9659

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9659
• Author: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
• Title: Price Stubb Fish Passage - Revised Supplemental Draft Environmental Assessment.
• USFW Year: 2004.
• USFW - Doc Type: Grand Junction, CO.
• Copyright Material: NO

Revised Supplemental Draft Environmental Assessment-Chapter 2-Alternatives

Recreational interests have been working with a private consultant to design the
whitewater features and develop cost estimates. The additional costs would be funded by
non-recovery program funding. Operation and maintenance costs for this alternative
would be negligible.

Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Measures

This alternative would require no regularly scheduled actions related to operation and
maintenance other than inspection for the fish passage. Reclamation would enter into a
contract with Palisade and Mesa County Irrigation Districts to provide inspection and
maintenance as needed. Recreational interests and possibly the Town of Palisade would
provide maintenance, as needed, for the whitewater features including but not limited to
removing trash and debris, and adjusting and/or resetting boulders after large flow events.

Dam Removal

This alternative would involve partial removal of the dam to restore natural fish passage
in the river channel. This alternative would not be compatible with hydropower
development. Before Reclamation could remove the dam, four outstanding issues
(discussed 'in Chapter3) would have to be resolved:

1) Develop mitigation measures to resolve the Ute Water pump plant issue
2) Determine whether a hydropower plant would be developed at the dam site
3) Obtain permission for dam removal from owners of the dam. The Mesa
County Irrigation District expressed support for dam removal, but the Palisade
Irrigation District is currently opposed to dam removal.
4) Geologic investigations indicate landslide stability is an issue; however,
no impacts to the slide movement caused by dam removal are anticipated. If
the dam is removed and a landslide were to occur, potential for damage
liability exists.

Design

The Dam Removal Alternative would allow the foundation, abutments, and canal
headworks to remain in place (see Figure 8). The left abutment3 of the dam may provide
some erosion protection for Interstate 70. The right abutment may protect the Union
Pacific's railroad tracks from erosion. The portion ofthe dam below the riverbed does
not present a barrier to fish and leaving it in place would help reduce scouring of the
riverbed.

Removal activities would require measures, such as placement of boulders or riprap in
the riverbed or along the banks, to restore or enhance natural fish passage in the river
channel by native and endangered fish.

3 The left abutment is on the left side of the dam, as viewed when looking downstream.

19