Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c,.,,>:,,,---,,~ <br /> <br />~f~ <br /> <br />October 29, 1976 <br /> <br /> <br />Board 0"1 Land <;:ommlssloner" <br />Division 01 Admlflist,ra~lOn <br />DivIsion of Mines <br /> <br />-, SiATE O.r=: C9LORADO RICHARD P. LAMM. Governor <br /> <br />,DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br /> <br />HARRIS D.SHERMAN. Executive Director <br />G,S'rald D. Sjaastad,. Deputy Director <br />.103-Columbine efdg.-. 1845 Sherman St. Denver,Colorado 8o.20~ <br /> <br />DIVISion b(Parks & Outdoor RecrealL(1'1 <br />DiviSion of Water Resource!! <br /> <br />DiviSion olWlldlil1l <br />. Geological Survey, <br />Oil and Gas C~nservallon CommlSSlOn <br /> <br />$oil Conservation Board <br />Water Conservation Board <br /> <br /> <br />David Crandall, Regional Director <br />Bureau of Reclamation . <br />Post Office. Box 11568 <br />Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 <br /> <br />RE: Fruitland Mesa Environmental Lmpact Statement <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Cr'anda 11 :. <br /> <br />4>~c f <br />Oc ~<. <br />'J':J/} t:.U <br />L;lo,. 00/ . /9'> <br />-"'>VJ]<; <~/()' <br />. 11r",1/.~"" <br />.90... <br /> <br />lam transmitting the comments of the State of Colorado on the Fruitland Mesa <br />Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). First, I wDu1d1ike to thank <br />you for providing additional time for the. state's reView. <br /> <br />, . <br />As the iead agency under Colorado's coordinated review process, this department, ' <br />has. received comments from many state agencies . From these comments we have. concl uded <br />that the Bureau of Reclamation has adequately analyzed and identified potential environ- <br />mental, impacts. Nevertheless, we wish to offer several suggestions for preparation of <br />the final EIS and formitigating potentially adverse impacts. . I am also attaching <br />comments from the Colorado Geological SurYey and the Department of Health that raise. <br />a number of specific points not addressed in this letter which should be carefully <br />cons i dered by the Bureau.. <br /> <br />Our main cOllcern over tht"s project relates to the mitigation of fish and 'wildlife <br />impacts . Although we concur wi thcerta in aspects of the mi ti gati on pl an proposed in <br />the DEIS (e.g. provision for a permanent pool at Gould Reservoir and adequate minimum <br />stream flows downstream of Goodwin Reservoir), there are other aspects of mitigation <br />which require modification. After extensive consultation with the Division of Wildlife <br />and the Colorado Water Conservation Board, our recommendations are divided into two <br />categori es: fi sheri es and deer wi nter range habitat. <br /> <br />FISHERIES: <br /> <br />1) The state, supports the Bureau's expenditure of $2.3 mi 11 i on already set forth <br />in the DEIS to maintain minimum flows in those streams affected by the project. <br /> <br />2) We urge expansion of the proposed permanent pool of 48 acres in Goodwin Reservoir <br />to approximately 120 acres so' as to provide a suitable lake fishery. It is our <br />understanding that s'uch an expansion would involve additional costs ,of about <br />