WSP02110 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

nD~_ :~4 .. economic benefits of the Facility while believing adequate mitigation existed for environmental impacts. Approximately 20 individuals and several organizations wrote in opposition to the Facility. These letters cited the need to delay any decision until NPS stuqies on the Gunnison River to quantify its reserved water right were completed, a lack of need for additional power production, and the magnitude of impacts on the Gunnison and Uncompahgre Rivers, and argued that the FEIS failed to adequately evaluate impacts. Congressmen George Miller, Bruce Vento, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell stated " . . . we will oppose any attempt to permit the A-B Lateral Project unless we can be assured that the project can be constructeQl without any negative impacts to the resources of the Gunnison Gorge." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrote that it believed the Facility was not in compliance with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines under the Clean Water Act because of the " . . . failure of the FEIS to explore and assess the availability of less damaging practicable alternatives for discharges which would avoid or reduce impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and the mitigation measures. . . are seriously inadequate to offset impacts to riparian wetlands and aquatic ecosys,tem of the Uncompahgre River." The EPA recommended that the Corps! of Engineers (COE) not issue a Section 404Perlliit for the Facil~ty as proposed but indicated that it was willing to work with the 'project proponents towards resolution of these issues. The NPS expressed concerns about the effect of the Facility on BLCA and recommended delay of the ROD pending completion of NPS studies related to the quantification of the decreed BLCA reserved water right. In its review comments, the NPS recommended the no-action alternative. The city of Montrose held public discussions on the Facility and passed a resolution supporting the Facility, provided that minimum flows were provided in the Uncompahgre River throu~h the city and that Gunnison River resources were protected. Montrose County government supported the Facility in its review comments, while the San Miguel County Planning Department recommended the no-action alternative, citing an unproven need-for additional power and adverse impacts on recreation. The UVWUA expressed support for the Facility and commented that the FEIS presented a "worst-case" scenario in terms of Gunnison River impacts. The National Parks and Conservation Association commented that Reclamation should " . leave public comment open on the final EIS, and. . . defer any pending Record of Decision, until highly 7 ( ;j ,. .~ J ;. ,., .j;.~