Binder 10. Gunnison study. Task information

(1)

(2)

(3)

HOR Infrastructure, Inc. A Centerra Company

1100 Capitol Life Center Telephone Denver, Colorado 303 861-1300 80203-1690 September 1, 1987 Water Resources Wastewater Hazardous Waste Bridges Transportation Industrial Geoprocessing y

y//

Mr. Blaine Dwyer

ISEP 21987

Project Manager

^

Colorado Water Resources

& Power Development Authority

' « iTiiim itiiij.»iitniiiicn,n!tl oft

•

1580 Logan Street, Suite 620

Denver, Colorado 80203

jSubject: Gunnison Study - Task 2 Interviews

I

Dear Mr. Dwyer:

The interviews related to Task 2 have commenced and will continue

during the first two weeks of September. The two enclosures

indicate our present status, future schedule and the interview form

being utilized. If you desire to participate in any of the future

interviews, please contact Jim Roberts (1-242-1866), who will be

conducting them, or me. Very truly yours,

I

HDR INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.

Andy Tczap, P.E. Project Manager AT/jb

(4)

Computed Subject

_/ jfJfif ^AvJatf&Ufe

Data Sht. h Ul

J

_I

A

w

&

^1

M c? w

a

k>

I,

S) /MOc/vw / III/

K

X X

X

y X X X

y y — — g//7/fe7 iIto/bi itiofs) (J<^ \A/^C^ O A

X X

X

_X

X

X X y

X

y

7 Mtr

XX X

X

_X

y

- JTIIAALD

X X

y

y y

— A1

^/lokei'i I'iMi'crt^ Co.

X

— — —

X

y

X

y

X

y

_-.it-..

— ^^^/p('/rt

Co,

_X

X

y

—/Ci-fi^ o'PA^A-^'frciC.

X

y

X

X X

—

iff- Of

Ha,

_X

X

^hofHl

-— ^Ib'K) cf C

Ia'I'Uo.

^

f

X

y X

y

X

y

"■'(VM A

X

X X X

X

— — ^/l7/si i>i-iaoiKis

y

I^F/^/sl Skj2\/fac.

^

X X

y

_y

_vr

_X

//. C, Co/PiLsr Shjzv/icB.

^ X X

y

_y

X

y

y _{.... X} .X. ef'iofb llz\ /hi ICLAA A

X X

—

y

X

y

cC\A/CfC>

K

y

WA7tT2.

y y

CtTV or CfuKJUtS^OKJ

^ < I

_{X X}

X

_X

X

y

X

y

X

y

X

y

X

—■

Tovjtj OF- Cd/^smj:! Butte.

^ii

X

y

X

—

In^jKt OF h^r: C/^'^ru^ Suttz,

_X

X X

X

LA lie Ciry Ai^T

X

y

X y

X

y

X

X X

— ilu/si tCipoiWAv

_X

_y

y

X

X CPntaAw '^^71

X

_y

X

_X

X

^sr

lA/ATEki 'ASUj. D/sn^cr

X

y

X

y

X

di^'o

Cexitoy AAiny- StoLoO^/OAA- C4r2.

_X

y

_y X

(5)

Ipfojgct

(JKJKfj^dKf

ICoimptited

I Subject PfirTA doUJ5CTIt>f<i/lfJ\/ehJrdli.V ^PetAAKtO^ loate T/zi/sf

Sht. Of

Jcy^(Ekitity

Ca/urAcrGT>

. l6\c.

TitlG

ADP&^SS P'<^.

IC'O

3^t'

St 54

^

• Pf~k)/JE

^

TV/^ OF"

cfS^

WATE^ ^UAUry ^SE6}U//PEAAE/^r^ Clth'i^a^Le^ ^tvt^ .^n^y "/»

/I-fiic

[l» n ^4 Z^npj^#3L . ^ i ^ ^ ^ ^ l^^*1 ^ ll

:—; ; ^

FAQWnl^

PUY5iCA(-' Fi'^TUaE.'^

:g

: ^/

hfA i\JtS!l ffclu^eA (/^ (Vjt (4»aitV^ QttXCcA/,^ t^^ •ftc^Af.^vt (2rfcL.. FZ-^trivi^^^

^ T^O

/

S-^g^yvt^y^/u^

)~

. ^r5A^?^M_A'gvt Si^sfe^ 7^

.%<r'/'^ru^^iytjj i^La^c— j

pGU\/e3S>/ L£)S£E:S

y/'s-ZrV^y/ary. .<ysA*^ /rirfzf .a>-z

/4rW ^

fJ^St^-a;.

/S^lfSATfOfJ /-^ACSrtilE^

Ay\A^a£^^A un'/E uritiA^

I^twv^-

/-?^Q

]^Uf.

<:?

(:^!a^^t<^y^^'f'l¥-«-^ t^-e^

.■■Ul^ cEc^

<to,.rg^^

/T

//^ ♦

TiSAaJSFEFS i

(EKCHXKk5»EZ

VV^7Tt/C—. LJ^A^E

C^YY-, /*^ ^

A.y\j

flEORySED AAOOtF/c^naxJS.

IaI'^^aE^ A^qIE^ X^l-C- Q-tA^ ^ t-w-i-wL »-t^ .

l\.M^

(jLtAfiXfrp-ciL^

(EEAy\A<.e£~^

\A/ATSTS lEi^MAAJOS ElE-isftt\^

/s

fr--f^

^fS^&CAU V^ATEIS L^f^AAJ05 rj>Ci.Sfn^ uj%Aa^ A^

r

^

CLA/Ctb\i'<u^ .

\iASTlt- \AA-Tt3S. C^EM^aJOS fA/f:tr<»y^-ECL.

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

fLINTON W. MEHRING. PRESIDENT

R. MIGHELL, EXEC. VICE PRESIDENT D. D. HELTON. VICE PRESIDENT

A. J. DEUTSCH, TREASURER

J. H. TURN ER, secretary

TIPTON AND KALMBACH, INC. I7TH AND MARKET PLA2A»SUITE 700

1331 SEVENTEENTH STREET

DENVER,COLORADO 80202

PHONE (303) 292-2727

HEAD OPFICE IN OENVER, COLORAOO, SINCE 1933

FOUNDERS

ROYCE J. TIPTON (1693-1967)

CLIN KALMBACH (1913-1979) cable: ARTIP- DENVER TWX; 9IO-93i-2SAO

April 16, 1987

Mr. Uli Kappus, Director

Colorado Water Resources &

Power Development Authority

Logan Tower Bldg., Suite 620

1580 Logan Street

Denver, Colorado 80203

Dear Uli;

APR 1 7

1987

Couxasto iiiatsi

1 enjoyed our discussions of 10 April 1987 concerning various Colorado water issues.

As we discussed, the initial concept of the City and County of Denver's Williams

Fork Transmountain Diversion Project was to dilute Denver's sewage in the South Platte_

River. For your information, 1 am enclosing a portion of R. J. Tipton's report dated April

1936 on this subject.

During our discussions, you asked if we had ever estimat?id the potential yield of

the Upper Gunnison basin when performing studies for the Pittsburg &

Midway Coal

Mining Co.

