Laserfiche WebLink
<br />37 <br /> <br />1 n that kind of a fishery. People would not be able to have <br />2 access to the water, primarily because of the extensive mud <br />3 flats. I also would like to state or ask BuRec to come forth <br />4 i th some analysis and a further DES that would give us more <br />5 detail in the operating procedures of the outflows from Good- <br /> <br />6 win that would allow for minimum flows in the streams. As it <br /> <br />7 stands right now, the streams would be reduced to next to <br /> <br />8 nothing, and they would not support any kind of a fishery of <br />9 any kind on an extended basis. Also, I would like to point <br />10 out that not only would fish be destroyed during the five <br />11 year construction period due to siltation, but also the thing <br />12 upon which the fish live, the habitat in the stream itself. <br />13 And I think we would view an extensive loas of that. There i <br />14 also inadequate information given forth in the DES concerning <br /> <br /> <br />15 trout populations. They do talk about the types of fish that <br />16 are present, and we have no idea what we are talking about in <br /> ; <br />17 terms of numbers, tile number of fish per mile, which is the <br />18 standard Division of Wildlife figure for any designated type <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />of stream. <br /> <br />And I do ask that they come forth on that. . I <br /> <br />m '1. <br />would like to underline Dr. Tarr's statement to this hearing <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />that I feel it would be higbly propitious for the BuRee to <br />consider a second hearing in' the Gunnison area so that'people' <br />in that area who also are affected by thia particular project <br />may have a chance to more. conveniently put input into the <br />Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you. <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />2S <br />