Board Meeting 03/15/1984

• Board Meeting Date: 3/15/1984
• Description: Minutes, Agenda, Memorandums March 15, 1984
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

•
Bill McDonald .
29 February 1984
Page 2
and an accompanying Record of Decision, have to date been issued
for this proposal . Consequently, while the following enumeration
of concerns is being provided, its provision is not inclusive--
other concerns may be identified later in the review process--nor
does the provision of such a list in any way abrogate the right
and responsibility of the Division of Wildlife to participate
conscientiously in the NEPA process and to advocate for the most
appropriate alternative .
I
If, after the completion of the review process, Stagecoach
Reservoir is selected as a viable project, the following concerns
must be thoroughly and adequately addressed:
) The property owned by Colorado Ute Electric Association on
the north side of the reservoir has been identified by the
Division of Wildlife as important winter range . The propdn-
ent has voluntarily proposed placing this area in a conserva-
tion easement to be held in perpetuity, and to be managed
by formal agreement for wildlife purposes. CDOW concurs
III with this recommendation, provided CDOW will be exclusively
responsible for any management or land use decisions regard-
ing this area.
2 )0
Recreational camping use will be limited such that a camp-
ground will be located as shown on the accompanying map
along the east-west ridge line going through the area
marked on the map as a proposed public park and will extend
no further east than the half section line .
The CDOW will participate in the site plan review and wild-
life concerns will be accommodated in the site plan.
3 ) The recreational area on the north side of the reservoir
juxtaposition to and including the winter range will be
closed to all human use from approximately 1 November
through a spring date as yet to be determined, annually, to
prevent -disturbance to wintering big game animals.
4 ) A minimum pool should be provided. 15 , 000 AF has been sug-
gested by the project proponent. Average and instantaneous
temporal fluctuations in the reservoir water surface eleva-
tion should be identified and an operating schedule should
be devised which provides maximum benefits for fish and
wildlife and recreational uses ; if fish and wildlife and
recreational benefits are used to justify part of the constr-
• uction costs of the reservoir. Obviously, the reservoir
will have limited aesthetic values and recreational use if
it is surrounded by extensive mudflats for most of the
year. The maximum allowable drawdown should be identified.