Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ii <br /> <br />SUMMARY <br /> <br />.-' <br />Water for the powerplant would be diverted from the Gunnison <br />River using a priority system for allocating flows for needs <br />including irrigation, instream flow, and power pr.oduction. <br />Senior irrigation demands and instream flow ag~eements would be <br />given priority over hydropower needs. Mean annual diversions <br />from the Gunnison River would be 691,013 acre-feet. A minimum <br />instream flow level of 300 ft'/s .would be met in the Gunnison <br />River, except in dry years when water is needed to satisfy senior <br />irrigation rights, as in existing operations. <br /> <br />Environmental co~itme~ts under alternative B include protection <br />of instream flows and irrigation supplies, acquisition and <br />development of lands for wetland replacement, acquisition of <br />lands to preserve an endangered plant species, development of <br />deer escapes in the enlarged AB Lateral, protection and <br />monitoring of riverbanks along the Uncompahgre River downstream <br />from the powerplant, monitoring of the endangered bald eagle, and <br />restoration of areas disturbed during construction. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE C <br /> <br />Alternative C, like alternative B, would divert water from the <br />South Canal and AB Lateral into a penstock that would convey <br />water to the powerplant near Montrose. To increase water <br />supplies for hydropower production, alternative C includes <br />enlarging the Tunnel from its present capacity of 1,135 ft'/s to <br />1,300 ft'/s. However, the penstock and turbine capacity would <br />still be limited to 1,135 ft'/s. Mean annual diversions from the <br />Gunnison River would be 726,896 acre-feet. Other features and <br />operational and environmental considerations are similar to <br />alternative B. <br /> <br />ReC6.""~,,,jeJ <br />ALTERNATIVE E <br /> <br />The physical features of alternative E are similar to <br />alternative B. The penstock and powerplant would be designed to <br />a maximum capacity of 950 ft'/s, rather than 1,135 ft'/s. The <br />penstock and enlarged AB Lateral would be scaled down from <br />alternative B. The plan would include the bypass of flUShing <br />flows in the Gunnison River to reduce siltation, and it would <br />deliver additional water to the Uncompahgre River upstream from <br />Montrose during the summer. ~ean annual diversions from the <br />Gunnison River would be 661,090 acre-feet. Other features and <br />operational and environmental considerations are similar to <br />alternative B. Alternative E is Reclamation's recommended plan. <br /> <br />IflCr<l.O-Be-c1 () p<Ll'etm6 ".-~; j:2"f,i',7v1' h V o,-H:;J' (;'.c':\nl':.' <br /> <br />f>r o.bo,;{ :-:;" y~f5': '7/ <br /> <br />/'r,.;;...1_'. <br /> <br />~ : ~,'. ~ f-~ <br /> <br />S - 6 <br />