2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY (Continued) • change only slightly. The land use on the south side of the canal would probably continue to become more suburban and developed, although little change would be anticipated north of the canal. More of the farm ditches would probably be concrete lined, and vegetation supported by seepage would be reduced. The membrane lining of the canal under alternative A or B would probably result in only a short-term esthetic impact during construction. After the lining is completed, canal vegetation would partially return. The more gentle side slopes of the lined canal may seem more attractive than the existing canal; however, esthetic values of the wetlands along canals and laterals would be reduced. Trees in these areas would be lost, and the existing vegetation would be replaced naturally by more xeric species such as saltbush. Losses of cottonwood trees along lat- erals would be significant esthetically; the Fish and Wildlife Service (1984) estimates that 75 percent of the cottonwoods along laterals would be eliminated. On the north side of the canal, the detention dike and ditch system would add a new element to the landscape. The dike section where Inter- state Highway 70 crosses the canal to about 2 miles west of Grand Junc- tion is of special concern because of the privately developed land in this area. Additional revegetation compatible with these surroundings • would be included here. The construction material sites and their access roads would tempo- rarily affect an estimated 680 acres of desert shrublands. When the sites are closed, the topsoil in these areas, which initially would be stockpiled, would be respread to aid revegetation. The sites would be reshaped so they would conform to the appearance of adjacent, undisturbed areas, and then they would be reseeded. Lateral construction under both alternatives would temporarily af- fect approximately 1,200 acres of mainly privately owned land; however, there would be a net vegetation loss along laterals, and the visual quality of the area would be reduced. Cultural resources Under the no-action alternative, routine maintenance and repairs would continue on sites that are irrigation system features. Impacts to historic and prehistoric sites that are under the jurisdiction or con- trol of private interest and/or other government agencies are unknown. At the minimum, these impacts would consist of natural deterioration, normal wear and tear, and repair and maintenance. By developing alternative A or B, the sites located near canal and/ or lateral rights-of-way would be avoided and preserved in their present condition. 'The Government Highline Canal is the only site that would be directly affected by construction activities and is also eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Construction and other activities associated with the alternatives would not alter S-9