Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />5iS~ <br /> <br />6. Issue: The Environmentsl Impsct Ststement, Volume 2, Page 1II-2i5, <br />admits to limited channel capacity and also icing conditions. Nothing <br />is said about the damage or any attempts to mitigate it other than <br />regulating the release during peak springtime flows. We feel that <br />,this particular environmental impact has been seriously overlooked. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Raised by: <br />Bernard Smith <br /> <br />Representing <br /> <br />Lake County Soil Conservation District <br /> <br />Response: <br /> <br />Limited channel capacity and icing conditions in Lake Fork below Sugar <br />Loaf Dam and in the upper Arkansas River has been a constant concern of <br />the Fryingpan-Arkanaas Project. During the winters of 1964-1965 <br />and 1965-1966, a series of observations were made along the course of <br />the upper Arkansas River for the purpose of studying typical winter <br />flow conditions and isolating possible trouble spots. The report "Ice <br />Growth and Ice Jams as Applied to the Upper Arkansas River Colorado" <br />was published by the Sedimentstion Section of the Hydrology Branch <br />of the Office of the Chief Engineer in August 1966. <br /> <br />Stepa were taken to limit large winter releases into Lake Fork in the <br />winters of 1973-1974, when Pueblo Reservoir minimum pool was being <br />filled, by working a water exchange with the TWin Lakes Reaervoir and <br />Canal Company for release of their water out of TWin Lakes farther <br />downstream. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The present operation of relsasing Project water to Lake Fork is a <br />temporary condition until the Project (Kt. Elbert Conduit) ia in full <br />operation. During the interim period of operation, the Bureau viII <br />make every effort to operate to cause the least dama!e and inconvenience <br />to the landowners. <br /> <br />7. Iasue: After much debate with the Bureau, ve are to have a report <br />regarding stream bank erosion from their engineers aometime thia fall. <br />There still has been no statement or plan submitted as to what the <br />Bureau and its associates will do in the way of any correction. We <br />have been told to file damage claims and that they would be processed <br />quickly. <br /> <br />We do not wish for this type of relief. We want concrete action to <br />solve these problems and to prevent further damage during the course <br />of the next five years while we await the construction of the Kt. Elbert <br />pipeline. We feel if these entities wish to use Lake Fork Creek and <br />the A~kansas River for their ditch, they should be charged with its <br />maintenance. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />XI-447 <br />