|
<br />
<br />GUNNISON, COUNTRY TIMES , GUNNISON,' cOLOAADO SHEET 2 of
<br />SEPTEMBER 20, 1976 '
<br />. ...
<br />PAGE 4 GUNNISON COUNTRY TIMES, Monday, September 20,1976
<br />
<br />Pr!me e~k area
<br />~tobe inundated
<br />
<br />. . ,..-- .. ~ ': .
<br />
<br />(Cont: from Page 1)'
<br />This does not include costs of recreational facilities :lnd
<br />other costs not directly related' to irrigation 'and
<br />qricultural functions of the project. Total project cost is
<br />.estimated at $79.2 million. ,
<br />. A Definite Plan Report for the project was completed in
<br />1967, but is being revised, J.F. Rinckel of the Bureau's
<br />Western Colorado Projects Office, said. The new report is
<br />expected to he completed in December as is the final En-
<br />viromnentaJ Impact Statement on the project.
<br />Irrigation water would flow from the reservoir in Gun-
<br />Rison County, to be called Milly K. Goodwin Lake, to the
<br />. Fruitland Canal via the Black Mesa Conduit. ,
<br />The project also would divert water and decrease stream
<br />; flows on Curecanti Creek' as well as Soap Creek and
<br />Crystal Creek.
<br />". A 2S0~foot, wide diversion dam would be constructed
<br />'aaoss Curecanti Creek.
<br />"Flows in 20 miles of Soap and Curecanti Creeks would
<br />'be reduced, but a minimum fiShery flow would be main-
<br />, tinned at all times," the environmental statement says. '
<br />The reservoir would inundate 584 acres of mountiin
<br />, valley and a total of 4.5 miles of Soap Creek and West,
<br />. Soap Creek. It would nave a fluctuation capacity from 584
<br />". acres down to 48 acres.
<br />
<br />LOOKING AT SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL IM~
<br />. PACTS, according to the DES, there would be possible in-
<br />cre~es in l1atural stream turbidity and siltation levels
<br />during the constructioll phase which could cause tem-
<br />porary loss in fish reproduction and feeding in the streams.
<br />" " After the project h,as gone into operation, however, the
<br />.,'.' statement continues, the reservoir would trap sediments
<br />carried into the '>asin, resulting in decreased turbidity of
<br />Soap Creek do' nstream from the dam. ,
<br />The loss of ,tream fishing that would result from con-
<br />struction of t lie reservoir is estimated at 2bOfisherman
<br />days annually. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates [hat
<br />the'reservoir would supply 4,000 fisherman days annually..
<br />. There is no mention in the DES of comparisons between
<br />the quality of stream fishing and the type of fishing the
<br />.. ~oir wi.' afford.' , ' '
<br />
<br />"Any fluctuating reservoir will not be a good reser-
<br />voir," according to Lloyd Hazzard, fisheries manager for
<br />the southwest region of the Division ,of Wildlife, "because
<br />any fluctuating reservoir loses productivity."
<br />Bill Miller, fisheries biologist for the Bureau of
<br />Reclamation, also said the reservoir would not be a good
<br />fishery. '" would rate it fair;" Miller said, and poor in the
<br />one year out of 50-when it will be drawn down."
<br />
<br />ACCORDING TO. MILLER, water temperature
<br />changes resulting from the stratified water of the reservoir
<br />coming into Soap Creek, would be insignificant.
<br />Lower stream flows, according to the DES will reduce
<br />available fish habitat on Soap, Curecanti and Crystal
<br />Creeks.
<br />Under the project, a permanent fishery pool of 500 acre-
<br />feet would be maintained in the existing and privately
<br />owned Gould Resetvoir, near Crawford.
<br />Although the reservoir is owned by, the Fruitland
<br />Irrigation Co., it will be open to the public,according to
<br />Rinck~l.
<br />"The impact on wildlife is going to be detrimental;
<br />especially on game," said Smokey Till, DOW Southwest
<br />&e2ional director..
<br />, An estimated 1,200 elk are supported in Gunnison
<br />National Forest near the project area, which'contains Soap
<br />and Curecanti Creek, according to the DES. Big Soap
<br />Park may serve as a focal point for the fall migrations of
<br />elk from the Soap and Curecanti Creek watersheds. and
<br />elk from drainages to the north may migrate through it.
<br />Big Soap Park also'serves as a calving ground.
<br />The effect of the project on elk is difficult to predict. the
<br />environmental statement says.
<br />"With Soap Park partially inundated. its use as a focal '
<br />point and congregating area prior io migrations would be
<br />limited, and the herd's arrival in wintering areas might be
<br />advanced. This would increase the consumption of critical
<br />winter forage and would thuS reduce the overall witHer
<br />range carrying capacity.
<br />"Tl:1e reservoir and recreation areas in Big Soap Park
<br />would be los.t as a calving and grazing ground. Whether the
<br />elk would calve elsewhere in Big Soap Park is unknown."
<br />
|