My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02168
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD02168
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:23:36 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:40:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Gunnison
Community
Uncompahgre Valley
Basin
Gunnison
Title
Uncompahgre Valley Reclamation Project - Hydropower - Part 4 - Scoping Report Gunnison River Contract
Date
1/1/1990
Floodplain - Doc Type
Project
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
313
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />standpoint of recreation, people's perception of what is a good <br />flow varies considerably--hike-in anglers may prefer low flows, <br />rafting anglers a moderate flow, and others may prefer to view <br />the river at high levels. <br /> <br />33. MR. LEROY STANFORD: <br />river used to freeze, but <br />time and place. The river <br />trout are down lower. <br /> <br />In reference to a previous comment, the <br />there were not any trout in it at that <br />has reset itself since the dams, the <br /> <br />I have seen a deterioration of the river this year (after low <br />flows). The use of water to support a fishery is just as <br />important as using it for irrigation. We should not forget that <br />we have one of the best rivers in the whole world for trout <br />fisheries and that doesn't include the rafting, scenery, and <br />other aspects. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: Historically, ice buildup was more common and the <br />trout fishery occurred further upstream. The CDOW fishery data <br />indicated that the fishery was in extremely good condition <br />following the low flow year of 1988. As mentioned in the EIS, <br />flash floods during the summer of 1989 harmed the fishery. <br />Higher flows would have reduced flash flood damage to the <br />fishery. <br /> <br />:34. MR. DON FRENCH: (Represented CoJ.orado Whitewater <br />Association). He stated that a permit for the AB Lateral project <br />should not be issued. The river as a recreational resource is <br />desperately needed; the project forces an already burdened <br />utility company to purchase the power generated at inflated <br />costs. <br /> <br />The project compromises the quality of life that most people have <br />chosen, and it destroys one of the few self-thriving wilderness <br />areas remaining. Progress like this is a blatant slap in the <br />face. You people should make it a priority to manage all <br />resources with foresight and concern to the future to come. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: Please see RESPONSES to COMMENTS F-6 and OR-l for <br />additional information on the need for power and the relationship <br />of the project with Colorado-Ute. The river and wilderness <br />values would be affected as discussed in the FEIS. <br /> <br />35. MR. RICHARD W&T~~~YNCK: If the AB Lateral Project is built, <br />the water that is being used from the Gunnison River for <br />irrigation will still be used; the AB Lateral will not increase <br />diversions in dry years like last year. If more than 300 ft'/s is <br />needed, it will have to come from Blue Mesa Reservoir. <br /> <br />The project is an opportunity <br />safe power and it is needed. <br />pollution from fossil fuels. <br /> <br />to produce clean environmentally <br />The project is one step in reducing <br /> <br />p-27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.