FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the model lines a straight line? Actual flows for real years show a V going up and down. There is a big problem with the model numbers, in terms of adequacy of the DEIS. Presentation of logarithmic graphs in the DEIS is not straight forward--it makes the project look better than it is. Not enough detail is shown for critical periods. There is also inadequate flow information presented on the Uncompahgre River flows-only averages are given. You don't account for return flows and irrigation in the summer. The project reflects a concentration on money, not efficiency; the average operating capacity of the powerplant is only between 66 and 70 percent. Project economics are now based on artificial price supports in the form of the PURPA Act; these price supports may not be there in 15 years when the current contract expires. It is likely there will be pressure to use more water from the Gunnison, by building these large-scale projects, is inefficient, in the course of time. I am concerned the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association could violate the 300 ft'/s flow on the Gunnison in the name of irrigation by ignoring the Uncompahgre flows, and then using the excess irrigation diversions for hydropower. There needs to be a better, more complete monitoring system. The above scenario would represent a waste of water under Colorado water law and the water users would be subject to losing water rights. We doubt that the Uncompahgre River bank protection measures will work. The DEIS has no assessment of potential loss of wetlands due to riprap and other measures. However, the DEIS lists 5,000 acres of wetlands along the river. Congress has stated a no loss of wetlands policy. Section 404 permit regulations require acre-for-acre replacement of wetlands. This is a gaping hole in the DEIS. There is also no mention for rights-of-way agreements for bank stabilization work or compensation for landowners for impacts to their property. Failure to address this impact of riparian habitat and wetlands is a possible violation of the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Threatened and Endangered Species Act. While the DEIS claims increased flows in the Uncompahgre will replace lost habitat on the Gunnison, for species such as the federally endangered bald eagle and the endangered river otter, the DEIS also states that the speed of flow in the river will be too great to support fish and wildlife. Those are the prey species that eagles and otters depend on. These are contradictory statements, and what we call disinformation. The proposed sinking fund to monitor and continue bank stabilization does not list specific amounts in that fund. cost of bank stabilization and erosion control were listed The in the P-18