WSP08839 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^ ) BUREAU OF SPORT FISBERIES AND iiILDLIFE on the Colorado River and to replace power losses at Green Mountain Dam of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. This impoundment is located 2 miles upstream from the mouth of the Williams Fork River. Two possible plans 'Qf development for the Parshall Project have been outlined, in consideration of possible outcome of the present liti- gation. Both, the greater Plan I and the lesser Plan II include much the same features. Under Plan I, Ute Park Reservoir would have a capac- ity of 43,000 acre-feet, whereas under Plan II, its capacity would be 16,000 acre-feet. In each instance there would be 3,000 acre-feet of inactive storage. Plan I would irrigate 17,000 acres of land, of which 8,930 would .receive supplemental water and 8,070 would be new irrigation. Reduced figures for Plan II are 11,930, 7,710, and 4,220 acres, respec- tively. Under Plan I, the present Big Lake Ditch which extends westward 20.5 miles from a headgate approximately 2 miles upstream from Denver's Williams Fork Reservoir, would continue to serve 6,040 acres of project lands, some of which are now being prepared for irrigation. The 36. 5-mile Skylark Canal would head at Ute Park Dam, and extend northwestward to irrigate 8,260 acres which are higher than the lands served by the Big Lake Ditch. About 80 percent of the above area would be new irrigation. The Parshall Flats Canal, another new conveyor, would siphon across the Williams Fork River from the existing Big Lake Ditch to irrigate 1,230 acres of land east of the l>iilliams Fork River. About 90 percent of this area. would be new irrigation. Exchange arrangements would provide for irrigation of 1,470 acres in addition to those delineated above. Under Plan II, lands served by Big Lake Ditch would remain the same, as would those under the Parsb:ull Flats Ditch. However, the Skylark Ditch would be reduced in length to 22.8 miles to irrigate only 4,660 acres of land, approximately one-third of which would receive supplemental water. No exchange arrangements would be undertaken with development of Plan II. Fish habitat and fish populations vary in the Williams Fork River. The native cutthroat trout is dominant in the extreme headwaters where brook trout also are present. Downstream from the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Williams Fork River, brook, rainbow and brown trout are species present in the stream. Access to the river within the Arapaho National Forest is good but north of the forest boundary much of the water is closed to public fishing. With the impoundment of Ute Park Reservoir, 3,000 acre-feet of inac- tive storage would be provided. It is assumed that all of this water could be held as a fishery conservation pool, but its adequacy for that purpose has not been studied. Present project plans do not include any fishery releases from Ute Park Reservoir or byp.~.llses at downstream diversion points. Thus, for part 1"4