My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00718
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00718
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:27:28 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:55:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.116.I
Description
Fruitland Mesa Project
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
10/7/1976
Title
Public Hearing - Draft Environmental Statement - Crawford-Colorado October 7-1976 - (Part 2 of 2)
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />55 <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />I of th~ year. It is very difficult to see a deer out on the <br /> <br />2 deer range during the dead of winter. They are all down on <br /> <br />, <br />3. the irrivated pastures. I have property near the end of the <br /> <br /> <br />4 irrigated land, and I have my share of them. I would take <br /> <br /> <br />5 exoeption as to the statement in the EIS of the damage that <br /> <br /> <br />6 would occur to the deer range. The deer do pass through this <br /> <br /> <br />7 range on their way down to our fields and on their way up to <br /> <br /> <br />8 the higher country. <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />The Draft Environmental Statement in the mitigation <br /> <br />10 plan on page E-6 mentions that cattle grazing would be allowe <br />lion the remainder of the BU4, approximately 11,000 acres. The <br />12 area would be managed primarily for deer. It neglects to <br />13 mention that there is at this time a sheep permit out there <br />14 consisting of approximately 1,200 ewes for approximately thre <br />15 months, not consecutive. It's a well accepted fact that a <br />16 sheep and a qeercan be replaced on a one to one basis as far <br />17. as food preference and food consumption goes. Therefore, I <br />18 feel that this option of the mitigation plan has beenneg.l.ect <br />19 and should be'explored. I'm assuming that when it says cattl <br />20 <br />grazing, that the sheep would be removed. <br /> <br /> <br />. 21 <br /> <br />The only other exception I would take to the entire <br />22 <br />report would be that the reclan~tion benefits allocated are <br /> <br />23 <br />probably too low. To prove my point, although it's a <br />24 <br />different situation, there are figures to support the situati <br />25 <br />at the Crawford Reservoir, that the reclamation benefits ther <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.