Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,.' <br /> <br />0426 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />B. The E.I.S. is deficient due to the lack of analysis of <br />the secondary effects of the sale of Ruedi Water: (CEQ.S 1500.8 (a) <br />(3) (ii). <br /> <br />1. Only two conceivable uses are identified for Ruedi <br />excess l'later: a) Oil Shale - on p. II-146 it reads <br />"... Gulf and Standard Oil Companies have expressed a <br />desire to contract for Ruedi Reservoir water to develop <br />oil shale on Colorado Oil Shale tract C-a..." or b) The <br />Federal-Basalt project. - The E.I.S. reports again on-- <br />p. [[-146 that a project to support municipal, industrial, <br />domestic and irrigation water to the growing populations <br />in the vicinity of the town of Basalt have been considered <br />in "four alternative plans" <br /> <br />The E.I.S. states nothing of the soical or economic consequences <br />of the sale of Ruedi water for oil shale, which would literally <br />alter fDrever the entire socio-economic and development structure <br />of western Colorado, or of teh impacts on the Roaring Fork <br />valley in the event of the Basalt project and is glaringly <br />deficient. <br /> <br />2. The E. I.S. should c{)nsider the use of Ruedi l'later stream <br />flow stablization and does not. <br /> <br />3. The E.I.S. does not consider other in basin storage <br />projects that could afford competition to Ruedi for energy <br />development. The West Divide project comes to mind. <br /> <br />4. The E.I.S. does not consider local or regional land use <br />plans as required in CEQ guidelines. The Basalt project <br />would be totally contrary to well developed local land use <br />planning, and local desi,'e yet ~lention of these are con- <br />spicuously absent. <br /> <br />5. The trade of Ruedi Water to Twin Lakes to compensate <br />for upper Roaring Fork minimum stream maintenance as an <br />alternative to the Hunter, No-Name and Midway Creek tunnels <br />has not been considered. (To be developed later under <br />"Hunter Creek diversion". <br /> <br />6. The incl'eased sal inity impacts of tile "development" <br />of Ruedi water is not discussed. <br /> <br />C. The lo:-tion ~f ~.'~~i h~~ CGntl-i~~~ej tc 2 ~eterior2tion <br />in Frjin;!;..:.r, '..:~:::~r cu,1i~:/ {:!~.:: 1:5 gi',;en 110 r;'-::r.:iun in the final <br />EI" ('"n 1-'''~()(3-) <br />. .:). l:.: ~ ~ -:)'.".1. '::' a. \ I:) . <br /> <br />1. According to U,S, Forest Service date in a study of <br />the "Asp~n-Eagle Plcll:ling Uni t", \':cter I,:i th less than <br />70 p.p.m; lNg/Liter) total dissolved solids enters Ruedi <br />Reservoir but due to the location of expansive gypsum beds <br />on the north shore, vlater which exceeds 300 p.p.m. total <br />dissolved solids leaves the reservoir. <br /> <br />-3- <br />