Laserfiche WebLink
<br />; '^, '111,'''1-'', .., 1 <br />U'J..~) <br /> <br />i <br />, <br />I <br />" <br />i <br />~I <br /> <br />Alternatives, Including Proposed Action <br /> <br />2-1 <br /> <br />Section 2.0 <br /> <br />Alternatives, Including Proposed Action <br /> <br />2.1 Description of Alternatives <br /> <br />T <br /> <br />he Sponsors have examined a range of alternatives for hamessing the power <br />potential of discharges as they fall from the Gunnison Tunnel (the Tunnel) to the <br />Uncompahgre River. The various alternatives are similar in that they would all <br />generate hydroelectric power using flows diverted from the Gunnison River and the large <br />elevation difference between the Tunnel and the Uncompahgre River. However, they <br />differ with respect to the design flow, penstock route, powerplant location, and mode of <br />operation. <br /> <br />Alternative penstock routes, powerplant locations and modes of operation were analyzed <br />in the Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Final Environmental Impact Statement <br />(PElS) and the preferred alternative was selected (US Department of Interior, 1990). No new <br />information has been developed that would affect these results, so these variables (with <br />one minor exception discussed in Section 2.1.2) are not re-assessed in this Supplemental <br />Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). <br /> <br />This SEIR compares four primary alternatives: No Action, and three feasible <br />development alternatives. The primary difference among the development alternatives is <br />reduction in peak and design turbine flows, below those levels approved in the original <br />PElS. In addition, bank stabilization proposals have been modified pursuant to the <br />Department of the Army permitting process. Each of these alternatives is described <br />briefly and compared with one another in summary form. They are also compared with <br />the No Action alternative, which would continue the existing conditions. Summaries are <br />provided of the alternatives determined to be infeasible and eliminated from further study. <br /> <br />2.1.1 <br /> <br />Alternative A (No Action) <br /> <br />Under Alternative A (No Action), conditions of the affected area would continue as they <br />would without development, and irrigation diversions to the various canals would occur <br />according to historic use. The current operational practices of the UVWUA would not <br />change. Alternative A establishes the baseline for evaluating the anticipated conditions in <br />the affected area without development as well as the environmental impacts of <br />hydropower development. <br /> <br />It should be noted, however, that operations of the Aspinall unit are expected to change in <br />the future to help protect and recover downstream endangered fish. In general, changes <br />will be toward higher spring flows with lower flows at other times of the year. <br /> <br />AS Lateral Hydropower Project <br /> <br />July 2000 <br /> <br />~ ,~" ..~,.""" <br /> <br />".~.,: ~~,k;y!~ <br />