7187 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

structural way of taking care of excess water which would benefit wildlife much more than a concrete lined tailwater ditch. Off-site replacement, i.e., replacement outside of the Lower Gunnison Basin, is a possibility. We consider this a last resort approach to mitigation; however, it may be a feasible mitigation alternative if others aren't acceptable or can't be accomplished. Enhancement Thirty-six percent of the inventoried wetland area is located adjacent to the Gunnison and Uncompahgre rivers. As pre- viously indicated, it is doubtful that these will be adversely affected by salinity con- trol measure implementation. They were the highest in both wildlife habitat value and use. These wetlands, with enhancement, could furnish adequate habitat unit values to miti- gate probable wetland losses along canals and laterals and on farms. There are several advantages to enhanc- ing riverbottom wetlands to compensate for other wetland losses: • - It would protect floodplain and ripa- rian habitat from further development and encroachment; these are national and state goals. They are currently highly diversified and productive wildlife habitat. Their high habitat values indicate that fewer hectares would be needed to compensate for losses of less valuable canal and on-farm wetlands. They would not add to the salt load- ing problem. Their habitat potential could be realized rapidly; livestock grazing control and management alone would be highly beneficial and yield rela- tively rapid results. Acquisition or other means, such as conservation easements to obtain use for wildlife, could be accomplished on contiguous areas which would enhance management opportunities and potentials. They are centrally located in the area where project-caused wetland losses will be incurred, thus pre- cluding need for mitigation outside the project area. There are some problems associated with acquiring and enhancing riverbottom habitat. Among them are: - Removal of private land from the tax base is not popular in many Colorado counties where a high percentage of land is already in public ownership. (Use of conservation easements would placate this; taxes are paid on land under easement). - Landowner may be reluctant to sell or give a wildlife use easement via the conservation easement route. - Landowner may not want to sell or give an easement on just the river- bottom portion of his property; it may mean acquiring a whole farm or nothing and this could be costly. - Concentration of wildlife habitat in fewer areas will decrease wildlife habitat dispersal in the basin. RECOMMENDATION We realize that final mitigation deci- sions will come after an interagency habitat evaluation is made. However, in an attempt to assist the decision makers, we propose that mitigation be centered on enhancement and acquisition of perpetual wildlife use rights along the riverbottoms together with habitat replacement or enhancement as can be obtained on individual farms. The need for extensive mitigation can be greatly reduced if efforts are made to take advantage of apparent opportunities to minimize project- caused wetland losses by selecting for treat- ment those areas that contribute most to the salinity problem in the Colorado River. This latter suggestion is highly appropriate from both an economic and an environmental view- point. LITERATURE CITED Bureau of Reclamation and Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Colorado River water quality improvement program:Final environmental statement: Vol. I. USDI-USDA. p. I-28. Calhoun, J.B. (ed.) 1948. Annual report of the North American census of small mammals. Distributed by editor, Nat. Inst. Mental Health, Bethesda, Md. Cline, A.J., C. Spears, F. Mahaffey, E. Kubin, R. Franklin and C. Pachek. 1967. Soil survey:Delta-Montrose area, Colorado. USDA-SCS and Colo. Agric. Expt. Sta. 73 pp. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1976 (April draft). Interim classification of wetlands and aquatic habitats of the United States. USDI-FWS. 73 pp. 316