WSP02110 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rF~~""'O .~ ,.) -- .. -.) ,,) ., SUMMARY ,1 i ,< '<r now occurs under the no-action alternative. Along the Uncompahg~e River, bank stabilization efforts would be requi~ed to protect riparian areas. Less than one percent of the total known population of the endangered clay-loving wild buckwheat (Erigonum pelinophilum) would be eliminated during construction of the penstock, Special construction techniques in this area would be imposed to reduce impacts, and off-site conservation measures to protect other populations would be implemented, 'I' , ~ , '1 /; ] 7 , FISHERIES Without development, the Gunnison River would be expected to keep its status as a Gold Medal fishery maintained by natural reproduction, This fishery has been maintained under a large range of flows during the 1980's, and no significant, long-term habitat or water quality changes would be expected. ,1 " 1 'il! 1 ]' ;~ ., 1 " , Development alternatives would divert additional flows from the river, with the largest change occurring during the nonirrigation season. Studies on the fish populations and fish habitat during the 1980's indicate that the fishery would be maintained under development conditions. Additional fishing pressure would occur. Additional diversions through the Tunnel may increase the loss of fish from the Gunnison River to the South Canal. .J J "I .~ ';J 3 Under the no-action alternative, the fishery in the Uncompahgre River between Ridgway Dam and the M&D Canal would be expected to improve due to better flow patterns and water quality. With development, habitat conditions may improve between the South Canal and the Loutzenhizer Diversion (approximately 7 miles) and decline between the Loutzenhizer Diversion and Montrose (approximately 4 miles), Flow conditions and water quality should improve downstream from Montrose, but other habitat conditions may prevent development of a significant fishery, River flows downstream from Delta would not be affected; therefore; the endangered fishes that inhabit the lower Gunnison and Colorado RiVers would not be affected, 'J ) '1 { <~ , " 'f WILDLIFE Significant changes are not projected under the no-action alternative. Land use changes in the Uncompahgre yalley may gradually reduce wildlife habitat and numbers, Land management plans for lands along the Gunnison River, however, provide for long-term habitat preservation, ' Possible impacts to wildlife under development alternatives include loss of habitat in construction areas and the direct loss of 11 acres of wetland. These losses would be offset bya wetland replacement plan and 'J 1 .~ I ,~ S - 11, :~ .~ ~",~,- , ~,'