FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

negative effects on trout habitat; one example of a negative effect is the reduction in winter flows that help move sediment out of the Gunnison Gorge area. The concerns with tourism, recreation, and economic growth are valid. The FEIS concludes that some losses to rafting would occur and some gains to fishing. However, in the long term (even under the no-action alternative), management controls may be needed to control the increased numbers of recreationists, or much of the attractiveness of the river environment would be compromised. 19. MIl. JrM ZARTMAN: (Representing Riverside Grange and Uncompahgre Pomona). More people are attracted to this area by a green and growing agriculture than by all of the recreation projects put together. This project is an opportunity to help the farmer and rancher in the area. The disadvantages are small in comparison. RESPONSE: The development alternatives are designed to give irrigation water priority over hydropower water. In addition, revenues would directly and indirectly benefit irrigators in the Uncompahgre Valley. 20. MIl. CALEB GATES: People come to the Gunnison River to catch big fish; not fish hatchery fish, and having flows at 300 ft'/s will compromise the river. At a minimum, the river will heat up; we have to be cautious with long-term effects. The Bureau's alternative flow data differs a lot from the historical flow data, and I would just like that clarified in the final EIS. This is because we are getting down to some very low thresholds on the Gunnison River; we can't have 200-500 through 1,000 ft'/s differences in the computer model. The Uncompahgre River is of high economic concern; the potential for erosion from increased flows is significant. Uncompahgre flow tables in the DEIS contain averages, not minimums and maximums. The information is incomplete and misleading. There is no information on flows at Delta or below the Selig Canal or on a year-by-year basis as there is at Colona. DEIS proposes riprapping by dropping boulders on the bank, and lateral erosion will cause them to fall into the river and serve as protection. Later, the EIS talks about placing the riprap on the bank. Also, canalization is discussed along with loss of riparian habitat and headgates of canals being filled with sediment. The river will be constantly fighting to get back to equilibrium and will be very costly. Is the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association or Mitex prepared to pay for these potential problems? The DEIS does not discuss cost overruns. I am concerned about how informed all members of the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users are concerning this project, the potential cost overruns, and the potential to lose P-14