Laserfiche WebLink
<br />47 <br /> <br />1 public lands containing approximately 7,000 acres "be main- <br />2 tained with an emphasis on increased wildlife carrying capaci y." <br />3 Under this proposal, sheep allotments to the extent of 2,450 <br />animal units per month would be revoked, and in the words. of <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />the report, "could be lost." However, the report does state <br />5 <br />that "'I'he program would probably allow limited cattle grazing <br />6 <br />in these game management areas. The economic impact of the <br />7 <br />revocation of these sheep permits has not been oomputed in <br />8 <br /> <br />the report. <br />9 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />About 4,400 acres of public land would be converted <br /> <br />to farm irrigation under the Fruitland Mesa Project. This is <br />11 <br />an insignificant acreage of pUblic land when compared to the <br />12 <br />2,973,000 acres of National Forest land in three adjacent <br />13 <br /> <br />ational forests and the additional 1,201,000 in other federal <br /> <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Delta, Gunnison and Montrose Counties. Even <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />f it were significant, the proposed dedication of approximate y <br />4,000 acres of land in and adjacerit to the project area for <br />he primary purpose of improving deer habitat would seem to <br />ore than offset the dedication of 4,400 acres of public land <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />20 0 farm irrigation. While this Board has serious misgivings <br />21 out the necessity for the proposed mitigation measures, we <br />22 0 not object to them in the interest of getting this vitally <br />23 eeded project underway. <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />As a part of the review process of the Draft Environ- <br /> <br />25 ental Impact Statement, it is our understanding that the <br />