Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />-)-' <br /> <br />SUMMARY (Continued) <br /> <br /> <br />N <br />~ th~se zones. Using membrane lining for canals would allow deer or elk <br />~ toieasily escape while crossing these systems. <br />::..J'! <br /> <br />Threatened and endangered species <br /> <br />Under the no-action alternative, no indication exists that the sta- <br />tuE! of endangered species in the area will change. Bald eagle h.abHat <br />aldng the Colorado River will continue to diminish, and eventually the <br />nu~ber of wintering bald eagles may decline. Fish species, the pere- <br />gr:lJne falcon, and the whooping crane may increase in the. future if St,ate <br />an& Federal manage~ent programs are successful. <br />I <br /> <br />With construction of alternatives A or B, all data indicate that <br />the' Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and the razorback sucker probably, <br />wou~d not be affected. These, species have a wide tolerance to salinity <br />and I would probably not benefit from salinity reduction. The. water' wh'ich <br />migllt be gained during the irrigation season in average and wet water <br />yeats could have a positive impact on endangered fish populations, espe- <br />c'ially in July and August. The correspondingly reduced flows dur'ing the <br />non~rrigation season would have no effect on these species. <br /> <br />The endangered Uinta Basin hookless cactus would not be affected <br />bec4use its present 'and potential habitat would not be involved directly <br />or ~ndirectly in construction activities. <br /> <br />The whooping crane, peregrine. falcon, bald eagle,' .black-footed <br />ferJet, and their existing or pote'ntial habitat would not be adversely <br />affe'cted by either alternative A or B. The wildlife, 'program for each <br />'altalrnative, which consists of acquiring, protecting, and' developing <br />limdJ;J along the Colorado River, would help preserve the habitat for the <br />baldj eagle. <br /> <br />Recreational uses of canals <br /> <br />;Under the no-action alte'rnative, the canals in the Grand Valley: <br />woul~ continue to increase as an attraction for recreational uses, unless <br />altefnative recreational facilities are developed which offer' jogging or <br />bicY4ling routes free of motor.ized traffic. Off-road vehicle use On <br />eith~r Side of the canals would also probably increase in the future. <br /> <br />'i <br /> <br />jThe membrane lining of the Government Highline Canal under alterna- <br />tive~ A and B would probably have little influence on the continuedrec.- <br />reat:llonal use of the canal. ~o recreational plans for the canal orlat- <br />eral~ are included under either of the alternatives; nevertheless, the <br />canal~ and their operation and maintenance roads would remain a potential <br />recraational resource. Recre.ation would continue to be discouraged along <br />the qanals because of potential hazards to users and vandalism to unit <br />facil~ties. ' <br /> <br />~i <br /> <br />Esthetics of the canals <br /> <br />Without development of either alternative A or B or under the no- <br />actio~ alternative, the Government Highline Canal would be expected to <br /> <br /> <br />8-8 <br /> <br />> 1., <br />