FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The DEIS lists the need for the project as power production, to develop a renewable resource, to improve the Uncompahgre valley Water Users Association ditches, and to help repay debt. We don't need the power and we already have a beautiful renewable resource--the Black Canyon and Gunnison Gorge. As for improving the ditches, and paying off the debt on the irrigation system, the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users need to carry their own weight. They comprise 5.4 percent of the population of Delta and Montrose Counties. The negative impacts to both river corridors, the questions of the surplus of electric power, and the potential loss of revenues suffered by fishing and rafting industries indicate a project that gives marginal benefits to a few, while adversely affecting many. It is stated if the project goes through, there will be no additional water taken out of the Gunnison River; that it will flow just as it is flowing now. During the irrigation season (Alternative C), flows could be diverted up to 1,300 ft'/s, subject to the availability, priority, and irrigation requirements. As I understand that, that is taking more water out of the river, and I think people need to understand that. RESPONSE: Additional information on the need for project power is found in the EIS; also refer to RESPONSE to COMMENTS F-6 and OR-l. The postproject flows would not be optimum for fisheries nor are the no-action flow levels (see EIS, chapter 3). Overall, the EIS concludes that the fishery would not be adversely affected. The primary effect of the project on big game, such as bighorn sheep, would relate to how the project affects human activity. Increased hike-in use is predicted with the project and would occur primarily in the spring and fall. Human activity during the winter may decrease as floating ice would be more common and would deter winter anglers. Rafting is predicted to decrease with the project. River channelization is no longer proposed for the Uncompahgre River. A bank stabilization plan designed to reduce erosion is described in additional detail in the EIS. please see the index to comments and responses for additional information. Chapter 3 of the EIS presents impacts on recreation, economics, and other concerns addressed in the comment. Development alternatives would take additional water out of the Gunnison River as discussed in the EIS. Greatest changes would occur during the nonirrigation season because the Tunnel operates at or near capacity during the irrigation season. Alternative C, which would enlarge the Tunnel, would have the greatest change in diversions. 47. MS. JANE MCGARRY: The AB Lateral Project would hurt the Gunnison River, and hurt tourism, and recreation in the County, P-33