Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />72, 77, and 106-117; oa-16 , 17, 36, 38, 46, and 90; 1-11, 26 <br />through 29, 33, 39, 62, 104, 127, 133, 134, and 136. The <br />potential for erosion along the river increases under development <br />alternatives; the bank stabilization program is designed to <br />mitigate this problem. <br /> <br />The AB Lateral Facility would not prevent extending the Black <br />Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument (Monument) into a <br />national park downstream along the Gunnison River. Resources <br />along the river would be affected, however, as described in the <br />EIS. <br /> <br />Increased silt load would be expected to occur in the Uncompahgre <br />River during the construction of bank stabilization measures and <br />during initial operation of the facility. In the long term, <br />proposed bank protection measures would reduce but not eliminate <br />increased erosion. The irrigation systems along the Uncompahgre <br />River presently operate with high silt loads without problems. <br />Total selenium content in the Uncompahgre River should not change <br />with the project; however, concentrations should decrease due to <br />dilution downstream from Montrose. <br /> <br />Several alternatives were presented in the EIS, including a <br />smaller plan than recommended by the Sponsors. Several smaller <br />alternatives were also considered but found infeasible as <br />reported in chapter 2. The results of negotiations on a possible <br />compromise are reported earlier in chapter 4 of the FEIS. <br /> <br />3 . MR. MARTY WAL'.l'Il:R: (llepresentinq Indian Peaks Group of <br />Sierra Club). Equal consideration is not given to the <br />environment in the DEIS. Also, the Bureau of Reclamation has <br />kept contracts secret despite several freedom of information <br />requests and Congressional inquiry. The EIS should answer <br />questions raised at the hearings. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: The EIS presents impacts of the financially feasible <br />alternatives. Mitigation measures, including minimum flows, <br />wetland protection, and endangered species conservation, have <br />been included in the alternatives. The Sponsors consider the <br />actual contract between the UVWUA and Montrose Partners <br />confidential; however, Reclamation has included relevant <br />information from the contract and proposal for development <br />services in the FEIS. See RESPONSE to COMMENT OR-32 for <br />additional information. <br /> <br />4. MR. DON THOMPSON: (President of the Colorado Enviro~ntal <br />Coalition). The Gunnison River presently provides high-quality <br />recreation, tourism, and, in its natural state, does a much <br />better job than the effects of the hydropower proposal. <br /> <br />The economic necessity for the project is not shown; hydro- <br />electric power is generally considered clean power, but there are <br />a large number of impacts with this particular project. Impacts <br />on wildlife, tourism, and Wild and Scenic River designation far <br />exceed the benefits of the project. Mr. Thompson was concerned <br /> <br />P-3 <br />