Laserfiche WebLink
Final Environmental Assessment — Chapter 2— Alternatives <br />t �te" <br />stet@ 70 <br />Left <br />Abutment <br />\ Cana Ri ht \ TNI <br />Headworks Abutment <br />�A <br />d0. Cottonwood <br />� <br />rep W W v W � ' y y �. W , v A/ <br />W W <br />2 -99 <br />1 W 0.✓.MOSIey <br />Figure 8 -Dam Removal Conceptual Design Drawing <br />Removal activities would require measures, such as placement of boulders or riprap in <br />the riverbed or along the banks, to restore or enhance natural fish passage in the river <br />channel by native and endangered fish. <br />Boating safety would also be considered in removal designs (addition of boulders or <br />riprap to protect boaters from the dam abutments, and removal of hazards such as rebar <br />protruding from the remaining concrete). To the extent that costs to the Recovery <br />Program would not increase and create liability issues, designs for removal could also <br />consider incorporating measures to enhance recreational boating. <br />Measures would also be required to protect the ability of Ute Water to deliver Colorado <br />River water to their treatment plant. These possible options include; <br />1. Deliver Colorado River water to the Ute Water pump plant via the Orchard Mesa <br />Power Canaft Water would be available year round, except for about 2 to 3 weeks in the <br />spring and fall during maintenance of the power canal and Grand Valley Power Plant. <br />Reclamation estimates this option would cost from $150,000 to $300,000. This option <br />would require the following measures: <br />4 The Grand Valley Project is not authorized to carry municipal and industrial (M &I) water. Only <br />Congress can authorize the carrying of M &I water through the Grand Valley Project Canals. <br />• <br />• <br />20 <br />