(P&M). 1 indicated that we had not as P&M's rights are downstream and

junior to the USSR's Cureconti Unit, Colorado River Storage Project. As part of our

work for P&M,

we have reviewed several operation studies for the Cureconti Unit from

the USSR. As a result of these reviews, 1 concluded that there was very little firm water

available to a right upstream of the Cureconti Unit and junior to it. 1 can best

demonstrate this conclusion by reviewing the enclosed USSR Study No. 20,000-200/400

for a 16-calendar-year study period of 1948-1963. The key column of the study is "Blue

Mesa Reservoir Spills." It is noted that there are no spills in 10 years out of 16.

For the 16-year period: Total Spills

Average annual spill

For the 9-year period 1948-1956:

Total Spills

Average annual spill

663,600 acre-feet

41,475 acre-feet

349,600 acre-feet 38,844 acre-feet

The Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (UGRWCD)

has a number of

rights in the upper basin which have the same priority date as some of the Cureconti Unit

rights but are senior to Blue Mesa Reservoir. In addition, the Cureconti Unit rights have

(10)

Mr. Uli Kappus April 16, 1987 Page 2

Thus, if the USBR operation study is accurate, consumptive use development in the

Upper Gunnison might be limited to the UGRWCD rights and the subordination.

However, since at present the Curecanti Unit uses are non-consumptive, there could be development by working out agreements with the USBR for lost power revenues.

Very truly yours,

UPTON AND KALMBACH, INC.

C. W. Mehring

CWM:mh Enclosure

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

■il/A

HDR Infrastructure, Inc. 1100 Capitol Life Center Telephone Water Resources A Centerra Company Denver, Colorado 303 861-1300 Wastewater

80203-1690 Hazardous Waste Bridges Transportation Industrial Geoprocessing October 23, 1987

Colorado Water Conservation Board

1313 Sherman Street, Room 721

Denver, Colorado 80203

Attention: Mr. Dan Merriman

^ 6 I98r

Subject:

Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Study

Gentlemen:

HDR Infrastructure, Inc. is the prime consultant for the subject

study which is being funded by the Colorado Water Resources and

fho cf-

_{study through representation on the study Advisory Committee.}

Authority. Your organization is participating in

As part of our study efforts, we are required to, "Estimate

fisheries habitat characteristics at candidate

fisheries enhancement." Attachment 1 to this letter

Identifies the stream reaches within the study area which have been

identified as candidates for fishery enhancement.

very helpful to our study effort if we could gain access

fnr 1-hI

h

determination of minimum instream flow

nrnn^cL

Attachment 1 for which the CWCB has

proposed, or filed instream flow rights. We are in possession of

the values you have proposed or filed on, however, we are interested

5 background studies such as the USES R-2 Cross

Method which may have been performed in arriving at your

determination of minimum instream flow values.

Your earliest possible response to this request will be greatly

appreciated. ^ ^

Very truly yours,

HDR INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.

Andrew Tczap, P.E.

Project Manager

AT/jb

Enclosure

cc: Blaine Dwyer, Project Manager

Colorado Water Resources and

Power Development Authority

(27)

Upper Gunnlson-Uncompaghre Basin Study

Stream reaches for which optimum instream flow conditions need

to be established and for which present and future instream

flow quantities need to be modeled in order to assess fishery

and recreation enhancement potentials;

Gunnison River (Spring flow management required for rainbow

trout spawning, late summer flow deficiency for rafting).

1. Almont to SW corner of Section 4, T50N, RlE, NMPM.

(No CWCB instream flow appropriation)

2. SW corner of Section 4, T50N, RlE, NMPM to confl

Ohio Creek. (No CWCB instream flow appropriation)

3. Confl Ohio Creek to confl Tomichi Creek. (No CWCB

instream flow appropriation)

4. Confl Tomichi Creek to confl Blue Mesa Reservoir.

(No CWCB instream flow appropriation)

Taylor River below Taylor Park Dam (Potential winter flow

deficiency for fish, summer flow deficiency for rafting).

1. Gage below Taylor Park Reservoir to confl Spring Creek.

(CWCB instream flow recommendation: 100 cfs 5/1 - 9/30

50 cfs 10/1 - 4/30)

2. Confl Spring Creek to confl East River. (CWCB instream

flow recommendation: 200 cfs 5/1 9/30, 80 cfs 10/1

-4/30)

'

East River (Low winter flows for fish, high spring flows for

fish),

1. Headwaters to confl Copper Creek. (CWCB instream flow

appropriation: 15 cfs 5/1 - 9/30, 8 cfs 10/1 - 4/30)

2. Confl Copper Creek to confl Brush Creek. (CWCB instream

flow appropriation: 25 cfs 5/1 - 9/30, 15 cfs 10/1 - 4/30)

3. Confl Brush Creek to confl Alkali Creek. (CWCB instream

flow appropriation: 10 cfs)

4. Confl Alkali Creek to confl Taylor River. (CWCB instream

flow appropriation: 50 cfs 5/1 - 9/30, 27 cfs 10/1 - 4/30)

Slate River (No flow problems noted).

1. Confl Poverty Gulch to confl Oh-Be-Joyful Creek. (CWCB

instream flow appropriation: 15 cfs 4/1 - 11/30 8 cfs

12/1 - 3/31)

2. Confl Oh-Be-Joyful Creek to confl Coal Creek. (CWCB

instream flow appropriation: 20 cfs 4/1 - 11/30 10 cfs

12/1 - 3/31)

3. Confl Coal Creek to confl East River. (CWCB Instream

flow appropriation: 23 cfs 4/1 11/30, 12 cfs 12/1

-3/31)

'

(28)

Ohio Creek (Spring floods wash out fish, summer and fall

flow deficiencies for fish).

1. Confl Castle Creek to confl Mill Creek. (CWCB instream flow appropriation: 10 cfs)

2. Confl Mill Creek to confl Gunnison River. (CWCB instream

flow appropriation:^ 12 cfs)

Tomichi Creek and tributaries (Summer and fall flow deficiencies

for fish).

1. Tomichi Creek.

a. Headwaters to confl Triano Creek. (CWCB instream flow

appropriation: 8 cfs)

b. Confl Triano Creek to confl Marshall Creek. (CWCB

instream flow appropriation: 9 cfs)

c. Confl Marshall Creek to confl Quartz Creek. (CWCB instream flow appropriation: 18 cfs)

d. Confl Quartz Creek to confl Cochetopa Creek. (No

CWCB instream flow appropriation)

e. Confl Cochetopa Creek to confl Gunnison River. (No

CWCB instream flow appropriation)

2. Marshall Creek.

a. Confl Tank 7 Creek to confl Indian Creek. (CWCB

instream flow appropriation: 6 cfs 5/1 - 9/30

~ 2 cfs 10/1 - 4/30)

b. Confl Indian Creek to confl Tomichi Creek. (CWCB

instream flow appropriation: 8 cfs 5/1 - 9/30

4 cfs 10/1 - 4/30)

3. Quartz Creek.

a. Confl N and M Quartz Creeks to confl Gold Creek.

(CWCB instream flow appropriation: 10 cfs)

b. Confl Gold Creek to confl Tomichi Creek. (CWCB

instream flow appropriation: 12 cfs)

Cochetopa Creek (Summer and fall flow deficiencies for fish

below confluence with Pauline Creek).

