My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02168
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD02168
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:23:36 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:40:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Gunnison
Community
Uncompahgre Valley
Basin
Gunnison
Title
Uncompahgre Valley Reclamation Project - Hydropower - Part 4 - Scoping Report Gunnison River Contract
Date
1/1/1990
Floodplain - Doc Type
Project
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
313
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />impacts are minimal and the mitigation measures extensive. The <br />achievement of the project is of high priority to the Uncompahgre <br />Valley. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: The EIS includes a discussion of economic impacts. <br />Environmental impacts would also occur and are detailed in the <br />EIS, along with mitigation measures. <br /> <br />7. MS. GINNIE BRANNON: (repre..ntinq we8tern Colorado <br />Conqre88). She discussed economic impacts of the project. <br /> <br />Certain costs are not included. Many economists employ studies <br />called willingness to payor willingness to accept and what they <br />are trying to capture are the intrinsic benefits to users of a <br />given recreational area. Studies like that should be conducted <br />from a kind of comprehensive and environmental impact analysis. <br /> <br />Travel cost studies could also be employed--consider expenses of <br />traveling to the area. What we call opportunity costs are <br />included, and these opportunity costs could be very large, in the <br />case when the Gunnison Gorge is becoming more and more popular, <br />and free-flowing water is becoming more and more of a scarce <br />resource. There could be huge opportunity costs associated with <br />the loss of recreational activities. Opportunity costs are not <br />adequately addressed. <br /> <br />Reduced flows through Montrose and greatly increased flows <br />downstream will deter potential businesses that consider the <br />attractiveness of a river. Also, the loss to businesses that are <br />located in the area where the construction will be going on is <br />not addressed in the DEIS. <br /> <br />Costs are underestimated. EIS takes user days, multiplies that <br />by daily expenditures and arrives at total revenues coming into <br />the area from fishing and rafting. Data come from the Public <br />Information Corporation which is not site specific; it is based <br />on a statewide survey. I tried to find out the economics of <br />these numbers, but they said they closed their files--so we have <br />no way to determine how accurate these numbers are. <br /> <br />Restaurant and transportation costs are underestimated. In terms <br />of rafting expenditures, the EIS uses $69 for commercial rafting. <br />Based on contacts with rafters and the BLM, this figure is low. <br />There are no statistics to back up the $25 per day for fishing <br />expenditures. <br /> <br />Rafting user days were based on registrations and this is not <br />accurate because many people do not register. Gunnison River <br />rafting could very well reach management limits--and that would <br />represent a 30 percent increase over use shown in the DEIS. <br />Angler days are also confusing. <br /> <br />P-5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.