Laserfiche WebLink
<br />In conclusion, what we have is very much a scarce resource, which <br />will command much higher prices. The AB Lateral does not support <br />the long-term stabilized economic growth, and it also harms the <br />environment. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: The proposed development would be financed entirely <br />through private sources; no Federal, State, or local government <br />moneys would be used to construct or operate the Facility. <br />Consequently, the only measure of benefits taken for the <br />financial analysis has been revenues resulting from the sale of <br />power and energy generated. Indirect costs have not been <br />overlooked. Where possible and significant, environmental costs <br />have been economically quantified and added to the EIS to assist <br />in the decisionmaking process (for example, fishing, rafting, <br />economic development, and taxes). Economic analyses have been <br />prepared according to the National Environmental Policy Act of <br />1969 (NEPA) guidelines. Travel costs, willingness to pay, or <br />other similar type studies are not warranted or required given <br />the levels of use and types of impacts anticipated from this <br />project. <br /> <br />A travel cost study could have been conducted for analyzing <br />impacts on recreation; however, it did not seem warranted because <br />of the small amount of recreation occurring within the canyon <br />relative to the area as a whole. It would be difficult to <br />isolate recreation associated with fishing or rafting from the <br />other activities the recreationist might be participating in on <br />the same trip. This analysis requires a study to determine the <br />source for the visitors, an estimate of their travel costs, and <br />construction of a composite demand curve. The benefits or <br />willingness to pay is the consumer surplus associated with this <br />demand curve and represents the value to the recreationist that <br />he/she enjoyed but did not have to pay for; i.e., what he/she <br />would have been willing to pay to obtain the recreation <br />experience. <br /> <br />Reduced flows through Montrose would have a definite aesthetic <br />impact along the Uncompahgre River, and we concur that an <br />attractive river is an asset to any community. Additional flow <br />information on this reach of river is found in the EIS and also <br />in RESPONSE to COMMB:N'l OR-21. <br /> <br />There should be no significant disruption of existing businesses <br />during construction. Estimates of boater days for the baseline <br />(alternative A) and all other alternatives are not estimates <br />based on any sampling or observation procedure. Boater day <br />estimates for the baseline are the maximum number of boating days <br />possible given current Bureau of Land Management (BLM) <br />regulations and goals. <br /> <br />The prices used (from the Public Information Corporation) for <br />lodging, transportation, and food in the EIS are reasonably <br />accurate estimates of the average per-person expenditures. For <br />example, assuming an average party size of 2.5 people, the motel <br />cost would be $47.50 (2.5 times $19). Motel rooms for $47.50 for <br /> <br />P-6 <br />