WSPP286 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000902 recommendations has begun. The draft EA stated "Reclamation is in the process of beginning to . prepare an environmental impact statement for re~operations of the Aspinall Unit to meet endangered fish flow recommendations and this statement was correct. Reclamation envisions permanently addressing flows to operate the fish passage, fish screen and ensure adequate flows for endangered fishes below Redlands through this process~ The wording "incorporated into the Aspinall re-operations" was changes to "addressed in the Aspinall re-operations EIS process". Comment 8.-WATER QUALITY (page 12): Although there may not be any domestic water providers downstream that might be affected by water quality impacts of the proposed action, it " is our understanding that there are diverters that rely upon Redlands canal return flows that might . be impacted. Response8.-This issue was address above with the City of Grand Junction's comments. 'Comment 9.-ProposedAction (page 13): "Discharge of concrete..." This is confusing, it . might be clearer to the reader if discharge was replaced wIth "Emplacement of concrete..." It is our hope and understanding that concrete will not be discharged into the river. Response 9.-The term "discharge" has specific regulatory meaning under the Clean Water Act. It refers to the placement of any material below the ordinary high water line or within jurisdictional wetlands. The placement of concrete and other materials to construct the fish , return outlet structure is considered a discharge and therefore requires authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers. The sentence was reworded to avoid confusion. Comment lO.-Proposed Action (page 14): More detail should be provided on the anticipated maintenance activities associated with the fish return pipe corridor. This area is approximately 1 acre in size and efforts should be enumerated with respect to weed control, especially to ensure that colonization of Tamarisk does not occur in this area of riparian vegetation. Response lO.-Additional discussion was added to this section. Tamarisk and other noxious weeds occur on RWPC properties and Reclamation's proposed action will not include tamarisk and noxious weed control on R WPC property outside the construction easement or fish return pipeline easement. For disturbances associated with construction, Reclamation,would ensure that native vegetation is restored prior to abandoning the construction easement. This would include tamarisk removal, planting and establishment of cottonwood and willow seedlings, and establishment of native grasses to out compete tamarisk and noxious plant species. Long-term tamarisk and noxious weed control on the fish return pipeline easement would be incorporated into the O&M contract between Reclamation and R WPC. Comment 11.- THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES (page 17): The reference to the Biological Assessment being attached as Appendix A appears to erroneous. It was not attached to the draft EA received. 27