WSP00658 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IV. V. VI. VII. V III. . . SUb~~~~ogect to John Martin Reservoir and the value of the grazing lease agreement with Mr. Dean might be considered in the evaluation of comparable fish and wildlife values since they are values derived from the subject project. This approach appears logical even though the actions did not receive advance Federal Aid approval. Siqnificance of the \~ork: Project lands do contribute to the pro- duction and pUblic utilization of small game species and, to a very limited degree, antelope. Native vegetation provides wildlife food and cover. The grazing of cattle as part of the lease agreement does not appear to be detremental to the production of wildlife, The pro- ject area has no fishery values on the site and is significant only to the extent that the transferred water rights do contribute to fishery values at John Martin Reservoir. Suoervision: Project supervision has taken place to the extent that the project activities addressed above have taken place. Supervision was inadequate in the past at the appropriate level responsible for providing documents to Federal Aid for action relative to the trans- fer of property rights, Current levels of supervision to rectify past inadequacies are commendable. Problems: The problems of the loss of fish and wildlife benefits are dlscussed above. Although compensated to a limited degree with the "utilization" of water rights in a downstream reservoir and an expan- sion of hunting privileges, via a land use change agreement, the pro- blem of correcting discrepancies remains to be resolved. Recommendations: The land exchange action approved by the Commission appears to be an equable solution to the current problem. An exchange of deeds with the Dean Land and Cattle Company has the posi- tive benefits of continued fish and wildlife management on lands already managed by the Division and familiar to a sigment of the fishing and hunting public. Also, the Division would retain per- petual fishing and hunting rights on the Seetchfield Lake property they are relinquiShing in fee title and a 10-year hunting lease on an additional 6,000 acre parcel of land. thus, this course of action is recommended. Conclusion: Fee title to the suject property should be relinquished because the project has lost fishesry benefits. The official action of the COIrmission to exchange the subject property for lands and privileges already under management by the Division appears to be an equitable solution to regain lost fish and wildife benefits at the Stechfield site. Thus, the division should be requested to establish comparable fish and wildlife values and submit formal docL.l11entation toward an exchange of land with the Dean Land and Cattle Company as approved by the Commission.