Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />..... <br />..... <br />o <br />--, As seen under the land use discussions, additional vegetation would <br />C; be removed with construction of the alternatives. The additional <br />impacts are primarily to dry grazing lands (desert shrubs such as <br />saltbush) and to croplands. This additional impact should not <br />significantly affect wildlife because these habitats are not <br />limiting to wildlife in the Grand valley. Fencing of canal lands <br />under all alternatives is expected to provide slightly better <br />wildlife habitat as a corridor of relatively undisturbed land would <br />be created. <br /> <br />The alternatives being considered would not change any effects of <br />the unit on endangered species as the alternatives would not affect <br />river flows, diversions, or other factors. Consultation with the <br />Fish and wildlife Service on endangered species impacts has been <br />completed previously (Fish and wildlife Service, 1983 and 1990). <br /> <br />Concrete lining alternatives would increase hazards to wildlife due <br />to the difficulty animals have in escaping from concrete-lined <br />canals. This increased impact would be reduced by providing deer <br />escapes and placing ridges in the canal for traction. Membrane <br />lining alternatives would support more canal bank vegetation of <br />value to wildlife than concrete lining alternatives. <br /> <br />Safety <br /> <br />The ranking of alternatives in order of least hazardous would be <br />pipelines, completely fenced membrane lining (Modified Alternative <br />Ml and M4), No-Action, completely fenced gabion construction, <br />mostly fenced membrane lining (Alternative M3), mostly fenced <br />gabion, completely fenced membrane covered with shotcrete <br />(Alternative SC), completely fenced concrete/membrane lining <br />(Alternative C2), and then completely fenced concrete (Alternative <br />Cl) . <br /> <br />The safety along the canal improvements decreases as additional <br />access is granted to potential users of government land. Ideally <br />neither humans nor animals would ever enter the canal. However, it <br />is impossible to keep people and animals from entering the canal if <br />they want to. That being the case, membrane lining is safer than <br />concrete or gabion because it is easier for humans and animals to <br />escape from a membrane-lined canal than from a gabion- or concrete- <br />lined canal. The proposed membrane-lined canal would be safer than <br />the existing canal because of the gentler sloping canal banks, <br />restriction of unauthorized vehicle use, and addition of fencing. <br /> <br />Recreation and Esthetics <br /> <br />Although the primary purpose of the Government Highline Canal is to <br />carry irrigation water to adjacent farmlands, that farmland has <br />been replaced by suburban developments in areas near palisade, <br />Clifton, and Grand Junction. Both the proximity of the canal to <br />greater numbers of people and increased public interest in using <br /> <br />30 <br />