8089 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

effect of this program and others of the Recovery Program, are designed to recover endangered fish species while allowing water development and use to continue. Following the public meetings, there was more input on protection of historical water uses. There have been several meetings to discuss possible ways to legally provide for boaters to take out of the Gunnison River upstream from the Redlands Diversion Dam or to portage around it. The issues that have been raised are addressed in the planning of the fish passageway and interim contract negotiations and in the final EA. Review of Draft Environmental Assessment In February 1995, a draft EA was distributed to agencies, organizations, and interested parties as listed in Appendix D. In March, two public meetings were held, one in Gunnison and one in Grand Junction, to answer questions and to discuss the draft EA. Approximately 25 comment letters were received. In addition verbal comments were received at the public meetings. In general, the comments supported the program to help recover the endangered fish but expressed concerns that existing and future water resource use and recreation be protected. Several comments disagreed with the program entirely and suggested it not be implemented. Major areas of concern included: • The EA and interim water agreement should more clearly protect existing water uses along the Gunnison River. • Effects on hydropower and other economic effects should be presented in more detail. • Effectiveness of the fish passageway and its actual effect on the recovery of the endangered fish should be better explained. • Effect on the purposes of the Aspinall Unit and effect on other planned water projects needs to be clarified. Organizational Comments The Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District wrote in support of the interim water agreement as revised during final negotiations and as presented in this final EA. The Colorado River Water Conservation District wrote of general support of the draft EA provided that it and the interim agreement reflect Reclamation's commitment to operate the Aspinall Unit to avoid significant negative impacts to water users. The Colorado Water Conservation Board supported the interim water agreement based on negotiated language that protected a variety of water uses. They also requested that the final EA provide more information on impacts to Blue Mesa Reservoir, on economic factors, on water compacts, on the "148,000 acre-feet set aside" for 43