Laserfiche WebLink
<br />fIr". "ll ~... <br />JU,U" <br /> <br />Bids for alternative No. 1 were received in May 1971 and were <br />rejected on the basis of high costs. Further, the environ- <br />mental impact of an earthfill dam as designed and planned <br />would be much greater than the presently-proposed concrete <br />dam. . All embankment material for the dam would have to be <br />excavated from borrow areas in the canyon bottom and canyon <br />walls. Restoration and revegetation of the excavation scars <br />would be doubtful because of the steep and rocky slopes which <br />would remain. Construction activity in the canyon bottom <br />connected with borrow excavation and stockpiling, foundation <br />excavation, and embankment placement would be considerably <br />increased. These negative impacts are absent in the proposed <br />plan for a concrete dam. <br /> <br />Under alternative No. 2 (dam with smaller powerplant) there <br />would be a waste of part of the available hydraulic head. The <br />channelization of the river would be eliminated. The dam under <br />this alternative would be essentially the same as the proposed <br />plan but the smaller powerplant would reduce construction <br />costs. Concrete aggregate ~hich is planned to be obtained by <br />processing material excavated in the channelizing, would have <br />to be obtained elsewhere--either upstream in the reservoir or <br />from outside commercial sources. Otherwise the environmental <br />impact of this alternative would be the same as the proposed <br />plan. The reduction in power revenue with this alternative <br />over the proposed plan would be approximately $121,000 annually <br />This represents a decresse in the average annual salable energy <br />of about 24,000,000 kwh and the salable capacity by about <br />3,200 kw. <br /> <br />With Crystal Dam and Powerplant the total annual revenue from <br />power generation at all three dams is approximately $5.5 <br />million. Under alternative No.3 (a dam but no powerplant), <br />the total annual revenue from operating only two powerplants <br />would be approximately $4.6 million--a reduction of about $1 <br />million annually. Under alternative No.4 (no dam or power- <br />plant), severe restrictions would be imposed on Morrow Point <br />generation and only $3.7 million of annual revenues would <br />accrue--a reduction of $1.8 million from the proposed plan. <br /> <br />Alternative No. 3 to provide a reregulating reservoir without <br />a powerplant was considered on the basis of the economic <br />benefits of providing additional energy from a powerplant <br />in the Crystal Dam against obtaining power from other sources. <br />Construction costs would be less as the powerplant and chan- <br />nelization of the river would be eliminated. Similarly, the <br />environmental impact of the channelization would be eliminated <br />although the quality of the fishery immediately below Crystal <br />would be doubtful because of cold water releases at the dam. <br /> <br />l6 <br />