FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings were held in Denver, Montrose, and Delta, Colorado, on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Notice of the hearings was made in the Federal Register and in news releases. The hearings were conducted by James Limb, an attorney for the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) representatives attended all hearings to receive testimony. Copies of the transcripts are available in Reclamation offices or local libraries. A total of 53 people presented statements. The following is a paraphrased summary of concerns and statements made. Reclamation's responses to the comments follow each summarized statement. In many cases, the comments were also received in comment letters, and the reader is referred to responses found later in Volume II. DENVER HEARING 1. MR. BRUCE HOAGLAND, repreaenti~ COLOltADO TROUT UNLIMJ:TED, expressed concern with the development alternatives because of aquatic impacts in the Gunnison River and because the need for the project was not shown. He stated that Trout Unlimited opposes any project and resulting flow regime for the Gunnison River that would permit the river to frequently or periodically drop below its optimum flow level of 500-600 ft'/s. RESPONSE: The AB Lateral FaCility alternatives, including the noc'action alternative, would not create optimum conditions in the Gunnison River for trout. The excellent fishery that has developed in the river has occurred under a variety of flow conditions. The EIS compares the no-action alternative with project development conditions and concludes that the fishery would be protected. Postproject flows are not compared to optimum flows because the noc'action alternative does not represent optimum conditions. Postproject flows would fall below the suggested level of 500 to 600 ft'/s. See RESPONSB to COMMEN'I' 1'-6. 2. MR. JOHN WOOD, representinq I'lUDDS 01' 'I'D GtlNNJ:SON RJ:VII:R, questioned the need for power from the project, especially in light Of existing conditions of excess power. He stated that the significant increase in 300 ft'/s flow levels was unacceptable. For example, changes in water temperature would shorten the length of. river that can produce optimum size trout. In 1988, flows in the 300-400 ft'/s range caused water temperatures in the lower portion of the gorge and below the North Fork to exceed 70 degrees in several places which he felt was totally unacceptable. Mr. Wood commented that at lower flows, frazil and anchor ice could scour the riverbottom and destroy the trout spawning habitat as well as harm aquatic insects, river otters, and bald eagles. Bald eagle studies in the DEIS are inadequate and should be extended downstream to Austin. The DEIS alludes to the fact that if there are adverse effects on eagles and otters, they may