My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8211
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8211
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 3:27:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8211
Author
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service.
Title
Final Environmental Assessment
USFW Year
1997.
USFW - Doc Type
Providing Fish Passage at the Grand Valley Irrigation Company diversion Dam on the Colorado River.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
It is technically possible to screen river diversions with screens with extremely small openings; <br />however, as screen size decreases, both construction and operational costs increase. Therefore, it <br />is the desire of the program to determine the largest screen size that would balance loss of fish <br />with costs. <br />While this EA does not fully consider the possible construction of upstream passageways at the <br />Price-Stubb Dam and Government Highline Canal Diversion, the Service and Recovery Program <br />concur that if fish screens are needed at these facilities in the future, the funding and operation <br />and maintenance would be the responsibility of the Service and/or Recovery Program. Similarly, <br />loss of endangered fish at these structures would be handled the same as at the GVIC Diversion <br />Dam. This "incidental take" is discussed elsewhere in the EA. <br />Alternatives Discarded <br />Several alternatives were considered but dismissed for several reasons. One alternative was to <br />remove the GVIC Diversion Dam and install a pump to provide water to the GVIC Canal. To <br />ensure the 640 cfs water right, it was apparent that the present gravity-flow system was more <br />reliable than a pump would be. The pump installation would be costly to construct and would <br />have high annual maintenance and operation costs. In addition, pump failures could have <br />significant adverse economic costs to farmers and other water users. <br />Another alternative, considered but dismissed, was related to streamflow management. <br />Streamflows could be kept at an elevation that would allow the endangered fishes to pass the <br />GVIC Diversion during even normally low water periods. Since the GVIC Diversion becomes <br />passable at streamflows of 12,000 cfs and the river flow is often in the 2,000 to 4,000 cfs range in <br />the summer and fall, the amount of water needed was considered excessive and would interfere <br />with existing and future water users. <br />13
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.