WSP05756

• File Number: 8443.200
• Description: Narrows Unit - Mailing Lists Correspondence
• State: CO
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 3/6/1984
• Title: Proposed Conceptual Mitigation-Management Plan And Compensation Analysis
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

"I.LPll
",,. 10. LM-750
565.

~47'J
United States Department of the Interior

Bl"RL-\L' OF Rf.CL-\\\.HIO\
REGJOS.H OFfILE. LOHR \IISSOl'RJ R!:(;IOS
BUILDL\G ~O. DE\UR fEDERAL CE\TER
P.O. BOX :!~2-n
DES\'ER. COI.ORADO B022!1

-
'.

- -, '"

~. ,.: ~. i....
..."l.."

-.-'

Memorandum

To: Assistant Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service,
730 Simms Street, Suite 292, MSHA Building, Golden,
Colorado 80401
ACi/~m
From: ~e9ional Director

Subject: Narrows Unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Fish and
Wildlife Mitigation Plan

We have reviewed the proposed intensive management plan submitted in your
memorandum of January 19, 1984. We agree with the general concept of
intensive management on the 21,035-acre mitigation area proposed by the
Bureau for both waterfowl and upland game. These features and management
should result in fully mitigating the HEP units lost through project
development. We do, however, have concerns with the design and cost of
some of the proposed developments. The following lists those concerns
as well as areas of agreement:

1. Waterfowl islands and dikes - We agree with this plan conceptually,
but our experience at another Bureau reservoir, i.e., Canyon Ferry,
Montana, has shown that fewer dikes, e.g., one to three with larger water
areas behind the dikes, are more efficient for waterfowl management. This
would reduce the number of head gates needed, as well as miles of delivery
ditches, etc. We believe the total cost estimate including contingencies
and overhead for the overall waterfowl development would be $5,780,Ooo.l/

2. We generally concur with your estimated water requirement for water-
fowl management of about 5,300 acre-feet.

3. We concur with your proposed terrestrial development with a total .cost
of about $2,450,000.ll

4. We do not agree with the total proposed development plan for the road
and trail system within the management area. We believe that some roads,
trails, signs, and fencing will be necessary to adequately manage the
wildlife area. The extent of such development will be dependent upon the

II This includes your estimate plus 20 percent contingencies and 25 per-
cent overhead costs.