Laserfiche WebLink
<br />what's going to be happening in 25 years...what happens if <br />nuclear fusion, solar cells, or conservation become really <br />competitive? <br /> <br />The least intellectually responsible part of the OEIS is its <br />treatment of the impacts of this project on the natural and <br />social environments...it reads as though there is a built-in <br />pre-determination to approve the project. How in the world can <br />anyone honestly believe that cutting the Gunnison River down to a <br />third of its natural flow will not negatively affect the fishery? <br /> <br />Many potential problems are neglected in the OEIS--effect of <br />deGrQ~g~~ow on aquatiC-in~ts, effect on eagles and otters, <br />effect on fishery downstream from the North Fork. <br /> <br />Hiking would not necessarily increase with lower flows because <br />vertical walls preclude this; even if it did increase, it would <br />not replace rafting. When people want a river recreation <br />experience, they want to experience the massivity of a river, not <br />an oversized creek. How can the OEIS claim there would be no <br />social negative impacts? <br /> <br />To create any project that has the very real risk of killing <br />recreation and tourism is a very stupid idea; if a viable project <br />cannot be built out of the present diversions, then I urge the <br />no-action alternative. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: Please see RESPONSES to COMMENTS F-6 and OR-l for <br />additional information on the need for power and the relationship <br />of the project to Colorado-Ute. The market for power in 15 years <br />cannot be guaranteed, of course, but the demand for hydropower is <br />normally high. Project expenses would decrease over the years, <br />causing revenues to increase. <br /> <br />The future of the national energy situation is not unknown; <br />predictions show increased power demands. Alternative power <br />sources could be developed in the future. Hopefully, power will <br />be used more efficiently in the future; however, it is presently <br />believed that conventional methods such as hydropower will <br />continue to be an important factor in meeting energy needs over <br />the life of the project. <br /> <br />The EIS analyzes project impacts. Also, refer to the index to <br />the responses and comments for specific areas such as fisheries. <br />More flow is not necessarily better for fish and wildlife; <br />different species and different waterways have their own optimum <br />and minimum flow levels. <br /> <br />Impacts on the various types of recreation are discussed in the <br />FEIS recreation section rather than the social section, because <br />the tradeoff can be presented in more detail. <br /> <br />Hike-in recreation is expected to increase with development <br />alternatives, but we agree that the canyon's topography, which <br />includes sheer cliffs, would continue to control use. From the <br /> <br />P-26 <br />