My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07875
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07875
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:29:17 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:39:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.116.I
Description
Fruitland Mesa Project
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
1/1/1976
Title
Comments re: Draft Environmental Statement
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />" <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />llU.LlUIIHl r'lI.......I, 1'1 ~ <br /> <br />The impacts to elk from this project may perhaps also be major; this seems to be <br />an unknown. Calving areas and the use 'ofBig Soap Park as a. congregating area <br />before. migrations will defillitely be lost: The latter could cause earlier use <br />of winter range, reducing carrying capatity. Certainly more detailed analyses of <br />these inipacts should be made in the FEIS to determine the extellt 'of adverse impacts. <br />The Bureau has a responsibility to do so when de~ling with public assets, and <br />should not. proceed if these have not been thoroughly investigated and efforts made <br />to offset losses. . . . <br /> <br />A number of nOll-game wildlife species are listed as existing on Fruitland Mesa and <br />in the Soap Creek drainage. No population numbers are given, nor any quantitative <br />assessment of the impacts of converting their habitat into irrigated land or a <br />reservoi~ Will some species be eliminated altogether? What about the list of. <br />bird species shown in the attachments to the Draft? How do these values, in <br />terms of food chains and life cycles, relate to the whole proposal? <br /> <br />In the 'discussion of fish, it is stated that turbidity.is expected to increase <br />over the 5 year construction period of the project, interfering with spawning <br />. to some extent. Soap Creek is described as a productive fishery now, with <br />several species of fish. What is the extent of impact, short term and long <br />range, primary and secondary, on each of the various species if this project is <br />built? Will spawning and rea.ring places r.ecover afterwards? . Soap Park Reservoir <br />. will have to be stocked; what is the comparison between the"1S'ttuation and the <br />ainount of stocking now, and the proposed situation? spee-it '5 <br /> <br />..A number of additional factors should be included in the cost analyses for this <br />project. we believe.. Some specific items which we feel should be shown: <br /> <br />- value of elk and deer. herds in this ar.eaannually, specifically the economic <br />losses over the life of the project due to reduction of the herds <br />- costs of private land acquisition program being prepared by the FWS andCDOW <br />- costs of stocking reservoir which would not be necessary without project <br />~ eosts of recreatiori facilities maintenance <br />- dollar losses of fishing in Curecanti Creek and Crystal C1:eek <br />- costs ,of ,downstream increased salinity <br />'- pt'essure on medical and other facilities by numbers of ~onstruc~ion workers. <br />w~!ch could nec~ssltate expan$ion and increase~ taxes <br />This. matter boils down to the questions of whether the publiC will end up <br />benefitting more from this project than we' are paying, 01: vice versa. Without <br />items like the above included. in actual project cost calculations, thfs question <br />cannot really be answered. <br /> <br />The DraftEIS shows .a long list of "consultation with others" but makes broad. <br />un'substantiated statements a number of- times in the text. Documen-tation from- <br />someone with expertise in these areas should be shown, specifically in the <br />foflowing matters: <br /> <br />- the stated adaptability of elk, tolerance o{ 5 years construction activity, <br />and ability to find new calving areas; all crucial .to the existence of the. herd <br />- extent of stream siltation and ability of spawning areas to recover <br />- impacts to small game and bird species <br />- impacts on all "dldlife from more recreation use and new facilities <br />- continued impact on fish from mud slides when reservior is drawn down <br />- long .term effec ts of the numerouS impac ts on the deer herd <br />- effects upon water quality from.chemicals used on croplands <br /> <br />- ...... <br /> <br />'. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.