1. Confl Pauline Creek to confl Bead Creek. (CWCB instream

flow appropriation: 8.5 cfs)

2. Confl Bead Creek to confl Tomichi Creek. (CWCB instream

flow appropriation: 8.5 cfs)

Cebolla Creek (Summer and fall flow deficiencies for fish).

1. Confl Spring Creek to confl Powderhorn Creek. (No CWCB

instream flow appropriation)

(29)

2. Confl Powderhorn Creek to confl Blue Mesa Reservoir.

(CWCB instream flow appropriation; 26 cfs 5/1 - 9/30,

14 cfs 10/1 - 4/30)

Lake Fork of the Gunnison River (No flow problems noted for fish, summer flow deficiency for rafting).

1. Confl Cottonwood Creek to confl Henson Creek, (CWCB

instream flow appropriation: 35 cfs 5/1 - 9/30, 20 cfs

10/1 - 4/30)

2. Confl Henson Creek to confl Blue Mesa Reservoir. (CWCB

instream flow appropriation: 45 cfs 5/1 - 9/30, 25 cfs

10/1 - 4/30)

Uncompaghre River (Management of releases from Ridgeway

Reservoir for trout).

1. Uncompaghre River.

a. Ridgeway Dam to confl Cow Creek. (No CWCB instream

flow appropriation)

b. Confl Cow Creek to diversions atColona. (No CWCB instream flow appropriation)

2. Cow Creek (Summer and fall flow deficienies for fish).

a. Confl Wildhorse Creek to diversions at forest

boundary. (CWCB instream flow appropriation: 18 cfs

4/1 - 7/31, 5 cfs 8/1 - 3/31)

b. Diversions at forest boundary to confl Uncompaghre River. (No CWCB instream flow appropriation)

Tributaries to the north side of Blue Mesa Reservoir (Low

summer flows for fish, spring floods, for spawning trout).

1. Blue Mesa Reservoir (Water level fluctuations for trout, and recreation aesthetics).

2. Soap Creek (Spring floods limit spawning trout from Blue Mesa)

a. Confl West Soap Creek to confl Blue Mesa Reservoir.

(CWCB instream flow appropriation: 12 cfs 3/1 - 8/31,

7 cfs 9/1 - 2/28)

Taylor Park Reservoir and its tributaries (No flow deficiencies

in tributaries noted, water level fluctuations in the

reservoir have the potential to be limiting for fish). 1. Taylor Park Reservoir (Water level fluctuations).

2. Taylor River.

a.. Confl Eyre Creek to confl Italian Creek. (CWCB instream flow appropriation: 12 cfs)

b. Confl Italian Creek to confl Illinois Creek. (CWCB

instream flow recommendation: 36 cfs 4/1 - 10/31,

18 cfs 11/1 - 3/31)

c. Confl Illinois Creek to confl Taylor Park Reservoir.

(CWCB instream flow appropriation: 55 cfs)

(30)

3. Texas Creek.

a. Confl N. Texas Creek to N\Vi Section 2, T14S, R82W, 6PM.

(CWCB instream flow recommendation: 20 cfs 4/1 - 10/31

12 cfs 11/1 - 3/31)

b. NWJ Section 2, T14S, R82W, 6PM to confl Taylor Park

Reservoir. (CWCB instream flow appropriation: 25 cfs)

4. Willow Creek.

a. Confl West Willow Creek to confl Cow Creek. (CWCB

instream flow recommendation: 6 cfs)

b. Confl Cow Creek to confl Taylor Park Reservoir.

(CWCB instream flow appropriation: 15 cfs)

(31)

J •#■ «' ^iT*

nmerce

<r»n^ • r-^

r^!*\

Issue No. PSA-939L ":rv

A da/7y list of U.S. Government

procurement invitations, contract'

awards, subcontracting leads, :

r ■ .V «! OflJ

,- -.■■/ ■■'; ,:'W sriwtrn i»j;f-/:..«^ ■-/ist ■•; '.\xyivt' i^s

..XI-;: ■f'-'isifc-i rsE^»i' ■,:oj' "■ os s! v;xwrfl cS ."v

|.;:sa/es of surplus property and

ioreign business opportunities

:>'•!; b7? r.C.'rvC f"'; a>'W»2: vi;»'.'r7Svc"'' • ■? •>>■: x i-Nf ■:.■« » t '.-yi-:— iivy .n ...zx: I. (;i.' .Es/u. y. p.-X) '"l ■lK «■ 1 .ifbcxiEc!) -s-rr «««rchi<>0irk:'';2

.arch) ^ iCTj; -,ix

• r -" V !r

■nrte'for hrocm-. Louis, MO 63120 «7-R'A238. BOD 14 Sep srading Officsr. lliis re-^ and presentation of ■mg of ttie Target Acqu-(ubsysternportnnofttie «tes22,56;66and81. <R to become

prequaN-mtained in Seclxin L of

•vt lacks specs and c^s appnwed source Martin aval of new suppliers is tproeal of a new source, •e *1 future solfs). M re ed. (205)

' ."^•CTvJV- BUSINESS NEWS' 'iCQ

(SOVERHIIENT PIWOJROIENTIXTCimjNITiES (MNFEROKE JACKSONVIIE, mm /

-

-vr. .i

U.1 Congressman Charles Bennett and UlS CiDngressman fli

Chappel, the Naval St^iy Center Jacksonville, Smal Bu^ Develop' Centw, Universi^ of N^

florida, tJ.S. Smal Business Administration, Jacksonvle Chamtief of Commerce and the City of Jacksonville are sponsoring a Govsnment Procurement Opportunities

■Conference at the Prime Osbcm Convention Center in Jacksonville from 8«) AM to 4O0 PM on 15 Sep 87. The Theme of the Conference b Competition aid Ihe invited

Guest Speaker wi be 9ie Competilion Advocate Generaf of the Navy Rear Admiral Robert Moore The purpose of the conference is to provide the Business Corrmanity ^

^opportiwty to meet on a person to pehon tiasis with Procurement Representatives of Federal, Military and Civilian Agendes'and Major Prime Contractors. A series of

'^eminatS vM inform Attendees of how to obtain contracts and subcontracts. The Registration Fee is in ^Ivance and $25 at the door per person and indudes lunch

. aiid materials. Luncheon Seating is limited. Earti Registration is advised. Also' any large Prime Contractors desiring to rent Booth Space should afso contact the Smal Bus^

jnessDevelopmerrt Center at the IJniversity of North Florida 904/646-2476.' . f :-v*rsf.

C ' • .x. '

.vc ■ , ;! oT ' , .1'; t . fiC'.'-o •

H -Expert and Consultant Servicos

^5 Ove^ok Av«.,

l^nl^AINT

•ATK

USOA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest & Range Experv : ;inant Station, 240 W. Prospect, Fort CoWns, CO. 80526-2098 .H-ECONOMIC VALUE OF RECREATION AND PRESERVATION BENEFITS .TOF RtSTREAM FLOW RfP-2aJ(7-428, Due: 092187. Melwi Booker, Contracting Offi cer, (303) 224-1172. To measure the economic value of recreation and preservation ben efits of altematiye levels o( instream how at one or more locations. Speofk Obiectives of

the study are (1) measure the economc value to normsers and recreation users of

alter-■ .'native nstream how regimes; (2) measure the economic value to norvusers and recre-atMi users of nrantenance of aftematwe minimum stream how levels; and (3) determine ft* additivity of measures of econotiK value of instream how In one nver Of fiver reach to smular measures of value for other nvers or other irefl defined environmental goods.

