Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,-DOiJ!33- <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />snlyug"p project would f('sult in n loss of 2,600 man-days of upland- <br />gunw hUl1ting l'omprisin}! 1,100 BhllHIllYS of pl1l'n.snnt hunting, 100 <br />mlltl-dnys of do\"c hunting, lllld 1,400 nHm-days of rnbbit hunting <br />unnulIlh- . <br />The 'PWjN.t would eliminatt' important waterfowl production tlnd <br />wintpring hubitut in the wnl('1' snlntgt. arCH of thp Clost~d Bllsin. <br />Lowering groulld-wllter len'ls t.o 1\ minimum of 8 rN.t below the ground <br />If'n'J would reduct' the n'getatioll to It ntrying extent. on'l' at lenst <br />100.000 neff'S. Construdioll of slllull Stlrflll't.' dmills to divert irrigntioll <br />rt,t\irn flows Hlld IHllld('d wlltrf into thl' BUlin dllumcl would materially <br />reduct' It\"uiluhle wetland Il:lbitllt in the project nrell..As a result, some <br />100.000 Hen's of :,wll~onHIJ\" floodf'd wetllHHIs of vulue for waterfowl <br />produetion /lnd migratiori would be lo:-,t. A resting area would be <br />l'stablis.hed in tlu' HUlin channel nnt! the laterals, but. nesting would <br />1)(' insignificHllt beCllllS(' of the hick of food find co\.cr. <br />Lowering thp watpr table S fI'et would eliminate mudl of the water- <br />fowl hunting in till' project urell. Some wnterfowl hunting would <br />remain Hlon~ the 39 miles of the main conveynnce chllnnel, the 92 <br />milt'S of lutt'l"llls, lllld on Sun Luis Luke. \Vatprfowl hunting with the <br />projt.(.t would ll\"erugp 1,000 1I111ll-dll....S llll 11 U all..... Oth"r wildlifc- <br />oripnu'd rpcfl'utiol\ would be COTlcentmtC'd llround Sun Luis Lake nnd <br />would Hn'm~(' ahout 500 mun-days unnuall..... Thus, the water sulvage <br />projed would r('~mlt ill II loss of 1,200 lIlull-duys of wnt(lrfowl hunting <br />IUIlI 500 1ll11n-da\'s of wildlifl~-oriC'lll('d reCfPIltion. <br />The project ,,:ould C'lirnillntf' fur-illlimlll habit nt, thlls n'dlleing the <br />population on the projt'ct llfl'il. Trapping would continue at 11 low <br />level. <br />Tnhlt' 2 sllllllllnrizE's wildlife llnd wildlife-orit'nted recreation with- <br />out t.lH' projl'ct nnd with the project. <br /> <br />TABLE 2.-SUMMARY OF WilDLIFE ANNUAllY <br /> <br />Kind and area <br /> <br />Unit <br /> <br />Without With Gainor <br />project project 1m <br />3,200 600 -2,600 <br />2,200 1,000 -1,200 <br />12,000 0 -12,000 <br />1,000 '00 -~OO <br /> <br />Upland game.n_____uu__n________ _..n._____ Man-day.___. <br />Waterfowl: <br />Hunting.._.__n____.________.____ _ ______.___ Man-day.___ <br />Produe\iol\______.______________.______________. Number.____ <br />Wildlife.oriented re-tlution__...._______________._.__ Man.day.____ <br /> <br />DISCUSSIOX <br />.Fishing at San Luis Lllkt> l'flllhllH' improv('d by pro\"ision of access <br />Hnd adrqulltf' fllcilitips to Sl'f\'l' till' need:" of fislwrmen at the lake. These <br />would include H hOllt-launching ramp. un access roud, parking nrell <br />wnt('r~ lllld i"llllitury fltt'ilitil'~. Cost of this unit bused Oil 1969 prices i~ <br />t'stimlttl'd at 830,000. Opt'rlltioJl, Jllllillt(lltanl'e, llml I'epllll'enwnt co~ts <br />an' estimuted at $1,000 HIIll\lfilly. Specific locutions nlld design of the <br />rlldlities 1'111\ bl' dl'tprmilll'd durillf!. lat('l' proj('ct. plutllling wlH'1l d"tnih'd <br />informlltion bl'('OIlH'S u\'llilllbJf'. Cost of the fllcilitics ilre shown in <br />table 3, <br />