WSP10580 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fish. Wildlife. and Vegetation o o CO N The FR/FES describes fish and wildlife and vegetation resources of the Unit area. Cultivated areas, including croplands and orchards, are generally well interspersed with native vegetative communities. Few large areas are dominated by a single cover type. Native communities primarily consist of greasewood and desert shrubs, and four wetland types. The wetlands are dominated by trees, shrubs, and either narrow-leafed or broad-leafed emergents. Concerns with controlling salinity by eliminating seepage focus on the loss of wildlife habitat. Seepage wetlands, "prism habitat" (the narrow band of vegetation along the 235 miles of canal and lateral banks) and the open water in the ditches are valuable to wildlife (Rector, et. al., 1979). The diversity of wildlife species is enhanced where habitat is next to croplands. The communities provide cover for wildlife using the fields, particularly in the winter and early spring. Prism habitat supports small animals such as deer mice, western harvest mice, garter snakes, and grasshoppers which are important food sources for raptors. Mature cottonwoods along the ditches provide roosts and shade in the summer heat. The 1984 Plan predicted lining both canals and laterals would result in the loss of 610 acres of wetlands. A reduction in quality to about 1,210 acres of other wetland habitat was also projected. Studies used species-specific habitat evaluation procedures to detennine habitat units. The conversion of wetlands to upland communities would increase habitat for species such as quail and rabbits, but decrease habitat for species associated with wetlands such as forbearers and waterfowl. A net loss of about 1,400 habitat units resulted. Associated, but unquantified, impacts were reduced quality of prism habitat, and lost habitat and aesthetics of mature cottonwood trees growing along the laterals. The FRIFES discusses and presents the recommendations of the FWS and the adopted "wildlife compensation plan" (Reclamation, 1984). The team considered a river management plan and agricultural management plan. They recommended the river management plan because land acquisition costs were almost half those predicted for the agricultural management plan. Adopted measures were for Reclamation to replace lost habitat values by acquiring and developing approximately 2,100 acres of land along the Uncompahgre or Gunnison Rivers. Reclamation agreed to minimize acquisition of irrigated land used primarily for grazing and agriculture to about 250 acres. The wildlife carrying capacity of areas would be increased through various management techniques. Measures incorporated into the plan included: - Convert shrub wetland types to cattail and forested wetlands; - Convert deciduous shrub wetlands to forested wetlands; - Develop food plots in existing agricultural lands; - Convert pasture to deciduous shrub; and - Construct open water ponds. Subsequent authorization of the 1984 Plan allowed Reclamation to reimburse non-Federal managers for annual operation and maintenance costs. 17