WSP08297 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00 ~ CO ~ BUREAU OF lAND MANAGEMENT PRELIMINARY IMPACT REPORT ON PROPOSED BUREAU OF RECIAMATION UPPER GUNNISON PROJECT 1. PROJECT DESCRUTION The Upper Gunnison Project, as originally proposed, would have af- fected Bureau of Land Management lands scattered along the Cochetopa Creek drainage southeast of Gunnison, the Ohio Creek drainage north of Gunnison and the Tomichi Creek drainage east and south of Gunnison. However, sub- sequent broad revisions of the project have greatly reduced its proposed extent and the amount of impacted BLM lands involved. Since numerous planning aspects of the total proposed project are still subject to refinement and revision, only areas on which project plans have been finalized will be considered in this impact study. Only the Elko Reservoir service area has been finalized. This service area was identi- fied by a verbal description of the revised project given to the Montrose District Planning Coordinator by Bureau of Reclamation officials at a meet- ing in Grand Junction on November 19, 1969, and a map f\U'nished by them on November 25, 1969. Only the Tomichi-Quartz-Razor Creek portions of the original project will, as now finalized, impact BLM lands. This portion of the project lies in the Tomichi Creek drainage from approximately the town of Sargents on the east end to the town of Gunni- son on the west end. It includes the lower portions of the Quartz, Needle and Razor Creek drainages, all tributaries dumping into Tomichi Creek be- tween Sargents and Gunnison. Lands affected include patented and National Forest lands east of and within the Gunnison National Forest boundary, pat- ented and BLM lands from the forest boundary west to the town of Gunnison. The major features of this portion of the project include: (1) the Elko Reservoir on Tomichi Creek below the town of Sargents in the Gunnison National Forest, and (2) the Crookton Canal. The water from the reservoir would be released into Tomichi Creek and diverted into the Crookton Canal for distribution to the project service area. This 7.7-mile canal is to have a 42 cfs capacity and would furnish supplemental irrigation water through laterals to Class II meadow lands, both new and presently irri- gated. These lands furnish grass hay and fall pasture. They are normally flood irrigated from spring thaw until haying time, and under favorable conditions, again later in the season. The remainder of the originally proposed project is presently doubt- ful, or at least in limbo. Should other aspects of the project again be "8 "