FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10. MR. TED BZ~: The increased tax revenues should lower mill levies by one or two mills. That is not a whole lot, but it certainly could help a lot of people, and especially your fixed income or your older people. Approximately $6 million dollars will be spent in the valley in each of the two construction years. Water assessments paid by irrigators would be reduced. Assessments per acre could be reduced by $2 to $12.- RESPONSE: The tax revenues generated in Montrose County are presented in chapter 3 of the EIS along with other economic effects during the construction and operation of the project. 11. MR. JOHN BALDUS: The environmental statement is completely inadequate and in violation of the National Environmental POlicy Act. We do not know what the effects of the project will be. For example, in the cost-benefit analysis, there are no mitigation costs assumed for any wildlife impacts. If problems occur with endangered species or other wildlife, no one knows what it might cost to take care of the problems or what those problems would result in. Impacts to wildlife are not mentioned; impacts to wetlands along the Gunnison and Uncompahgre Rivers are not presented. The stylized channel drawing of the Gunnison River in the DEIS does not represent the entire river. We need serious, scientific data that explains how many miles of river bed will be affected, what types of riverbeds are found, and how broad the riparian zones are. Sediment is not adequately considered--referring to the North Fork sediment load as "not large" is not scientific. We need to know where the sediment sources are, how much sediment they may contribute at what periods of the year, and what effects this change in the river will have on those sources. The description of the uncompahgre River is only a sketch; more information is critical to understanding the effects on wildlife and other resources. If there is not sufficient information to make a decision on impacts, then a worst case scenario must be done according to the National Environmental Policy Act; this has not been done anywhere in the DEIS and is needed in 6 or 8 places. Icing impacts, especially downstream from the North Fork, are not adequately addressed. If something goes wrong, who is going to fix it? RESPONSE: Reclamation believes that the EIS is in compliance with NEPA, as the document presents alternatives, impacts, and mitigation measures. Fish and wildlife mitigation measures include minimum flow levels, wetland replacement and bank P-9