My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02168
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD02168
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:23:36 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:40:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Gunnison
Community
Uncompahgre Valley
Basin
Gunnison
Title
Uncompahgre Valley Reclamation Project - Hydropower - Part 4 - Scoping Report Gunnison River Contract
Date
1/1/1990
Floodplain - Doc Type
Project
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
313
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />RESPONSE: As a result of this suggestion, negotiation sessions <br />were held with concerned parties to see if a compromise <br />alternative could be reached. These negotiations are discussed <br />in chapter 4 of the FEIS. However, a compromise alternative that <br />was financially feasible was not reached. <br /> <br />24. MR. JON SERING: I am opposed to the project. <br />River is a National Treasure and it is right in our <br />The Gunnison Gorge and National Monument are public <br />belong to everybody. <br /> <br />The Gunnison <br />backyard. <br />lands; they <br /> <br />Tourism and recreation are non-consumptive, non-destroying; they <br />don't pollute the air; they don't take away, they constantly <br />give. Tourism brings people here; a diverse recreation market is <br />a real strength. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: The EIS addresses impacts on recreation use and <br />tourism. While recreation and tourism are considered <br />non-consumptive uses of resources, outdoor recreation use can <br />have significant impacts on wildlife and other natural resources. <br /> <br />25. MR. aICK B1UJNTON: There are three dams on the Gunnison <br />River and that is enough; this project should be defeated. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: Thank you for your comment. <br /> <br />26. MS. EILEEN MCGLYNN: The project might certainly diminish <br />the ecosystem of the Gunnison for people as well as for wildlife. <br />We need to preserve, rather than attempt to dominate, the <br />integrity and beauty of the Gunnison and its ecosystem and <br />species which co-exist there. There are limits to growth, <br />without irreparable environmental damage, and I believe the OEIS <br />shows a hands-off management to be the best plan, because of all <br />of the questions it leaves unanswered. Issues of wildlife and <br />endangered species are not addressed in the OEIS. Hikers are not <br />addressed, nor birdwatchers, in the study, nor those who are <br />content to know the Gunnison in its simple worth, and just being <br />untampered by mankind. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: Thank you for your comments. The EIS addresses <br />changes along the Gunnison River. Fish and wildlife and <br />endangered species analyses are included in the EIS and have been <br />prepared in cooperation with the COOW and the FWS. <br /> <br />DELTA HEARING <br /> <br />27. MR. STEVE HI~: The USGS flows in attachment B of the <br />EIS do not match the numbers in the no action alternative and <br />they should. We took the years 1966, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1981-- <br />those are the driest years between 1965 and 1983 when the <br />Aspinall Unit was on line--and the numbers in attachment Band <br />alternative A do not match. Also during spring runoff, why are <br /> <br />P-17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.