Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00 <br />~ <br />.-4 <br />o <br />c-> <br />,~) A related act, referred to as the Farmland protection policy Act of <br />1990 (Public Law 97-98), sets forth criteria to preserve prime and <br />unique farmlands in the planning of land use and programs. It <br />directs Federal agencies to (a) identify adverse effects of their <br />programs on the preservation of prime or unique farmlands, (b) <br />consider alternative actions that could lessen adverse effects, and <br />(c) ensure that their programs, to the extent practicable, are <br />compatible with state and units of local government and private <br />programs and policies to protect farmland. <br /> <br />Table 2 estimates permanent loss of between 3.1 and 5.1 acres of <br />orchards and vineyards under Modified Alternatives Ml and M3 in <br />Reach lA, and between 0.4 and 0.6 acres in Reach lB. Alternatives <br />M4, Cl, and C2 eliminate permanent losses. <br /> <br />Table 3 indicates temporary losses during construction of orchards <br />and vineyards would be greatest under Alternative M4 with up to 9.2 <br />acres in Reach lA and 0.8 acres in Reach lB. Efforts would be made <br />to minimize or eliminate these losses during case-by-case land <br />negotiations. <br /> <br />Temporary plus permanent impacts to all land uses from the membrane <br />lining alternatives are all comparable. Alternative Cl requires <br />less temporary ROW because of the narrower strip of land required. <br />As discussed in Chapter II, Reaches IA and lB designs for the <br />recommended plan have been modified to minimize land acquisition <br />needs, particularly in areas of permanent crops. <br /> <br />Veaetation and Wildlife <br /> <br />Vegetation within the project area can be characterized as a mosaic <br />of agricultural lands, scattered wetlands formed by irrigation <br />seepage, and shrubland communities. The development of irrigated <br />agriculture has created plant communities that differ from the salt <br />desert shrub associations that historically occurred. plant <br />communities, including cultivated crops, maintained by ditch water <br />support wildlife historically restricted to natural washes or the <br />river bottom, or in cases such as the ring-necked pheasant, species <br />exotic to the Grand Valley. Wildlife species that evolved with and <br />are dependent upon salt desert shrub vegetation, have been reduced <br />in the Grand valley over the years as habitats have been reduced. <br /> <br />The FEIS addressed impacts to wetlands and other wildlife habitats <br />and presented plans to replace the habitat. The replacement <br />program is ongoing with over 1,200 acres being developed as the <br />Horsethief Canyon State Wildlife Area under the Grand valley Unit. <br />These impacts were primarily related to eliminating the seepage <br />from the canals that supports wildlife habitat and wetlands. These <br />impacts would not change under the lining alternatives being <br />considered in this assessment because seepage from the canal <br />reaches would be reduced comparably under all alternatives. <br /> <br />29 <br />