US Consumer Product Safety Commission, Contrs Branch, Rm 312. 5401 Westbard Ave, Washington, DC 20207

o H-NEISS SURVEIUANCE REPORTS, Sd (^88-1088, BOO: 24 ^ 87.

POC: Dodie kessier, Piocurement Asst; Bartiaia J Twombfy, Contracting Officer. Injury surveillance reports. The US Consumer Product Safety Commit is interested in accu-mulabng data and obtaining survedlance reports on DPSC product rdated injunes treated at Kings County Hosp Ctr, Brookfyn, NY, for a 12 mo period. Identification and coding of data must be performed on site at the Kings County Hosp Ctr. RFQ CPSC-<^88-1088 wih be avai o/a 24 Aug 87. Reqs must be submitted In anting to Dodie Kessier. Piocurement Asst US Consumer Product Safety Commission, Contrs Branch, Rm 312, Washingfon, DC 20207. (208)

(207)

YSTRON FACJLillES

0 accomplish the design,

*nt and fixtures for the

and two one-year optnn. lavailability nofice is de 32. 57. Send reqs for

Texas Educatkmai Foundation, Inc P.O. Box 1108 San Marcos,

TX. 78667

H - FAMLY PLANNING SERVICES FOR GRANTEES In Region VI U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Contract to provide all or part of the fohowwg family plan ning senecas: l; Research, collect data and documentaticn, develop Family Ute cumcu-lum and develop strategy to mobize community action etfoiK 2. Develop dnc manage

U.S. Army White Sends Missile Range. White Sands Missile

Range, NM 88002 5201

H - TEL AND SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES. Sol DAAD07-87J^2914. BOO

10 Aug 87. Sol contact Ms Cher Stewart, 505/6781735: Purchasing Agent Ms Lydia

Cas-tilleja, 505/6783176; Contracting Officer, Mrs Rosa G Perez, 5C6/6785618 Support services for a VAXdusfer, Equipment Corp (DEC) Mdl QK-0288M, 1 ea. VAX 8600, DEC Mdl 0K 0288Z, 1 ea. Non Personal Services for fel and software support serv ices for a VAX 11/750, DEC Mdl QO026-8Z, 1 ea. (205)

FAA, 2300 E Devon Ave, AGL-55C, Des Ptaines, IL 60018, Attn: Eve McCory, 312/694-7297

(32)

RALPH E. CLARK 111

519 EAST GEORGIA AVENUE

CUNNISON, COLORADO 81250

(303) 641-2907

Mr. R. Tyler Martineau

Task Leader

Upper Gunnison - Uncompahgre

River Basin Study

120 North Boulevard

Gunnison, Colorado 81230

July 23, 1987

mcmym

AUG1 9

]^^7

Response to the Recreation and Fishery/Wildlife Fact Finding Questionnaire for the Upper Gunnison — Uncompahgre River Basin Study

Dear Tyler:

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the questionnaire although my responses have been delayed for the reason I

indicated earlier to you.

My responses follow the outline of the questionnaire.

1 a. Given that my assigned role, at least for one aspect of

my association with this basin study, is a role implying a

generalist's perspective, I would respond accordingly by stating that the riparian ecosystems within the basin are the

"watercourse or waterbody" which is the focus of my responses. 1 b. According to management plans and related documents of

the U. S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the

Bureau of Reclamation, the study area's riparian ecosystem complex should generally be considered as Group Number 1 - as being in a fair to good condition which would respond well to appropriate protection and enhancement.

1 c. The "sensitivity" of the riparian ecosystems, as

indicated in reports from these agencies and other sources, is exceptionally high. Irreversible losses are expected to result

from the damage or elimination of riparian ecosystems in our arid

environment. These ecosystems also serve to sustain conditions

supportive of rare and endangered species within the study area,

as well as serving many useful functions such as being a

corrective to other resource management errors in waste disposal

and land use.

2 a. Historically fishery quality in riparian areas has been

(33)

page 2

a "Blue Ribbon" quality to at present a brown trout fishery no

longer capable of being naturally self—sustaining according to

reports.

2 b. Channel stability has declined, not unexpectedly, in locations of extensive and inappropriate channelization and also

as a consequence of other activities resulting in accelerated

sedimentation. In some places the past mistakes are being corrected and natural stabilization has become a management

objective.

3. Principal factors limiting fish and food organism

production within this study area would appear to be!

* reduction of critical habitat and variability needed to sustain a high invertebrate diversity;

* sedimentation and turbidity contributed from outside the streams and also from within in—stream activity*

* elevation of water temperature from damage or loss of

riparian habitat;

* reduction of woody debris, leaves, and terrestrial

insects within the streams caused by clearing or loss of stream

side vegetation;

»

loss of riparian habitat on intermittent streams which

sustains the lifecycles of some insects formerly available as

food for fish; and

* a decline in water quality from a number of causes.

4 a.

Angler utilization would be limited by the natural

physical characteristics of the riparian ecosystem -

especially

the difficulty in moving about and actually fishing -

however it

is this very difficulty which appears to enhance the quality and

challenge of the recreational experience.

4 b. White-water utilization would be limited by changing

Mater levels, naturally occurring but essential obstructions such

as logs, beaver dams, and slumped banks. However, coping with

these limitations also appears to contribute to the enhancement

of the recreational experience. During periods of flooding,

white-water techniques can provide rewarding opportunities to

observe migrating water fowl in riparian habitat.

5 a.

The following are enhancement efforts which are being

or should be initiated to improve fish production and the quality

of the fishery:

* retain all the remaining unbounded free flowing

streams;

* correct all the past mistakes now presenting problems;

*

expand the scope of federal protection for wetlands and

flood plains especially in locations such as the study area

within the arid West where riparian ecosystems can be left

unprotected;

* enact state laws and implement a riparian ecosystem

protection policy with planning guidelines and tax credits for

appropriate measures and which applies to all activities which

may threaten any components of the ecosystem — as opposed to just

(34)

page 3

being concerned with water flow, fisheries, or vegetation;

* allow acquisition of private in—stream flow water

rights for the protection of private investments in water quality

and quantity conditions for purposes such as enhancement of

riparian habitat to the benefit of fisheries and other wildlife

resources; and

* encourage further research to obtain a better

understanding and capability for management of riparian

ecosystems in situations such as the study area.

5 b.

A record of past enhancement efforts and expectations

can be reviewed in the historical documents prepared for water

development projects within the study area. Most efforts did not

realize their expectations.

Within the study area future fishery enhancement will

be limited by the availability of funding for hatchery production

and restocking. Naturally self—sustaining productivity will be

required which in turn requires protection and enhancement of the

riparian ecosystem as opposed to simply water flow management.

6 a.

