Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Additional information on riparian vegetation and on1the <br />Uncompahgre River bank stabilization plan is contained in the <br />EIS. See also the index to comments and responses. <br />Channelization along the Uncompahgre River is no longer proposed. <br /> <br />49. MR. STEVE SBELDON: We have a state of emergency here. We <br />are opening our hearts and trying to process the information, and <br />come up with an answer, and we should find that answer in our <br />hearts. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: None was necessary. <br /> <br />50. MR. DV:tH PAlUtS: The DEIS seemed to cite specific examples, <br />and then apply the specifics to the Gunnison River in general. <br />It made numerous references to studies done by Stanford, Nehring, <br />Anderson, and Miller; but parts of the studies were taken out of <br />context and made to seem to support the AB Lateral Project. For <br />example, the report showed that the water flow of 300 to 400 ft3/s <br />would in fact help the development of the trout fry, which in <br />itself is true, but this fact does not prove anything about the <br />entire river. Also, there is not much information concerning the <br />Gunnison River below the confluence of the North Fork. <br /> <br />If the water flow would be maintained at 300, what would happen <br />to the wildlife if the river froze in the winter and was too hot <br />in the summer? <br /> <br />In August 1988, I fished the Gunnison River below the Austin <br />Bridge and 4 of 6 fish had parasites attached to them. Was this <br />a result of the low flow? <br /> <br />Tourism and recreation are new and upcoming industries for <br />uS...we need to find some middle ground where the Uncompahgre <br />Valley Water Users and the remainder of the counties can both be <br />satisfied. <br /> <br />Flows of 300 to 400 ft3/s on a regular basis will damage the <br />river. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: The analysis on fisheries relied heavily on research <br />on the Gunnison River conducted by the CDOW, who reviewed <br />preliminary versions of the draft and commented on the EIS. The <br />information was not taken out of context. <br /> <br />Information downstream from the North Fork confluence is more <br />limited than upstream. However, fishery surveys, water quality <br />monitoring, and other studies have been conducted in this reach <br />and have been used in preparing the EIS. <br /> <br />Formation of ice in the river is not expected to be detrimental <br />to the fishery--it occurs naturally. The excellent fisheries in <br />the Taylor River (a tributary of the Gunnison) and in the <br />Gunnison upstream from Blue Mesa Reservoir are examples of <br /> <br />P-36 <br />