FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

stabilization plans, deer escapes along canals, raptor-proof powerlines, and conservation measures for endangered species. Costs of these measures are included in project costs. Impacts to wetlands and wildlife are discussed in chapter 3 of the FEIS. The wetlands analysis has been prepared in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). The information on river morphology and riparian vegetation along both the Gunnison and Uncompahgre Rivers has been supplemented in the FEIS. These issues are also addressed in the index. Additional information on sediment and Uncompahgre River resources and bank stabilization plans are also included in the FEIS. The worst case analysis is presented when impacts are unknown and is not needed in this EIS. A conservative approach has been taken in several areas, primarily where impacts on river flows are considered. Flow changes shown for development alternatives in the Gunnison River may not be as great as actually shown due to conservative estimates of existing Tunnel operations. River ice on the Gunnison River would increase with development alternatives (as described in the EIS) but is not predicted to have significant adverse effects. 12. MR. MARV BJlT.T.Jl.NTYNB: I have concerns with the Gunni son River but want to concentrate on the Uncompahgre River. Flow increases will be too great to improve fisheries. Required channel protection will harm fish and wildlife. For example, 1,500 to 2,000 mallards winter on a mile of the unchannelized river near the Ash Mesa Bridge and only about 20 in a channelized area. Flows through Montrose would be significantly reduced in the summer and winter. This is in the area where the Ute Museum and Chipeta Lakes are. Canals such as the M&D and Loutzenhizer would receive a much higher percentage of Uncompahgre River water than they now receive and this would reduce the quality of water used by irrigators on these canals. Low flows through Montrose would be mostly return flows and would contain agricultural pesticides and chemicals. Is this what we really want to have in the River Bottom Park in Montrose? In the Gunnison River, low flows would be much more frequent. If we have a Gold Medal fishery now, and we change the flows that much, isn't it an awfully big likelihood we are going to lose it altogether? The benefits to farmers are small; we should not be taking chances with the recreational opportunities we have. RESPONSZ: The Uncompahgre River would be changed by development alternatives in three segments. First, flows would be reduced P-lO