Recent research on stream fisheries in Colorado appears

to indicate that restrictions — i.e. fencing and limited access —

can enhance game fish production and fishing opportunities, can

improve stream bank stability and can retain the integrity of the

riparian ecosystem. This suggests restriction of access by some

means for the provision of a higher quality recreational

experience to an appropriately limited number of users. Also

required are restrictions on activities such as grazing and the

management of cover adjacent to the stream. Encouragement of

private protection and enhancement of riparian ecosystems on

private lands through the control over user access may enhance

the basin wide quality of fisheries and other water related resources in places where access can less easily be controlled.

6 b. There are many kinds of anglers seeking many kinds of experiences. If those items which are considered most important

to anglers are those for which anglers will spend the most money,

then the aspects of a quality experience which are most

significant appear to be — the uniqueness of the experience, the

challenge of the fishing, the challenge of the fish or difficulty

in catching it, and exclusivity of access.

6 c. As noted above, improvement of the white—water

opportunities, especially with respect to the diversity and quality of such experiences, could be obtained through the protection and enhancement of riparian ecosystems within this study area. Provision of something like the South Platte River sluice could and should he undertaken privately.

7 a. To date the management of public fisheries has tended to provide for a minimum quality experience for a maximum number

of users in a multiple use situation — access is made easy and

usually without charge, utilization of the resource is free or

highly subsidized, the resource is provided for a maximum

(35)

page 4

management of fishery resources has created and perpetuated the problems typically associated with leading to a classic "tragedy of the commons" — degradation and eventual loss of the common resource by excessive consumption.

7 b. Outstanding white-water opportunities of many kinds are presently available- Participants should recognize and accept

natural and seasonal limitations. At present the man-made

limitations such as fencing will require some privately initiated

solutions providing livestock control and respecting other

interests and resources of the adjoining land owners.

a a. The management objective for fisheries within the study

area should be the re-establishment of naturally self-sustaining

fisheries within all the remaining but increasingly scarce and highly valued free flowing waters.

a b. The management objective for fishing opportunities

should be the provision of associated recreational experiences of the highest quality commensurate with protection and enhancement

of the remaining riparian ecosystems.

a c. Protection and enhancement of the riparian ecosystem

provides a diversity of "spin-off" benefits contributing to other

kinds of recreational activities — e.g. aesthetic landscapes,

opportunities for wildlife viewing, nature study sites, and water

quality improvement services.

Respectfully:

(36)

MEMORANDUM

July 31, 1987

51987

FROM; Tyler Martineau

HDR Infrastructure, Inc.

RE:

Upper Gunnison-Uncompaghre Basin Study

Fishery and recreation investigations

Thank you for your participation in the fishery and recreation workshop held on July 24, 1987. We feel that

a considerable amount of useful information and input to

the Upper Gunnison-Uncompaghre Basin Study was contributed

throughout the day.

Enclosed in tabular form is the information received

from the participants for each of the streams, lakes, and

reservoirs discussed during the morning of the workshop. We

have also prepared a summary for the workshop which includes a description of the major potential fishery and recreation enhancement opportunities identified during the afternoon.

We would appreciate receiving any comments, additions, or corrections that you feel are appropriate by September 1, 1987,

Responses should be addressed to:

Tyler Martineau

HDR Infrastructure, Inc.

120 N. Boulevard

Gunnison, CO 81230

(37)

DRAFT

3J^im

SUMMARY

Fishery and Recreation Workshop

A workshop was conducted in Gunnison by HDR Infrastructure

on July 24, 1987 for the purpose of receiving technical input

on fisheries and water based recreation from local resource

managers and other experts for use in the Upper

Gunnison-Uncompaghre Basin Study.

The primary objective of the workshop was to develop a listing of candidate stream segments, lakes, or reservoirs

which could benefit from fishery enhancement and/or improved

public access. Additional purposes of the workshop were to

receive information on current management objectives that exist for watercourses and waterbodies in the study area,

and to identify stream reaches which may have unique

recreational or environmental attributes. In attendance

at the workshop were representatives of the following

organizations:

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Wildlife Federation

Trout Unlimited

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U. S. Forest Service

Western Colorado Congress

Colorado River Water Conservation District

The following were also invited:

Hinsdale County

Black Canyon of the Gunnison Committee Curecanti National Recreation Area

Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District The workshop was structured around two major tasks. The first task was to catagorize a relatively large number

of streams, lakes, and reservoirs into groups based upon

their potential for enhancement. The three groups into

which watercourses and waterbodies were classified are

defined below:

Group 1 - Fisheries are in fair to good condition at present, the potential exists for a good rate

(38)

in excellent condition but needing additional

access are included in this group.

Group 2 - Fisheries are in good to excellent condition

and have good access at present, limited

benefits would result from investments made

in enhancements.

Group 3 - Fisheries are in poor to fair condition at

present, little potential exists for a good rate

of return on any investment.

Additional questions asked for each of the watercourses or waterbodies dealt with:

1. Deficiencies in water flow or water level.

2. Enhancements that are already planned or in

existance.

3. Unique recreational or environmental attributes of

the systems.

The second task was to identify and rank specific

enhancement opportunities for the major Group 1 streams,

lakes, and reservoirs. Enhancements were defined as activities intended to improve fish/wildlife production or water quality to levels higher than historic levels. Included also

as enhancements were improvements that would increase angler

access and success. Enhancements were considered within the

context of a major goal established for the fishery and recreation investigations. That goal is to identify cost effective methods of increasing water-based recreational opportunities in order to benefit the economy of the Upper

Gunnison and Uncompaghre Basins.

At the outset of the workshop HDR suggested a broad

range of potential structural and non-structural enhancements

which might be considered by the workshop participants.

Included were:

Channel and channel bank improvements

Instream structures

Flow stabilization

Changes in fishing regulations Riparian rehabilitation

Changes in land use regulation

Improvements in water quality Improved access

Improved livestock management systems

Additional enhancements suggested by workshop participants

(39)

Regulation of stream temperatures

Introduction of macroinvertebrates

Enhancement of basic nutrients in the water supply Fish stock manipulations

Public education

Raising water levels of natural lakes Results

Discussions of streams, lakes, and reservoirs and

their potential enhancements were held on an informal basis. The results presented represent the opinions of individuals with knowledge of the specific watercourses and waterbodies

under consideration. No formal measures to gage the

sentiments of the participants as a whole were employed, although, the workshop was structured to encourage an informal level of consensus.

In the first task 54 streams, 14 reservoirs, and 3 lakes

(or lake groupings) were considered. These systems were

classified by the workshop participants into Groups 1, 2, and 3 as shown:

Grout Grout Grout

Streams

Reservoirs

Lakes 3 0 0

Included in Group 1 were all major streams, lakes, and

reservoirs in the basin.

The participants identified 18 streams with seasonal

deficiencies in flows for fisheries or recreation and three

reservoirs with problems with level fluctuation. Major streams identified as having seasonal deficiencies in flow included the Gunnison River, Ohio Creek, East River, Tomichi Creek, Quartz Creek, Cochetopa Creek, Cebolla Creek, and Cow Creek. Planned or existing fishery enhancements were

noted for 29 streams, six reservoirs, and one lake. Enhance ments were described for most large streams with the exception of Ohio Creek, the East River, and the Uncompaghre River.

