My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8089
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8089
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 3:24:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8089
Author
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Title
Final Environmental Assessment Gunnison River Activities, Passageway Around the Redlands Diversion Dam and Interim Agreement to Provide Water for Endangered Fish.
USFW Year
1995.
USFW - Doc Type
Grand Junction, Colorado.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
A decision has been made that a full EIS is not needed for the interim water agreement and <br />construction of the fish passageway. As recognized in several portions of the EA, the need for <br />an EIS will be reviewed when long-term water contracts are developed. <br />Selenium was mentioned in the draft EA as one of the pollutants occurring in the Gunnison <br />River. Early research suggests that native fish have a higher tolerance for selenium since they <br />evolved in an environment with background levels of selenium. At the present time, there is no <br />definite answer to the potential impacts of selenium on native fish in the Gunnison River. Studies <br />have been started that will help determine at what levels selenium can harm adult native fish or <br />reduce reproduction of the fish. <br />Fish and Wildlife <br />More information was requested on the effects of the proposals on the trout fishery of the <br />Gunnison River and on the Blue Mesa Reservoir fishery. <br />Additional information has been added to the final EA, Chapter 3, in response to this request. <br />Socio-Economic Factors <br />Many written and verbal comments reflected the thought that the economic value of the Aspinall <br />Unit, and in particular the values of existing operations, need to be stressed; and the effects of <br />the proposals on these values need to be evaluated. Several comments pointed out the need to <br />expand discussions on the effect of the proposals on power generation, power users, and <br />hydropower capacity. Questions were asked about the effect of the proposal on hydropower <br />production by the Redlands Water and Power Company. A reviewer suggested hydropower <br />losses at the Aspinall Unit could be offset in a less costly manner if Redlands were to agree to <br />bypass flows to the fish and be reimbursed by Reclamation for lost power revenues. One <br />reviewer stated that the use of 148,000 acre-feet would have an economic effect since it could <br />have been sold otherwise. <br />One reviewer requested it be made clear in the EA that Reclamation and the Service do not <br />intend to prevent development of water upstream of the Aspinall Unit based on the interim <br />agreement. One reviewer asked whether effects on hydropower production would be monitored. <br />Concerning effects on hydropower production by the Redlands Water and Power Company, the <br />operation and maintenance agreement has addressed the issue of power interference. If <br />operation or maintenance of the passageway affects the operation of the Redlands Diversion Dam <br />or the Power Canal and causes a loss of power revenues to the Redlands Water and Power <br />Company, the Company shall submit a bill to the responsible party for reimbursement. <br />Reimbursement of the loss will be accomplished according to a rate schedule that is mutually <br />agreed by the Company and Reclamation and/or the Service. <br />54
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.