WSP07117

• File Number: 8276.130
• Description: Grand Valley Unit-Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 11/1/1990
• Title: Final Environmental Assessment: Price and Stubb Ditch Improvements - Grand Valley Unit
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: EIS

o
'.:::;J
N
o
c,
-:'::J

CHAPTER IV

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Comments on this assessment were received from two individuals,
Hutchins and Mr. Joseph Skinner, and six governmental agencies.
these letters appear at the end of this chapter.

Ms. Ruth
Copies of

Where appropriate, the final environmental assessment has been revised to
accommodate the comments. In addition, major concerns are addressed below.

There were several comments concerning fish and wildlife resources:

-The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) suggested the installation of a
guzzler (wildlife watering) north of Interstate-70 and this has been
included in the plan. Due to its proximity, wildlife would be able to
obtain water from the East End Government Highline Canal if the Stubb Ditch
is placed in pipe. Therefore, of the four guzzlers to be constructed, at
least two would be placed north of 1-70. The BLM will also be involved in
selecting the location of the guzzlers.

-Ms. Hutchins questioned why eliminating cross-drainage reservoirs would
require additional habitat replacement--in other words, why is mitigation
required for something that never existed. In the draft environmental
impact statement on the Grand Valley Unit, it was recognized that creation
of cross-drainage reservoirs would result in new wildlife habitat due to
the collection of moisture in the desert area. The Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) considered that this new wildlife habitat would partially
offset habitat losses due to canal and lateral lining elsewhere in the
Unit. If the cross-drainage reservoirs are eliminated, this offsetting of
habitat losses would not occur. Therefore, a different habitat replacement
feature would be necessary.

-The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) supported inclusion of recommendations by the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) including the recommendation that ways be sought to
secure a water source for the preservation and/or restoration of trees
disturbed or eliminated by the project. Reclamation reviewed designs,
feature locations, and construction techniques to reduce the direct impacts
of clearing cottonwood trees. This is discussed in more detail in the
final assessment. In addition, the habitat replacement plan, which calls
for acquisition of lands and habitat development on these lands, for the
Price and Stubb Ditches improvements assumed loss of these trees. This is
because the trees that are avoided would have reduced water sources;
seepage from ditches would be lost although seepage from immediately
adjacent fields would continue. There are no plans to water the trees from
the improved Price or Stubb Ditches.

-There were several requests for additional information on type of
wetlands impacted and more detail on wildlife populations. The discussion
in the final environmental assessment has been expanded; however, the
reader is directed to the final environmental impact statement and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act Report on the Unit (Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1984) for additional information. The final environmental impact
statement on the unit estimated that there were approximately 2,360 acres
of emergent type wetlands and 1,900 acres of shrub type wetlands in the
entire Grand Valley Unit. Important functions and values of these wetlands
include provision of wildlife habitat, water quality benefits, provision of
recreation, and aesthetics. Land use is intensive in the vicinity of the
Price and Stubb Ditches and wetland type vegetation is limited as discussed
in the assessment. The location of wetlands along these ditches is
described in the narrative. Additional information on wetlands and
wildlife populations has been added to the assessment.

37