Typical planned or existing enhancements that were mentioned

included instream structures, changes in management practice,

changes in fishing regulation, fish stock manipulations, and

improved fisherman access. Unique recreational and environmental attributes mentioned include spawning habitat, warm water

(40)

beaver, and waterfowl. Special concerns mentioned for

specific streams included the need to maintain water

quality on the Slate River, East River, and Coal Creeks;

to consider the icing problems on the Gunnison River;

to protect warm water sources on the East River and Cement

Creek; and to consider the temperature fluctuations on

Tomichi Creek.

In the second task ten major Group 1 systems were

proposed for enhancement by the participants. These systems and their potential enhancements are listed below:

Gunnison River between Almont and Blue Mesa Reservoir

-Management of instream flows for fish -Increased access for fishermen

-Boat ramps

-Channel improvements and structures

-Riverfront access and parkway including handicap access

-Riparian rehabilitation -Education programs

Taylor River below Taylor Dam -Increase water temperatures

-Additional access along river and at base of dam -Boat ramps

-Plan to accomodate both fishermen and rafters

-Riparian improvements

-Increase releases for white-water boating

East and Slate Rivers

-Access and camping facilities

-Riparian and bank stabilization improvements -Improvements in water quality

-Land use control (gravel operations) Lake Fork of the Gunnison River

-Increase food base and water temperature

-Instream structures

-Improve signage, and education

-Improve water quality (control mine wastes)

Uncompaghre River

-Access

-Channel restoration, instream structures

(41)

Cebolla Creek

-Channel restoration

-Instream structures -Riparian improvements

Tomichi Creek and tributaries

-Access

-Riparian rehabilitation, revegetation -Conservation ana recreation easements

-Siltation controls

-Education

Tributaries to north side of Blue Mesa Reservoir

-Manage streams as a rainbow trout spawning area for Blue Mesa Reservoir

-Riparian rehabilitation to control silt

-Interagency Management Plan

Taylor Reservoir and its tributaries

-Instream structures in tributary streams

-Riparian protection and rehabilitation on streams -Integrated public agency management plan

-Campgrounds

-Taylor Reservoir expansion

-Two to three foot raise in alpine lakes to limit

winterkill

Cochetopa Creek and tributaries

-Access, at lower end

-Promotion of winter fishing -Campgrounds

Enhancements with the potential for creating the greatest

fishery and recreation gains for the region were considered

by several participants to be those on the Gunnison River, the Uncompaghre River, and on the tributaries to Blue Mesa

(42)

In the course of the workshop the following comments

were received:

1. A general problem throughout the Upper Gunnison

basin is the lack of organic material in streams, reservoirs, and lakes which is needed for food

supply for fish. Both cold and/or warm water temperature problems are common in many streams.

2. The Upper Gunnison and Uncompaghre basins are controlled by many public agencies. Interagency

cooperation is needed to coordinate management of

wildlife and habitat.

3. Visitors to the region need to be redistributed through better information and education. For

example, Cebolla Creek and Taylor River are fished

heavily while other areas are underutilized. The presence of campgrounds has a profound effect on

increasing fishing pressure. The number of campgrounds

needs to be carefully planned so that fishing pressure

does not become excessive and cause the quality of a fishery to decline.

4. Several participants expressed a strong desire to

maintain free-flowing rivers.

5. Riparian habitat management was identified as a major priority of the participants in the meeting.

Riparian areas include relatively dry cottonwood groves (where cottonwood rejuvination is a problem)

as well as swampy areas.

6. The need for handicapped access to streamside fishing

areas was stressed.

7. The meeting participants did not express any support for the straightening of meanders in Tomichi Creek

as an enhancement intended to decrease the existing

population of suckers and increase stream velocities. 8. When asked why stream flow stabilization and flow

enhancement was not suggested for streams which

experience seasonal flow deficiencies the following

responses were offered by workshop participants:

-Reservoirs which could stabilize streamflows

may cause other negative impacts to the downstream fishery such as reduced temperatures, reduced food supplies, or altered stream sediments.

(43)

-Attenuation of the annual spring flood may not be beneficial for every kind of fishery.

-There are many ways to enhance the headwaters

stream fisheries at less cost and without the impacts that would result from construction of a reservoir.

-Reservoirs are needed for many purposes including

flood control, and municipal, industrial, and

agricultural water supply; and should be evaluated on a multiple-use basis. The stabilization of streamflows is not a sufficient justification by

itself to warrent the construction of a reservoir.

-The biggest per capita recreational expenditures in the local community are made by those who fish large free-flowing rivers for premium or trophy

fish.

-Improvements to a river channel and its irrigation diversions may be a more cost effective means of resolving the rancher's water supply problems.

9. Participants expressed the desire to keep the following systems free-flowing: The East and Slate Rivers, Cement Creek, Tomichi Creek, and Cochetopa Creek. Lower

Cochetopa Creek is a riparian, wetland area which supports wildfowl and should be protected.

10. While Ohio Creek is in poor condition as a fishery

and would appear to face many major costs, difficulties, and obstacles before enhancement of the fishery could become a reality, it possibly could benefit from

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

/^/V/t€v-T^ A-WiC /hCîJ^^ (i-yiy UjdîC^lô^

2,7^ /7^7

^fv\Ui

WUS 6198/

tSatefioo nai^

"71

WV.V^AA-B/'l/

Y.sJuA,

c, /illkc <^oSJ

7, "5-\etM! rf\"^CoJjJl

s/yAh-f Si(Jni'a£/e-'^

ui'Cc.

O'

u

n

to i

S

^

OSPSs.

_^

_<j

_{aJ/"0 I *==>0^^-^}

^ U^CL W'C-—V.^ ^ , — ^-w .

(jhkr

IAS

8^

Si^rV)otie\

(iSf-tOS

'

6rytir€i Tcf*

. //

'. /fcA

^ I V # *,

'^<^^l.'.-v\ €'c

t "w^ • m.*r r 1 V '"-/ O.

//•

(/r«

Ga*ajiiL6-»^

/i' Z^ciA-e S>liariho/^r

n, 17

lAy\AXyfdL

/<

C

^tA/ /4oiJ2^

/^*

L/ryp-/^—

C

(Jdc^S

-i/\ v/vOc:? <1^

K<-'^

jli.rr/r7i^c ^

y

Gu^/1/SOAi

HO/^ 'T. (A

(^Ofyi/r/t~irh-^

T-.<-> .

^

f- « S.

15 O

"H" ^

A/iPc>e^

'^XA,7l. S

"7^-^.t^

lyL

'

['

(48)

HDR Infrastructure, Inc. A Centerra Company

1100 Capitol Life Center Telephone Denver, Colorado 303 86T1300 80203 1690 Water Resources Wastewater Hazardous Waste Bridges Transportation Industrial Geoprocessing AGENDA

Upper Gunnison-Uncompaghre Basin Study Fishery and Recreation Workshop

July 24, 1987

Introduction.

y

Purpose of the workshop.

a. Goal of the fishery and recreation investigations:

To identify cost effective methods of increasing

water-based recreational opportunities in order to benefit the economy of the Upper Gunnison and

Uncompaghre Basins.

b. Specific objectives of the workshop.

Workshop process, and definitions.

Catagorize streams, lakes, and reservoirs into groups based upon their potential for improvement:

Group 1 - Fair to good condition at present, the potential

exists for a good rate of return on

investment for enhancements.

