Laserfiche WebLink
<br /><::> <br />r- <br />.-t <br />o <br />(,-) <br />::) <br /> <br />CHAPTER II <br /> <br />DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />delete the detention ditches and possibly the detention ponds. Studies <br />have not been completed on the cross-drainagE-control benefits of the <br />detention ponds; consequently, the final recommendation may be to retain <br />these facilities. This document will evaluate the environmental impact of <br />deleting both the cross-drainage ditches and detention ponds since this is <br />the greatest departure from the FEIS recommended plan. The detention <br />ponds, in addition to providing protection to the canal systems, would have <br />provided additional wildlife habitat. This would occur because the <br />moisture trapped by the ponds would support a greater quantity and <br />diversity of vegetation than now occurs. The Fish and Wildlife Service <br />(1984) had recommended that the ponds be designed to provide habitat. <br /> <br />Fish and Wildlife Measures <br /> <br />The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has prepared recommendations for the <br />proposed work, and these are presented in attachment A. <br /> <br />Price and Stubb Ditch Iffiorovements.--Reclamation has an on-going program of <br />acquiring and developing habitat to offset the impacts of the Unit. <br />Additional lands required to replace habitat loss resulting from <br />improvement of the Price and Stubb Ditches would be added to the existing <br />commitments. Approximately 27 acres of additional acquisition are proposed <br />based on estimated habitat losses. This acreage would be added to the <br />2,090 acres presently planned along the Colorado River as part of the Grand <br />Valley Unit. The lands would be developed and managed to replace wetlands <br />and other habitat losses. <br /> <br />Construction specifications would be prepared to specifically protect <br />existing cottonwood trees along the ditch alignments as much as possible. <br /> <br />Four guzzlers (watering tanks) would be constructed to provide a source ot <br />water for wildlife to offset the loss of existing watering sites along the <br />Stubb Ditch and for the loss of detention ponds north of 1-70. <br /> <br />East End Government Hiahline Canal Cross-Drainaae Facilities.--These FEIS <br />facilities provided an element of habitat replacement as identified in the <br />FEIS. The two detention ponds would have been designed to retain water <br />long enough to promote additional vegetation for wildlife. If the ponds <br />are deleted, Reclamation would replace the habitat values they would have <br />created by providing additional habitat in accordance with recommendations <br />from the FWS. <br /> <br />Safety Features <br /> <br />The Price Ditch would be fenced with a suitable safety fence when the ditch <br />is near schools and school walkways or other areas where there would be a <br />concentration of children. Normally a safety fence consists of a 7-foot <br />chain link fence, however, esthetics may dictate a more desirable fence <br />design and yet maintain the desired level of safety. Siphon inlets would <br />be enclosed by 7-foot high chain link safety fences. The need and <br />placement of additional fencing along the ditches will be determined by the <br />districts and would depend upon the need to define existing rights-at-way, <br />safety and accessibility. Some areas of the ditches are not expected to be <br />fenced. It is anticipated that portions of the Stubb Ditch pipeline will <br />be fenced to control access and define rights-of-way. Nets, cables, and <br /> <br />7 <br />