Laserfiche WebLink
<br />John R. Resse, <br />U.S. Army Corps of Engineers <br />August 12, 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />Because of the downcutting of the river channel and the drop <br />in the water table, a majority of a remarkable stand of old-grovrth <br />cottonwood trees were dead or dying; last September, the Forest <br />Service closed the Mary E campground on which those trees were <br />presenting a danger to campers. The campground is directly <br />adjacent to the river where downcutting has occurred. In June, the <br />Forest Service cut down 500 trees for safety reasons, leaving a <br />vastly impoverished natural setting. This was one of the largest <br />remaining stands of narrow-leafed cottonwood in the region; their <br />loss is deeply felt. <br />In addition, soil erosion has occurred along the river bank, <br />which is now markedly higher above the river channel. This has <br />resulted in the dying of willows along the bank, destabilizing the <br />bank and also affecting the fish population, since the willows <br />provide shade and overhead cover for the fish in the river who feed <br />in the shallower waters near the now greatly impaired bank. <br />There is great potential that continued destabilization of the <br />river bank will add to the siltation of the stream. We suspect <br />this would also impact the fish and micro-invertebrate species in <br />the river. It would also impact the water quality in the river <br />adjacent to the campground. We understand that the water quality <br />near the batch comes under the jurisdiction of the Colorado <br />Department of Health due to their issuance of a discharge permit <br />requiring monitoring. As far as we know, however, this upstream <br />section of the South Fork does not come under CDH jurisdiction. Yde <br />are anxious to discover who does have authority over any water <br />quality impairment due to riverbank erosion in the area of the Mary <br />E Campground. <br />We feel that without a bond sufficient to cover the cost of <br />reclamation, as well as a reclamation program in place to begin the <br />process of reversing the downcutting, an expansion of the current <br />permit at this time is premature. <br />Overall, we are concerned about the lack of accountability, <br />responsibility delineation, and the scarcity of information and <br />lack of direction that have characterized this process. However, <br />there are some bright spots. We applaud the efforts of San Miguel <br />County, the Division of Wildlife and other agencies, including your <br />own local representatives, in beginning a collective process for <br />remediating this controversial site. This process has <br />unfortunately been temporarily halted pending a Forest Service <br />decision on the gravel operation trespassing on public lands. We <br />feel this is a mistake. We would like to see this process restored <br />in order to help define and accomplish common goals. <br />