Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Tunnel would be carrying irrigation diversions from the Gunnison <br />River. The flow changes would affect the mentioned resources and <br />are addressed in the EIS. Where appropriate, additional <br />information has been provided in the FEIS. <br /> <br />16. MR. GARY WBI~: He shared concerns of previous speakers <br />for the Gunnison River's wildlife habitat and for the flow <br />changes in the Uncompahgre River. He also discussed the quality <br />of rafting at various flows. When the river is down to around <br />800 ft'/s, it becomes a little slower and not as much fun; below <br />400 ft'/s, it is very slow. As a draw to tourists, as a draw to <br />local people who want to float the Gunnison, or fish it, he would <br />see a constant 300 ft'/s as a real detriment. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: Input from commercial and private rafters and from BLM <br />reports indicated that the river can be floated at low flow <br />levels. The low flow levels (300 ft'/s), however, do not <br />represent optimum conditions. Optimum conditions for float- <br />fishing are higher, perhaps around 500 to 800 ft'/s, and for <br />whitewater floating even higher; and the EIS reflects this. <br />Conversely, the popularity of hike-in fishing has been shown to <br />increase at lower flows in the 200- to 500-ft'/s range. The <br />development alternatives do not create constant 300-ft'/s <br />conditions; during the recreation season, flow changes would be <br />relatively small because the Tunnel is also being used for <br />irrigation. Flow changes are greater in the fall, early spring, <br />and winter. Rafting would probably be affected to the largest <br />extent during the fall when weather conditions are still good for <br />rafting and when other rivers in the region are often at their <br />lowest flows. Regarding the comment about tourism, the EIS <br />predicts an increase in fishing-related tourism and a decrease in <br />rafting-related tourism. <br /> <br />17. MR. SRANN LUND: The ability to produce power without <br />pollution is attractive; however, the problem is that it will <br />destroy two rivers. Uncompahgre River flows through town will be <br />reduced to a trickle; the river is valuable now even if it is not <br />a fishery or a rafting resource. The Gunnison River is a small <br />creek at 300 ft'/s. In addition to the value to rafting and fish, <br />the river flow itself has a value--the value of flowing water-- <br />that is not addressed in the DEIS. <br /> <br />The project produces power that is not needed and not wanted; the <br />same people that support this project are the same people that <br />want to bring a nuclear dump to Montrose. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: Chapter 3 of the FEIS presents impacts, both positive <br />and negative, of the development alternatives on the Uncompahgre <br />and Gunnison rivers. The greatest impact may occur in the reach <br />of the Uncompahgre River that runs through the city of Montrose <br />where summer flows would be substantially reduced. <br /> <br />Chapter 3 also addresses the values of riverflows. The need for <br />project power is addressed in the EIS and in the responses to <br />other comments (see RESPONSE to COMMENT r-6). <br /> <br />P-12 <br />