FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the hydropower proposal will reduce or eliminate the chances to obtain Wild and Scenic River status on the Gunnison. Additional flows on the Uncompahgre are also a concern. RESPONSE: The need for the project power is discussed in Chapter 2 of the EIS; additional information is also found in the RESPONSE to COMMEN'l' 1'-6. The EIS documents impacts of the alternative proposals on recreation and other resources. It is recognized that the river presently does support high-quality recreation as well as other important resources. The river itself is presently highly regulated and is not considered in a natural flow regime; it would be further changed from its present state by development alternatives. However, the river would remain eligible as a Wild River; criteria for this eligibility would be affected as discussed in the EIS. 5. MR. DON RAVENB:ILL: (Representing Colorado Whitewater Association). He was concerned that the DEIS ignored many impacts; he commented that there is unused power generation capacity on the Western Slope and use of this capacity should be considered. Bureau of Reclamation should fund the opposition to these projects in the same amount of money that is wasted on environmental studies. The scientific omissions in this study are manifest and manifold. You haven't got the slightest idea of what the impacts of reduced flows would be, nor the flood control measures that might be necessary. Under PURPA, utilities are required to take the project's power. This is an economic windfall to private investors and a loss to the environment, loss to recreationists, and a loss to the local economy. Project should be looked at with a much larger perspective. RESPONSE: The need for the project power is discussed in the EIS and also is addressed in RESPONSES to COMMEN'l'S 1'-6 and OR-i. Studies for this project are funded by the Sponsors; results are reviewed by Reclamation and other agencies. Conclusions in the EIS are Reclamation's. The impacts and the economic effects of the project are described in chapter 3 of the EIS. MONTROSE HEARING: 6. MR. MARSHALL W:ILSON (Cbainaan of Board of Montros. County Commissioners) read a Resolution adopted by the Montrose County Commissioners. The project is vital to the residents of Montrose County, will increase county tax revenues by $400,000 to $700,000 per year, and directly reduce the repayment obligation of the irrigators under the Uncompahgre Project. The environmental P-4