FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESPONSE: The frequency of flows at 300 ft'/s would increase significantly with the project, particularly in the nonirrigation season. The EIS presents information on minimum and optimum flow levels in the river; the development alternatives do not provide optimum flOws. The existing conditions in the river have developed over a wide range of flows; rarely have they been or stayed in the 500- to 600-ft'/s range. The EIS evaluates the difference between the no-action flows and the with development flows, none of which represent optimum conditions. Low flows in the Uncompahgre through Montrose would reduce the potential for a fisheries development in this reach. Additional information has been developed for the EIS on this subject; also see RESPONSE to C~ OR-21. Fishery conditions should improve upstream from the Loutzenhizer Diversion Dam and downstream from the tailrace. Extensive bank protection is planned with the development alternatives and is described in additional detail in the EIS. Bank protection would continue to be added to the river under the no-action alternative, but it would not be as exten- sive. The Sponsors consider the actual contract between the UVWUA and Montrose Partners confidential. Reclamation has included relevant information from the contract and proposal for development services in the EIS. The need for power section of the EIS has been expanded. Additional information on this and the Colorado-Ute Electric Association (Colorado-Ute) situation can be found in the RESPONSli:S to COMMEN'l'S 1'-6 and OR-l. Chapter 3 contains information on the economic effects of the no-action and development alternatives on fishing and rafting. These recreational uses are expected to increase in the future; however, the increase will be limited by BLM and National Park Service (NPS) land management plans designed to prevent overuse and damage to resources. The management restrictions have been considered in the analysis. Efforts to develop an alternative acceptable to Western Colorado Congress (WCC) are described earlier in Volume I of this FEIS. However, proposals submitted by WCC have not been found to be economically or financially feasible. 9. MR. BOB CORY: Concerning fisheries, with the Aspinall Dams on the Gunnison River and the Dallas Reservoir and the AB Lateral, there will be an improvement, especially in the Uncompahgre River. The only bad thing I see is that there will be less water for rafting. RESPONSIi:: It is hoped that the fishery in the Uncompahgre River will improve due to Ridgway Dam. The EIS recognizes a reduction in rafting in the Gunnison River. P-8