Group 2 - Good to excellent condition at present,

limited benefits would result from invest ment made in enhancements.

Group 3 - Poor to fair condition at present, little potential exists for a good rate of

return on any form of enhancement.

Identify potential enhancement opportunities for Group 1

streams, lakes, and reservoirs. Determine criteria for ranking of

enhancement opportunities for Group 1 streams. Discussion and comments.

(49)

draft 1121 Id,!

SUMMARY

Fishery and Recreation Workshop

A workshop was conducted in Gunnison by HDR Infrastructure on July 24, 1987 for the purpose of receiving technical input

on fisheries and water based recreation from local resource

managers and other experts for use in the Upper Gunnison-Uncompaghre Basin Study.

The primary objective of the workshop was to develop a listing of candidate stream segments, lakes, or reservoirs which could benefit from fishery enhancement and/or improved public access. Additional purposes of the workshop were to

receive information on current management objectives that exist for watercourses and waterbodies in the study area,

and to identify stream reaches which may have unique

recreational or environmental attributes. In attendance

at the workshop were representatives of the following organizations:

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Wildlife Federation

Trout Unlimited

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U. S. Forest Service

Western Colorado Congress

Colorado River Water Conservation District

The following were also invited: Hinsdale County

Black Canyon of the Gunnison Committee

Curecanti National Recreation Area

Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District The workshop was structured around two major tasks. The first task was to catagorize a relatively large number of streams, lakes, and reservoirs into groups based upon

their potential for enhancement. The three groups into

which watercourses and waterbodies were classified are

defined below:

Group 1 - Fisheries are in fair to good condition at

present, the potential exists for a good rate

(50)

in excellent condition but needing additional access are included in this group.

Group 2 - Fisheries are in good to excellent condition and have good access at present, limited benefits would result from investments made in enhancements.

Group 3 - Fisheries are in poor to fair condition at

present, little potential exists for a good rate

of return on any investment.

Additional questions asked for each of the watercourses or waterbodies dealt with:

1. Deficiencies in water flow or water level.

2. Enhancements that are already planned or in

existance.

3. Unique recreational or environmental attributes of

the systems.

The second task was to identify and rank specific

enhancement opportunities for the major Group 1 streams,

lakes, and reservoirs. Enhancements were defined as activities

intended to improve fish/wildlife production or water quality

to levels higher than historic levels. Included also

as enhancements were improvements that would increase angler

access and success. Enhancements were considered within the

context of a major goal established for the fishery and recreation investigations. That goal is to identify cost

effective methods of increasing water-based recreational

opportunities in order to benefit the economy of the Upper

Gunnison and Uncompaghre Basins.

At the outset of the workshop HDR suggested a broad

range of potential structural and non-structural enhancements

which might be considered by the workshop participants.

Included were:

Channel and channel bank improvements

Instream structures Flow stabilization

Changes in fishing regulations Riparian rehabilitation

Changes in land use regulation Improvements in water quality Improved access

Improved livestock management systems

Additional enhancements suggested by workshop participants

(51)

Regulation of stream temperatures

Introduction of macroinvertebrates

Enhancement of basic nutrients in the water supply Fish stock manipulations

Public education

Raising water levels of natural lakes Results

Discussions of streams, lakes, and reservoirs and

their potential enhancements were held on an informal basis. The results presented represent the opinions of individuals with knowledge of the specific watercourses and waterbodies under consideration. No formal measures to gage the

sentiments of the participants as a whole were employed, although, the workshop was structured to encourage an

informal level of consensus.

In the first task 54 streams, 14 reservoirs, and 3 lakes

(or lake groupings) were considered. These systems were

classified by the workshop participants into Groups 1, 2, and

3 as shown:

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Streams

Reservoirs

Lakes 3 0 0

Included in Group 1 were all major streams, lakes, and

reservoirs in the basin.

The participants identified 18 streams with seasonal

deficiencies in flows for fisheries or recreation and three

reservoirs with problems with level fluctuation. Major streams identified as having seasonal deficiencies in flow included the Gunnison River, Ohio Creek, East River, Tomichi Creek, Quartz Creek, Cochetopa Creek, Cebolla Creek, and Cow Creek. Planned or existing fishery enhancements were

noted for 29 streams, six reservoirs, and one lake. Enhance ments were described for most large streams with the exception of Ohio Creek, the East River, and the Uncompaghre River.

Typical planned or existing enhancements that were mentioned

included instream structures, changes in management practice, changes in fishing regulation, fish stock manipulations, and

improved fisherman access. Unique recreational and environmental attributes mentioned include spawning habitat, warm water

(52)

beaver, and waterfowl. Special concerns mentioned for specific streams included the need to maintain water quality on the Slate River, East River, and Coal Creeks;

to consider the icing problems on the Gunnison River;

to protect warm water sources on the East River and Cement

Creek; and to consider the temperature fluctuations on

Tomichi Creek.

In the second task ten major Group 1 systems were

proposed for enhancement by the participants. These systems and their potential enhancements are listed below:

Gunnison River between Almont and Blue Mesa Reservoir

-Management of instream flows for fish

-Increased access for fishermen

-Boat ramps

-Channel improvements and structures

-Riverfront access and parkway including handicap access -Riparian rehabilitation

-Education programs

Taylor River below Taylor Dam -Increase water temperatures

-Additional access along river and at base of dam

-Boat ramps

-Plan to accomodate both fishermen and rafters

-Increase releases for white-water boating

East and Slate Rivers

-Riparian and bank stabilization improvements -Improvements in water quality

-Land use control (gravel operations)

Lake Fork of the Gunnison River

-Increase food base and water temperature

-Improve signage, and education

-Improve water quality (control mine wastes)

Uncompaghre River

-Access

-Channel restoration, instream structures -Instream flow management

(53)

Cebolla Creek

-Channel restoration -Instream structures

Tomichi Creek and tributaries

-Access

-Riparian rehabilitation, revegetation -Conservation ana recreation easements -Siltation controls

-Education

Tributaries to north side of Blue Mesa Reservoir

-Manage streams as a rainbow trout spawning area

for Blue Mesa Reservoir

-Riparian rehabilitation to control silt -Interagency Management Plan

Taylor Reservoir and its tributaries

-Instream structures in tributary streams

-Riparian protection and rehabilitation on streams

-Integrated public agency management plan -Campgrounds

-Taylor Reservoir expansion

-Two to three foot raise in alpine lakes to limit

winterkill

Cochetopa Creek and tributaries

-Access, at lower end

-Promotion of winter fishing -Campgrounds

Enhancements with the potential for creating the greatest

fishery and recreation gains for the region were considered by several participants to be those on the Gunnison River, the Uncompaghre River, and on the tributaries to Blue Mesa Reservoir.

(54)

In the course of the workshop the following comments

were received:

1. A general problem throughout the Upper Gunnison

basin is the lack of organic material in streams, reservoirs, and lakes which is needed for food

supply for fish. Both cold and/or warm water

temperature problems are common in many streams.

2. The Upper Gunnison and Uncompaghre basins are

controlled by many public agencies. Interagency

cooperation is needed to coordinate management of wildlife and habitat.

