Laserfiche WebLink
<br />will probably increase; and updated management regulations will <br />be needed if this use is not to conflict with other resources. <br />The BLM management plans now call for controlling use. <br /> <br />Several diversions downstream from the North Fork will require <br />additional work in the low flow years, and these diversions can <br />be dangerous to floaters. The relatively small change in river <br />flows due to the project during the summer recreation and <br />irrigation season would not significantly change this situation <br />(see chapter 3). Changes would be the most significant in early <br />spring and late fall. <br /> <br />The EIS addresses both minimum and optimum flows for the trout <br />fishery. The AB Lateral Project would not result in optimum <br />flows. The EIS compares trout habitat without development and <br />with the development alternatives. Increased flows do not <br />necessarily result in increased habitat, although flows of 500 to <br />600 ft'/s mentioned in the comment are near optimum at certain <br />times of the year. <br /> <br />In the reach between the North Fork and Austin, temperatures do <br />increase during low flow years, which would occur more often <br />under development alternatives. However, during low flow periods <br />during the warm summer months, the development alternatives would <br />have the least effect on flows. Trout populations did very well <br />in this reach of the river following the low flows in the summer <br />of 1988 (as explained in the EIS). On the other hand, the <br />fishery did poorly in 1989 as the result of flash floods in the <br />drainage and sediment buildup. <br /> <br />Parasites, which could be related to warmer temperatures, high <br />fish density, or other factors, were noted on fish in the North <br />Fork to Austin reach in the low water years of 1988 and 1989. <br />Growth and condition of the fish were excellent in 1988, but <br />preliminary indications are that the fishery in the Gunnison <br />River did poorly in 1989. The greatest impacts would occur in <br />the North Fork to Austin reach if hydropower development would <br />adversely affect fisheries. <br /> <br />The development alternatives would affect criteria that make the <br />river eligible as a wild river; however, the NPS has concluded <br />that, nonetheless, the river would remain eligible. The need for <br />the project, mitigation measures, and economic effects are <br />discussed further in the FEIS. <br /> <br />31. MR. SCOTT JORGENSEN: The power from the project is not <br />needed; there is no need for the project other than debt <br />retirement for the water users; and this self-serving purpose may <br />be detrimental to the entire Gunnison River system and its <br />tourism and recreational industries. <br /> <br />Outdoor recreation will be a bigger factor in the economy of the <br />Western Slope than even agriculture. I cannot endorse the <br />short-term economic benefits of this project. Rather than an <br />overnight sensation, we need the long-term development and <br /> <br />P-24 <br />