Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'j'1J (' ,,"ViM (' f'I wss ."l'()('/" 1.1' <br /> <br />,-~-'---_. l:.!hH -1-:.1':'0111:'1/\\'1'11111", ))4'11\1'(, 1..,'..r,l.lll.....UlJ:!:!;! <br />WChtf'ru H-..~i.IIl..l1 f HIII"I' I'h"III' PlJ;~' 7;-,H :!:!',h <br /> <br />.. - "-. --. t <br /> <br />'Octobur b, 1976 <br /> <br />D. J. Cran<1ull. Regiona I Director <br />Bureau of Reclamation <br />Upper Colora<1o Regional Office <br />P.O. Box 11508 ' <br />Salt Lake City, Utah 84147 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Crundall: <br /> <br />After careful review of the draft environmental impact statement for th~ proposed <br />Fruitland Mesa Project, The Wilderness SoCiety would like to .submit the following <br />Cownen t 5 : <br /> <br />A number of problems and questions have not been addressed by the Fruitland Mesa <br />Proj ect Draft Environmental Impact Statement. These problems revolve around .concep15 <br />of purposo and need alld the resulting impacts On publicly owned and managed wildlife <br />and wildlife habitat. <br /> <br />In particular, the draft EIS indicates that 11,820 acres of deer habitat will be con- <br />verted to irrigated agricultural lands, thus. eliminating deer use of these lands as <br />well as complete foreclosure of deer use on the Big Soap Park, site of the Milly K. <br />Goodwin Lake. As a result of. this critical winter habitat being converted to agricultural <br />lands, eliminating almcst all pala'(;able herJ>aceous cover, on the Fruitland Mesa, <br />severe deer population reducti.ons can be expected. Losses are expected tc exceed <br />400 - 80l) deer. This an!ounts to a 20 percent reduction in herd size as a. resul t of <br />one proj ect that 'eliminates, significant amounts of winter range.. in particular, the <br />Red Canyon Grizzly Gulch c.oncentration area. This do'es not in.clude the se::ondary <br />impacts which would result in probable deer avoidance of undisturbed deer habitat <br />as a res"lt of increased agricultural activity bordering viable deer habitat;' <br /> <br />The deer lost to this pr.oject will be greater than the harvested deer in 1974 (740). <br />This in<;licates a concern that is ignored by the draft EIS: What is the dollar value <br />lost as a result of this dramatic reduction. in deer population? What affects on herd <br />viability will this loss create? Certainly the dollar value lost (license fees, travel <br />and service expenditures and bene:f1tsto local area residents) becomes a cost to the <br />project for, at least, the life of. the project. <br /> <br />Further, valuable elk calving grounds on the Big Soap Park will be illundated, thus <br />disturbillg calvillg and aUtWlUl migrations on one of. the 'most significant herds of elk, <br />. both in herd size and number of hunttlrs utilizing the herd. . It is 'here that the draft <br />EIS is glaringly deficient in that the draft ErS. sidesteps the impacts relating to elk. <br />How will the elk herd be affected by the loss of calvillg groumls'! How will the herd be <br />affected by losses of winter and spring habitat on' the Big Soap Park? Are there adequate <br />. calvillg grounds near. the Big Soap Park area? Adequate, of course, means are there areas <br />meeting both the physical and physiological requirements elk demand during oalving? . <br /> <br />The draft ElS ignores mitigation efforts to protect the elk (as mentione<1 above) and <br />deer herds. The 6,500 acrtls of public land withdrawn .from the project for aiding the <br />deer herd dm'ing the winter months will also btl subject to moderate gra2ing by four <br /> <br />"/" It''''''/I'.~,~ i.~ t},t>/.rl',h'(l'ului/I 0/ thl' ",UTIlI.'~ . Thut"dlJ <br /> <br />-r <br />