Laserfiche WebLink
<br />..L <br /> <br />COMMENTS OF THE WILDERNESS WORKSHOP OF THE <br />COLORADO OPEN SPACE COUNCIL <br />on the ~ <br /> <br />PROPOSED FRUITLAND MESA PROJECT DE IS <br /> <br />. BUREAU OF.RECLAMATION HEARING, OCT. 7, 1976, CRAWFORD, CO <br /> <br />Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS and provide input to the <br />Fruitland Mesa Project plans. I am Mary Ellen Cuthbertson, Director of the <br />Wilderness Workshop of the Colorado Open Space Council, a non-profit group <br />with great interest in t\te management of the public's lands, particularly <br />those still in a natural or undeveloped state. <br /> <br />I will "address myself to several adverse impacts of the proposed project which <br />do not seem to be adequately analyzed i.n the .DEIS. These center around wildlife, <br />fish, recreation and related economics. Some of. these impacts are stated in the <br />Draft but not analyzed in depth or quantified; some do not appear in the EIS. <br /> <br />, <br />'f <br /> <br />All agree that the deer herd in this a.rea will receive significant adverse impacts <br />if the project is built. The Draft lists a number of possible effects on the deer <br />but says. tha't "converting these into actual population change is not possible". <br />The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colo. Division .of Wildlife, however, do have <br />estimates of the actual herd losses which they feel will occur if the project is <br />. built. . At least 20% of the herd, about 1800 animals, .and possibly as much as 40% <br />are expected to b.e lost: . <br /> <br />This would represent a large annual economic loss to the state, for the life of the <br />project at least. These values (dollars spent for .sightings of wildlife, hunting <br />licenses, travel .and servic.e .expenditures in local area) should be shown in the <br />EIS. The EIS states that if the mitigation plans outlined in the Draft are in- <br />adequate, these significant losses will occur. <br /> <br />The DOI~ .and the FWS have stated that this size of loss would be unacceptable, <br />'and t.hat the mitigation plan proposed by the BuRee. is indeed also unacceptable. <br />They_ are preparing other mitigation plans now, but these are not brought .up in <br />the DEIS and could have major social and economic impact. The plans involve <br />acquisition of private lands to be managed as deer winter range; the estimates of <br />how much will be necessary range up to 10,000 acres. These costs, both social and <br />actual dollar, certainly will be major and. must be shown in the Final EIS and the <br />Definite Plan Report in order to calculate and compare actual costs and benefits <br />of this project.. <br /> <br />Even if. such a program would be socially acceptable to thE! landowners involved, <br />and hypothetically would somehow1)ot .affect the b.enetH'cost ratio of the pro- <br />. ject too severely, other problems with deer would occur. Effects of facilities <br />in migration ro~tes, confli~.t .with n~w crop;s .and stacke.d hay, and distribution <br />changes within the herd due to increased. access will all be short or long term <br />problems and should be quantified in the FIS as to their extent, severity., <br />and cumulative relationship with.. one another. <br /> <br />...--. -I <br />'J <br />