Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ mitigation plan to protect ~ildlife habitat associdt~d ~ith improvements to <br />r- canals and laterals that is yet to be developed by USBR for the Lo~er Gunnison <br />~ and Uintah Basin Units. Ho~ever, there are no present commitments for the <br />W off-farm mitigation plan to include mitigation measures for onfarm losses. <br /> <br />At the present time ~etland losses resulting from USDA activities in the Salinity <br />Control Program in Grand Valley Unit in Colorado, are being partially offset <br />by including wildlife conservation practices in the individual farm conservation <br />plans for the installation of saltnity control measures. The wildlife practices <br />have been available at a 90 percent cost-share rate on annual agreements, but <br />the practices are only included in the conservation plan on a voluntary basis. <br />In the Uintah Basin Unit USDA agencies are working with the state divisions of <br />wildlife and with the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service in the development of the <br />individual conservation plans. Such a system could be a viable wetland mitiga- <br />tion strategy for implementation of salinity control practices in any of the <br />plan alternatives in the Lo....er Gunnison Basin Unit. <br /> <br />Full mitigation by replacement of habitat (see Tables A 1-4) at a cost of <br />$2,000 per acre is outside the authority and juris-Hction of the Soil Conser- <br />vation Service. if implementation occurs as USDA nonproject work on individual <br />or contiguous farms. However, where sufficient field data were available a <br />worst-case analysis of full mitigation by replacement was shown, in accordance <br />with the guidance provid~d by the Council on Environmental Quality (Federal <br />Register Volume 46, No. 55, 18016-18038). <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />ii <br />