam for whitewater recreation. <br />With or without the Jacobson Hydro No.1 Project, the fish passage would receive the <br />fIrst 80 cfs of flow in the river, ensuring continual fish passage operations. <br /> <br />Dam Removal: The Dam Removal Alternative would preclude the PID from <br />pursuing development of a backup irrigation system or hydropower facility at the dam. <br />Consequently, PID opposes removal of the dam. As co-owners of the dam, PID could <br />prohibit the dam removal alternative. <br /> <br />This alternative would also preclude using the dam as a forebay to pump domestic, <br />municipal and industrial water. The owners of this right have said that this impact would <br />not affect their ability to meet their existing and future needs. The option of constructing <br />and operating the Jacobson Hydro No. 1 Project would be precluded by dam removal and <br />would likely result in the abandonment of hydropower rights. <br /> <br />E.R. Jacobson and PID have both suggested using their decreed rights and facilities as a <br />point of delivery for surplus water from the Green Mountain Reservoir Historic User <br />Pool. This water is available in some years and under certain hydrologic conditions as <br />part of the Orchard Mesa Check Settlement, with the objective of indirectly benefiting <br />endangered fish habitat. However, Reclamation in 2001 completed a contract with the <br /> <br />28 <br />