Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The bank protection plan is presented in the EIS; iriformation in <br />the FEIS has been supplemented. (Also see the contents to the <br />comments and responses for further information.) The bank <br />protection plan, which has been reviewed by Reclamation, will <br />also require a Section 404 Permit before construction. The FEIS <br />addresses wetland losses and wetland replacement or mitigation. <br />Agreements such as rights-of-way would be required with local <br />landowners. Impacts to landowners would be short-term, <br />construction-type impacts and long-term bank protection impacts. <br />Neither the bank protection plan nor the EIS violates the Clean <br />Water Act, NEPA, or the Endangered Species Act. <br /> <br />The EIS does not indicate that habitat for bald eagles and river <br />otters on the Uncompahgre River would replace that on the <br />Gunnison. The increased flow in the Uncompahgre may be <br />beneficial in some respects to these species; however, the <br />increased water velocity associated with the increased flows <br />would probably create less than optimum habitat in many river <br />sections. Increased bank erosion would also be detrimental to <br />wildlife. <br /> <br />Alternatives G and H were eliminated for economic reasons. The <br />cost of bank stabilization was only part of these reasons. <br />Additional information on the sinking fund and bank stabilization <br />plan is contained in the FEIS. Compliance with these commitments <br />would be assured in the lease of power privilege. Adequate <br />information was available to prepare the EIS, and additional <br />information is contained in the FEIS based on comments received <br />and additional studies of the Uncompahgre River bank stabiliza- <br />tion plan. <br /> <br />28. MR. BANK HOTZE: There are many things that I have problems <br />with in the DEIS, but I think that all those things are going to <br />be adequately covered by others. I proposed at the Montrose <br />hearing that responsible parties meet to see if a compromise <br />solution can be arrived at; we met this afternoon and hopefully <br />this process will be successful. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: See response to Mr. Hotze's comments at the Montrose <br />Public Hearing (No. 23). <br /> <br />29. MR. RICHARD PROCTOR: The AB Lateral project is not a new <br />project, it has been talked about and perceived as a new project. <br />It is more of a utilization and extension of an existing project. <br />The irrigation system is being used, and expanded to a more <br />beneficial use, besides that of irrigation to that of hydropower. <br />Irrigation water continues to receive priority, power second. <br /> <br />The ErS does not make it clear that the rafting industry came <br />about during a period of unusually high flows. Some people are <br />calling for 600 ft3/s in the river; this would have to come by <br />shutting down the Gunnison Tunnel or from Blue Mesa storage. <br />Erosion can be contained on the Uncompahgre River by carefully <br />placed riprap. <br /> <br />P-20 <br />