3. Visitors to the region need to be redistributed through better information and education. For example, Cebolla Creek and Taylor River are fished heavily while other areas are underutilized. The presence of campgrounds has a profound effect on

increasing fishing pressure. The number of campgrounds

needs to be carefully planned so that fishing pressure does not become excessive and cause the quality of a fishery to decline.

4. Several participants expressed a strong desire to

maintain free-flowing rivers.

5. Riparian habitat management was identified as a

major priority of the participants in the meeting. Riparian areas include relatively dry cottonwood

groves (where cottonwood rejuvination is a problem)

as well as swampy areas.

6. The need for handicapped access to streamside fishing

areas was stressed.

7. The meeting participants did not express any support for the straightening of meanders in Tomichi Creek

as an enhancement intended to decrease the existing

population of suckers and increase stream velocities.

8. When asked why stream flow stabilization and flow

enhancement was not suggested for streams which experience seasonal flow deficiencies the following responses were offered by workshop participants:

-Reservoirs which could stabilize streamflows

may cause other negative impacts to the downstream fishery such as reduced temperatures, reduced food supplies, or altered stream sediments.

(55)

-Attenuation of the annual spring flood may not be beneficial for every kind of fishery.

-There are many ways to enhance the headwaters

stream fisheries at less cost and without the

impacts that would result from construction of

a reservoir.

-Reservoirs are needed for many purposes including flood control, and municipal, industrial, and

agricultural water supply; and should be evaluated on a multiple-use basis. The stabilization of

streamflows is not a sufficient justification by

itself to warrent the construction of a reservoir.

-The biggest per capita recreational expenditures in the local community are made by those who fish large free-flowing rivers for premium or trophy fish.

-Improvements to a river channel and its irrigation

diversions may be a more cost effective means of

resolving the rancher's water supply problems.

Participants expressed the desire to keep the following

systems free-flowing: The East and Slate Rivers, Cement

Creek, Tomichi Creek, and Cochetopa Creek. Lower Cochetopa Creek is a riparian, wetland area which

supports wildfowl and should be protected.

While Ohio Creek is in poor condition as a fishery

and would appear to face many major costs, difficulties, and obstacles before enhancement of the fishery could

become a reality, it possibly could benefit from

(56)

^Mjin»son^4vor ftnojec^V

Ubldl-hoJoi^'O^ -t^e

shpl^aJno^yt/e^)f^a.*^cc,fYt■&^r>\-CK, objceVi ve

6) define twd^ iden-hfj poHi^iVl^ ficheJ^y iVKprovefnen+S -HicoH

£:i3un

(r>,j*^U, v^J/lV^ -Vk«_ Upper <j3u_np"\ior> £iv«v •s.v^sWrk.

^a") inon-sVru.i^HLr«U opporhx^i -Hes^ ^ inciwi*'

&Vri(LcAuv5fli-L o^por+vi-nihes.

^ittc-LuuM-idenfify

nnixna^cmerif

Ixvrvd sais'i Vr ffyl

needs, VJ/iYi HiJu restor^jd-iffyt/erihrt^fioe^frier^^ oppor-h>kr»iViej,,

(S) prioni<-i-te eioha/nceAT^ennV oppor-h/->oiHev lc«a.s« u^cvi ;

project-domjp?Jnlo*UiM coy''>vic?jvvia-4ae^>v>«»a+~ o_ae«^<-^^ir 45oads

e>/c, > 1

^c.") .0o.^c

<3u"ncd l<3/io<J <=<a£.e*^eKi •Vy^c 0|u'\s.(b«r>n

(fd ) project- c<rm.ipcuh i(?i lit* v^y VOlxA^nl'ee^

iVis/clve-mei-vi"

id^en't^fy^j prbjedn,

ilpiry) nof dU^.WW*t^tm Ptoo'

iK^proa-cJ^

^1) £=icxj-z^^

>rex_)\-C4*j of-

*publis.V)eci" cd<AJbw

c/ser ^rowp

tsx^ev-ieusy c^jixjei-Visvii^axre

feLd cdixizx, cxDilc.cdna>-)

SjUJ^mfiLT « itxJfltfn

C<^f©r

info £^eo-<daAzx. bose.

o, <ac:H(m detrns

6^ -eyieeuJhe. dcxiz^ ^(sJrt'ieiriifi^ pnocefeS> ^ mee^l--Hax-. dt^dvx^

<iriVc^{a. (jvi

»rutrH" 4>As. ^ pnctiuce 2.5/so/2.«S> Usbot^«'W'«v»W5^

develop iniVi^ lisV <:>f txU pofer»Vic*d>. pr^je<c^Vi

/3"> develop p>v^iov^ i-h ZL^xJhor)

+o eo^JLi>-<db"e. e-cuM

O^ "Hlc projeci^

C-^) e«dec.V- +T3p 10 —20 projechb,

6*5) develop exrp<a/njl«.d in-^brmoAum ^heei^ ft r

of

A \ I Siv-e^yyi s. -^<5% e?0'/o

(57)

Ksy

if«=rr)s» ciee>iredl fro-m

ctpJd^ejnnKy

effb»"V

^

(/j'sh

.

-Ai^^ier^Ce^ vA//in eoxi^ "u-k^iV*

-w^x;t»f-^hed)

a,^=sp>f-cxx.ch.

h. \Aey)W^ litniVin^

■fixd.Vors.

proJULcMoy^ in bo-Hn

sbre^utTo s» aur-^^

ideviHPy

c^y>^dUV^<^>'^^ doTrb^ibiA-hia^ -(o -Hoose

limifi \n co-cJlD

/'aniVs''-

^

6) (\^hM^axK coJUL^eA

C^ n\xyi - cAu •$'<s.<d

ide-nlify <sppo\r

-(bv" ■fisV>e»^y imp>roVe+n«*^V~;&

improveme/vrV objecVlV^-^

ivoor«ae.«cl

'«- c=>^ -fiilo

ii^c^e©.s^ol

^5-f (^sh

O-")

jvi oP

Tle^i

C2) tmprov/evî-eîTV ^mpon-cîhs.

vA^Vw.

^V?) v^io-S'Vru.cftAJ'"^-^

(^) -^W ma/nij^wA/aJhtfyis

^5) a<^u^vnp'hoyi5»

<^s€-u-mes. a/n

-PisVl cajphxy^ (<i4sn-6ixm^Hve <v»vd HOi\-oovisw.*vvpVivO

^rojtc^ io l^'«,

om^ ea7Kiomi o^^Uy

cAe*y<A^jpd-bl-€'

'

6=^) as.svxm-^i* CjTTvipijJhbihW L«y

4ckwi

goers'.

^ ^ cwod 6«>vi^»ba^<3 vcx^ue-^

(4) ifTVprovemeyi^ opporWrithes lish iiocictSe'^*'

^fock- vmnipwJ ixhc>i$,

htxbiizii" rncx/iipui^JohffTis

G:") food c^Wcmjo rO%t»itpi'-U?Jh«>is

Gd^ ►vi^Tvit, of comj>ehy^ -species

(58)

' ^ -SrrPA^V^ «»»WJr-n«;<r'C> ^ —*SLps»Y:? siZL I jvOuu^LAjt-y^f^ •su.»-*o^ ^-Tirrp^cT:?