WSP05795 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY (Continued) ..;;</~', :;;ti~~ Lining canals would eliminate the small amount of semiaquatic habitat available for beaver and muskrat; however, elimination of this species and their burrowing activitie8 would benefit irrigation by farmers and ranchers. The project would also eliminate about 500 acres of nesting cover for waterfowl species such a8 mallard, teal, and gadwall. The cover-type changes would not significantly affect most small mammals. Some trees used by raptors for perching and nesting would be eliminated; however, the burrowing owl would have a slight increase in desert shrub cover for nesting. Impact8 on amphibians and reptiles would be negli- gib le. Fi8heries The fisheries of the project area are not likely to change signifi- cantly under either the no-action alternative or the recommended plan. Without the project, streamflows and water quality are not expected to be significantly changed by future development. With the recommended plan, construction would occur in the canals, away from stream fish- eries, and during the nonirrigation season. In addition, postproject flows in the rivers would not be changed by operation of the rehabili- tated conveyance 8Y8tems. Threatened and endangered specie8 Reclamation studies indicate that future condition8 under the no- action alternative would have no effect on any threatened or endangered 8pecies. For the recommended plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that the Uinta Basin hookless cactus is the onlY8pecies in the project area requiring a biological a8sessment by the Bureau of Reclamation under the Endangered Species Act. The Bureau of Reclamation assessment concluded that because of the distance of the known popula- tion of the cactus from cana18 to be lined, the cactus would not be affected by canal lining activity. The Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with this conclusion. Water resources, use, and quality The no-action alternative aS8umes full developmertt and operation of the Bonneville and Upalco Unit8 of the Central Utah Project, which would increase annual c8nal diversions to the 17 8ubareas from the existing 350,700 acre-feet to 353,600 8cre-feet. Under the recommended plan, canal and lateral lining would reduce seepage 10s8e8 by about 16,800 acre-feet annually. After lining, this water would be diverted to pres- ently irrigated lands. Most of thi8 water would be available during the early part of the irrigation sea80n, when lands already have an adequate supply. Only 4,600 acre-feet could be applied at a time when the water would be effective in meeting present irrigation shortages. Total return flow from the 17 subareas to the Colorado River would be essentially the same a8 under preproject conditions 045,200 acre-feet annually). Of the total diversions for irrigation in the Uinta Ba8in, only about 1 percent is intercepted flow (return flow from upper canals flowing into and becoming part of the water supply in lower canals). Reduction in 5-11 0004.6