WSP02110 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" "iil 0011,' , , .. megawatt hours (MWh). Approximately 1 mile of new transmission line would be required and 2 to 3 miles would be upgraded. Powerplant di$charges would enter the Uncompahgre River and re-enter the Gunnison River near Delta, Colorado. Significant flow, increases in the Uncompahgre River would result during the nonirrigation season and a bank stabilization program involving approximately 51,000 linear feet of the Uncompahgre River would be required to reduce streambank erosion. The FEIS describes substantial, economic benefits that would accrue to the local area as a whole in the form of taxes, and specifically to the UVWUA in the form of power revenues. A reduction in revenues from river rafting would be offset by an increase in revenues derived from hike-in anglers on the Gunnison River. ^". The FEIS also describes additional alternatives that were considered but were deleted from detailed analyses for economic reasons. Alternatives~ other than no action, were not considered reasonable if they did not produce a financial feasibility ratio greater than 1. These included alternatives with greater Gunnison River minimum flows below the diversion to the Gunnison Tunnel than proposed in the recommended plan and alternatives that called for powerplants on the south Canal. Alternative A (no action) Alternative A represents the conditions of the affected area without developing the Facility. It establishes the baseline for evaluating environmental impacts caused by the proposed Facility. It is considered the environmentally preferred alternative . primarily bec~use it has the least risk of impacts to environmental ,resources . Alternative A assumes that existing' irrigation diversions from the Gunnison River to the Uncompahgre Valley, which average 336,411 acre-feet of water per year, would continue. The Aspinall Unit would continue to regulate river flows upstream from the Gunnison Tunnel. Average annual flows in the Gunnison River downstream from the Gunnison Tunnel would be approximately '1,103 cubic feet per second (cfs). ,. , Under the no-action alternative, water that would be developed for hydropower under the other alternatives would continue to be available for other developments upstream or downstream from the Gunnison Tunnel or for instream flows in the Gunnison River from the Gunnison TUnnel downstream to the confluence with the Uncompahgre RiVer (below the confluence, Gunnison River flows are unaffected). Present flow regime in the Uncompahgre River should not change significantly. Important environmental resources associated with the Gunnison River include the BLCA, a wilderness area and designated 3 ,) i ~ " --< - ~ ",- ^-~ ',-- ,U; iMi.ll ,F; .__>"""'.J:"k_;:,>___"__~;-....;..;i,;f~,,,,-~_ _~