WSP01501

• File Number: 8221.112.I
• Description: Central Arizona Project
• State: AZ
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 7/15/1982
• Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement: Tucson Aqueduct Phase A - A Feature of Central Arizona Project
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: EIS

;~
ICI
00
,C'~

>~

The loss of wildlife habitat would displace all wildlife
dependent upon that habitat, leading to the ultimate loss of that wildlife.
Mitigation would consist of revegetation of all disturbed areas not required
for operation and maintenance as well as the establishment of watering sites
and oases to provide water and cover. The net loss of habitat after
mitigation for Route 2 (Agency Proposed Action) is 507 acres, for Route 1, 459
acres; and for Route 3, 352 acres.

Ie
I
I

Severing wildlife movement patterns could block wildlife such
as mule deer and javelina from essential habitat, causing some reduction in
numbers. Mitigation would be provided in the form of wildlife crossings along
known movement paths. Route 1 would cause the greatest severance because of
its location between two mountain ranges and Route 3 would cause the least
impact because so much of it is buried pipeline.

Wildlife drownings would occur along the exposed portions of
open canal in all three alternatives. Portions of the canals would be fenced
to prevent this. Watering sites would be provided to discourage animals from
drinking out of the canals. Additional mitigation would consist of roughening
the upper five feet of the canal lining to facilitate animals escaping.
Routes 1 and 2 would cause the greatest impact because they pass through
excellent wildlife habitat; Route 3 would have the least impact because much
of its alinement consists of buried pipe.

Two species listed as "Threatened and Unique" in Arizona - the
Gila monster and the desert tortoise - could suffer drowning losses in the
canals. Barrier walls will be placed along open canals to prevent this. In
additi on, a search for and remova 1 of these speci es will be conducted pri or to
construction.

<~-:~;}

b. Visual Quality

Route 2 would have a severe impact on visual quality because it
would require rock cuts along the western and southern slopes of the Picacho
Mountains. These cuts would be visible to travelers on Interstate 10 and to
visitors at Picacho Peak State Park. It would also be visible from a Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Wil derness Study (WSA) Area, whi ch coul d affect the WSA I S
natural and scenic values. Route 3 would have less severe impacts because much
of it would be buried pipeline. However, burying the pipeline would leave a
scar visible for several years. Route 1 would have minor visual impacts
because of its isolated location east of the Picacho Mountains.

c. Cultural Resources

Some 30 to 50 historic and prehistoric archaeological sites may
be affected by each of the alternatives. Variations among the alternatives
could amount to 10 to 15 sites, which is a minor difference. An
avoidance/mitigation plan will be developed for the selected alternative in
consultation with.the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, Keeper of
the National Register of Historic Places, and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation.

iv