9659 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Revised Supplemental Draft Environmental Assessment-Chapter 2-Alternatives directing fish to the passage entrance. In discussions with CDOT, a 20 foot offset of the fish passage channel was established to allow for widening of Interstate 70. Construction This alternative would also be completed under a construction contract. Recreational interests would secure non-Recovery Program funding for the construction ofthe whitewater features and the second notch in the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam. Before the fish passage and whitewater features could be constructed, authorization for the dam modifications would be obtained from the owners of the dam. Temporary construction easements or permits, and permanent easements and access would be required from Palisade and Mesa County Irrigation Districts, E.R. Jacobson, CDOT,and the Union Pacific Railroad for the fish passage. Reclamation would negotiate protective measures to reduce impacts to private and State property, rights-of-ways, and facilities. Additional easements needed for the whitewater features would be obtained the sponsoring public entity (possibly the Town of Palisade). Following construction, any damaged area would be restored, as near as practicable, to its original condition. Access to the dam would be from Highway 6 along an existing trail that lies within the railroad right-of-way and CDOT property. Construction staging and material storage would be on adjacent vacant lands owned by E.R. Jacobson and CDOT. Construction access and staging area is limited near the dam because of its proximity to the railroad tracks. Similar to the Downstream Fish Passage Alternative, the fish passage would be located in the river channel and not between the dam headgates arid the railroad. Therefore, construction access would not be as constricted when compared to the conventional fish ladder alternative. A cofferdam and/or bypass channel may be used to direct the river around the construction area and river flows would not be reduced. Before construction, Reclamation and the contractor would obtain necessary approvals required by the Clean Water Act. Reclamation would request Section 404 authorization for the fish passage under Regional General Permit No. 057 for projects that benefit recovery of endangered fishes. A separated Section 404 authorization would likely be needed for construction of th~ whitewater features. If discharging water for construction dewatering is needed, the contractor would obtain a Section 402 permit. Reclamation would also coordinate construction activities within the 100-year floodplain with Mesa County. Construction would be scheduled during low river conditions in the fall and winter of 2005-2006. Reclamation estimates that this alternative would cost an additional $400,000 when compared to the Downstream fish passage alternative. Recovery program costs are estimated at $4,600,000 and recreational interests costs at $400,000, unless it can be demonstrated that the 2,5 percent ramp would address public safety concerns, then Recovery Program cost are estimated at $5,000,000. The non-fish passage portion of the 2.5 percent ramp would likely require additional whitewater features. Any additional cost, beyond the $400,000 increment, would also require non-Recovery Program funding. 17