Laserfiche WebLink
<br />diverted into stream banks and causing erosion. This would not be the case in an unconfined <br />stream. Enormous flows, however, can test in-stream structures and long term maintenance <br />should be assigned to project proponents (see also Wildlife, Aquatic). <br /> <br />Overall there is really no mitigation offered as part of this project to offset the conversion of this <br />riparian area's "natural features" to that of high human use that can arguably counter general <br />BLM policy. BLM land involved in this project is rather small, (approximately 500 and 650 feet <br />respectively for the west and east river banks) but it results in a true conversion from that of a <br />natural setting to an urban setting. The Proposed Action states the following: <br /> <br />Natural Vegetation Preservation Plan: "During the period of proposed improvements, all <br />vegetation will be avoided and preserved whenever possible. Any removed vegetation <br />will be replaced on a 1:1 ratio with native vegetation and grasses." <br /> <br />It is difficult, however, to replace lost riparian on site by adding riparian on site, because those <br />locations with wetland environments currently contain riparian plants. To create an environment <br />to replace riparian vegetation is difficult in the arid well drained soils upslope and flood flows <br />limit replacement down slope. Therefore, that is the rationale why most mitigation for <br />disturbance is done at an off-site location. It is typical to mitigate wetlands lost under Clean <br />Water Act Section 404 "dredge and fill" regulations as required by law, in this instance however <br />large amounts of "fill" are not an issue. However there is policy by the BLM to maintain <br />functions of riparian areas. It is recommended as part of the Cooperative Management <br />Agreement that will be developed, that some form of mitigation should still be required. If the <br />decision is not to mitigate "off-site" due to the acreage amount of riparian actually converted, <br />then "on-site" mitigation should attempt to offset both human disturbance and the vegetation <br />removal. A mitigation plan to compensate change to the river corridors character is <br />recommended. On-site work such as additional planted trees (may need watering), fenced <br />corridors to limit access to only developed corridors, and other "backyard wildlife/habitat" <br />measures could be incorporated. The Proposed Action states: <br /> <br />Wildlife Habitats: "The Town of Buena Vista will assume responsibility to coordinate <br />and consult with the Division of Wildlife (DOW) regarding fish and other biologicall <br />wildlife issues". <br /> <br />It is recommended that a more rigorous action plan be developed as part of the Cooperative <br />Management Agreement to outline exactly what will be done to address the issue of habitat <br />function loss. Doing so would assure that this responsibility is adequately addressed. Habitat <br />function will largely be altered by the Proposed Action and an action plan could be developed <br />into the Cooperative Management Agreement by a qualified Wildlife Consultant, in concert with <br />the DOW, placing the burden ofthe work onto the proponents. <br /> <br />Although not part of this Environmental Assessment, this project refers to the following: <br />Future Considerations: <br /> <br />· Foot Bridge -located within the South Main River Park boundaries on private <br />property. <br />