Laserfiche WebLink
UNITED STATES SOIL BLDG 3RD FLOOR, DHOC <br />' DEPARTMENT OF . CONSERVATION 2490 ~T 26TH AVENUE <br />AGRICULTURE SERVICE DENVER. COLORADO 80211 <br />November 30, 1988 <br />Bill Agnew <br />Environmental Engineer <br />Trapper Mining Inc. <br />P.0. Box ]87 <br />Craig, CO 81626 <br />Dear Bill: <br />I've reviewed your letter of I1/28/BB and discussed the issues <br />you raised with Leonard Jurgens, State Range Conservationist and <br />Ed Neilson, Biologist located in our Grand Junction area office. <br />From the standpoint of only livestock water, additional ponds are <br />of no great benefit solely for the purpose of livestock water. <br />The main benefit here would be a reduction in shoreline trampling <br />from grazing animals. <br />From the wildlife standpoint, it would be detrimental to remove <br />any of the ponds. Small bodies of water that are concentrated in <br />areas as shown on the map are much more beneficial to wildlife <br />than a single larger body of water. Waterfowl and shorebirds are <br />the greatest benefactor from both the increased diversity of the <br />habitat and less territorial disputes between nesting pairs of <br />waterfowl and shorebirds. Another advantage is that predator <br />depredation is lower when wildlife such as big game, small <br />mammals, shorebirds, waterfowl, etc. are not concentrated around <br />a single watering facility. <br />Another reason for leaving these structures is that downstream <br />sedimentation should be reduced as well as the peak flows. This <br />in turn should improve water quality, more ground water <br />infiltration and improved downstream fisheries habitat. <br />Since the structures are in place, I would not recommend that <br />they be removed. <br />Sincerely, , <br />7 <br />DONALD W. GILLASPIE <br />State Resource Conserv tionist <br />cc: Ed Neilson, Biologist, Grand Junction AO <br />~ 1 ~.1! :NN ~ Ii.W <br />