Laserfiche WebLink
• Bill McDonald <br /> 29 February 1984 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 15 ) The need for a fish ladder or other fish passage device <br /> must be investigated, and a determination made. <br /> 16 ) The Division of Wildlife bases many management decisions on <br /> accurate public use projections . The DPOR has estimated <br /> that 200, 000 visitors will use the reservoir annually; we <br /> would like to see how these figures were derived. No <br /> figures have been provided to indicate how much buildout <br /> will occur in the Yampa River basin. Building the reservoir <br /> may act as a trigger to promote further development ( in <br /> fact, the proponent expects, and is advocating this) . Routt <br /> County government has already designated areas around the <br /> proposed site for medium to high residential-commercial <br /> development. Hundreds of acres of land are owned by an <br /> affiliated party, Mountain Air Co. , which is interested in <br /> reviving the now-abandoned Stagecoach ski area. It is forsee- <br /> able that four or five times the 1, 000-1, 500 acres arou d <br /> the reservoir will be rapidly developed. Big game will <br /> potentially be driven out of the area. Other wildlife <br /> species may be severely affected. Winter range and other <br /> . valuable wildlife areas should be identified now and appro- <br /> priate land use planning implemented to preserve these <br /> areas . Big game migration corridors should be identified <br /> lippand protected. <br /> The west end of the reservoir should be designated as a <br /> waterfowl hunting area. Appropriate buffer areas of 250 <br /> yards should be established around the hunting areas so <br /> that public safety is not a concern. <br /> Numerous newspaper articles and other public reports have ques- <br /> tioned the necessity for Stagecoach Reservoir. The project pro- <br /> ponent apparently has a market for approximately 15, 000 acre-feet <br /> of water, although pertinent questions have been raised regarding <br /> the economic feasibility of this project. The project as it <br /> appears now will not be a self-sustaining State Park; it will <br /> require subsidization either from tax revenues from the private <br /> recreation district at the reservoir site, or from state funds . <br /> Economic questions should be addressed in detail by both State <br /> agencies considering involvement with the project, and in the EIS. <br /> If the project is constructed the preceding issues and others <br /> which may be identified later in the review process should be <br /> addressed. Additional comments regarding the former 404 applica- <br /> tion which have been previously submitted are attached, and are <br /> herein incorporated by reference . <br /> • ABH:EP <br /> cc: R. Holliday, DPOR <br /> P . Olson, CDOW-NW <br /> USFWS/ES, Denver <br /> EPA, Denver <br /> USFS, Routt National Forest <br />