Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i!,t": ") IJ) <br />'..i .! .~ - <br /> <br />Executive Summary <br /> <br />ES-3 <br /> <br />from the US Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). In addition, <br />a Department of the Army permit will be needed in accordance with Section 404 of the <br />Clean Water Act. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Section <br />7 of the Endangered Species Act is also required. <br /> <br />Reclamation first issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the facility in 1989. <br />This document was followed closely by a Final Environmental Impact Statement (PElS) <br />in 1990, and a Record of Decision (ROD) in 1991. The ROD authorized the Lease of <br />Power Privilege sought by the Sponsors subject to certain conditions. <br /> <br />Alternatives Considered <br /> <br />Alternative penstock routes, powerplant locations and modes of operation were analyzed <br />in Reclamation's PElS and an optimized solution was selected (US Department ofInterior, <br />1990). In general, no new information has been developed that would affect these results, <br />so these variables are not re-assessed in this SEIR. <br /> <br />Subsequent to issuance of the PElS, the Sponsors proceeded through the Section 404 <br />permitting process that the Record of Decision required. As a part of that process, <br />substantial changes in bank stabilization proposals ensued. Additional technical studies <br />indicated possible benefits from projects that had smaller diversions than the one <br />approved in the ROD. While such smaller projects appeared infeasible at the time the <br />PElS I was written, market changes have occurred since that time. Among them are lower <br />interest rates, a more mature financing environment, deregulated electricity markets, and <br />changes in anticipated future releases from the Aspinall unit. The Sponsors have <br />indicated that alternatives with design flows as low as 750 cubic feet per second (cfs) <br />may now be feasible (950 cfs was approved in the ROD). Sponsors have indicated a <br />preference for new Alternative E-2 (850 cfs), but are also willing to pursue the even <br />smaller 750-cfs project if that is the decision reached by Reclamation and the Corps, The <br />Sponsors have stated that facilities with design capacities below 750 cfs are not feasible, <br />and that they would be unlikely to obtain bank financing for such proposals. <br /> <br />This SEIR compares four primary alternatives including the 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. The alternatives <br />considered in this SEIR are: <br /> <br />. No Action. Under this alternative, existing UVRP operations would continue. Water <br />would continue to be diverted between March and November from the Gunnison and <br /> <br />The FEIS considered alternatives having a capacity based upon the current Tunnel capacity of <br />1,135 cfs, and considered one alternative with a capacity of up to 1,300 cfs. <br /> <br />AS Lateral Hydropower Project <br /> <br />July 2000 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />,.; <br /> <br />. '.i.:~ <br />..lh ?_.s_.b..,;.,L'..-,;..... :-.~-~~, <br />