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 />There is a ground where everyone may benefit, both the farmer, <br />the rafter, and nothing will change without the project going in. <br />The water will still come through the tunnel; the waters are <br />still not going over 300 ft'/s in the Gunnison River. <br /> <br />RESPONSB : <br />irrigation <br />in the EIS <br />farmers. <br /> <br />Project changes are indeed the lowest during the <br />season, particularly during dry years. See chapter 3 <br />for additional information on benefits to rafters and <br /> <br />36. MR. BOB WATSON: (Delta County Commissioner) . <br />that he was at the hearing to listen and would ask <br />later. <br /> <br />He stated <br />questions <br /> <br />RESPONSB: None was necessary. <br /> <br />37. MR. STEVE SHEA: He went on the record in support of the <br />AB Lateral project. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: None was necessary. <br /> <br />38. MR. ALVIN PFIFER: I irrigate out of the Gunnison River <br />downstream from the North Fork. At flows of 300 ft'/s, we have to <br />go in and dam up the river to divert water. Our diversion is for <br />230 ft'/s and when it is taken out that leaves only 70 ft'/s in <br />the river to Delta. I am not opposing the AB Lateral. All I am <br />saying is in times of stress and drought, there are problems. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: Diversions do require additional maintenance during <br />low flow periods. It is shown in flow tables that the river flow <br />would be affected the least during the irrigation season, <br />particularly during dry years since the Tunnel would be operating <br />at or near capacity for irrigation. <br /> <br />39. MR. BOB COREY: The AB Lateral Project has been compared to <br />large projects like Two Forks; this is not true because the water <br />is already going through the tunnel. I think that the water <br />users should have the right to use their water through the Tunnel <br />in a hydroelectric plant. <br /> <br />Concerning riparian vegetation issues, flooding is the biggest <br />problem. The AB Lateral will not cause an increase in flooding <br />in the Uncompahgre--it would put 1000 ft'/s in the river compared <br />to 4,000 ft'/s in recent floods. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: The EIS recognizes the effect of the Tunnel operation <br />on flows in the Gunnison River. Diversions would increase with <br />hydropower development, but these increases would be the lowest <br />during the irrigation season. The primary change in the <br />uncompahgre River would occur during the winter. Additional <br />information is contained in the FEIS on how this would affect <br />riparian vegetation. <br /> <br />P-2B <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.