2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY (Continued) these zones. Using membrane lining for canals would allow deer or elk to easily escape while crossing these systems. Threatened and endangered species Under the no-action alternative, no indication exists that the sta- tus of endangered species in the area will change. Bald eagle habitat along the Colorado River will continue to diminish, and eventually the number of wintering bald eagles may decline. Fish species, the pere- grine falcon, and the whooping crane may increase in the future if State and Federal management programs are successful. With construction of alternatives A or B, all data indicate that the Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and the razorback sucker probably would not be affected. These species have a wide tolerance to salinity and would probably not benefit from salinity reduction. The water which might be gained during the irrigation season in average and wet water years could have a positive impact on endangered fish populations, espe- cially in July and August. The correspondingly reduced flows during the nonirrigation season would have no effect on these species. The endangered Uinta Basin hookless cactus would not be affected because its present and potential habitat would not be involved directly or indirectly in construction activities. The whooping crane, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, black-footed • ferret, and their existing or potential habitat would not be adversely affected by either alternative A or B. The wildlife program for each alternative, which consists of acquiring, protecting, and developing lands along the Colorado River, would help preserve the habitat for the bald eagle. Recreational uses of canals Under the no-action alternative, the canals in the Grand Valley would continue to increase as an attraction for recreational uses, unless alternative recreational facilities are developed which offer jogging or bicycling routes free of motorized traffic. Off-road vehicle use on either side of the canals would also probably increase in the future. The membrane lining of the Government Highline Canal under alterna- tives A and B would probably have little influence on the continued rec- reational use of the canal. No recreational plans for the canal or lat- erals are included under either of the alternatives; nevertheless, the canals and their operation and maintenance roads would remain a potential recreational resource. Recreation would continue to be discouraged along the canals because of potential hazards to users and vandalism to unit facilities. Esthetics of the canals Without development of either alternative A or B or under the no- action alternative, the Government Highline Canal would be expected to S-8