8089 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

endangered fish, and on the Gold Medal fishery of the Gunnison River. They also pointed out that there should be a distinction drawn between providing indirect benefits and maintaining post- Aspinall Unit river conditions. The Gunnison County Stockgrowers Association expressed general support for the program provided existing water uses could be protected. The National Park Service suggested specific language changes, which have been made in the final EA, concerning the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument, and expressed concern/need for clarification on the effect of the interim agreement on reservoir water levels at Blue Mesa. State Senator Linda Powers wrote that existing water uses, important for the economy and culture of western Colorado, should be protected. San Miguel Greens, a conservation biology organization, and the Grand Valley Audubon Society expressed support for the proposals to help recover the endangered fish. The Environmental Defense Fund supported the proposals and reflected that an EIS was not necessary for the actions covered. They did question whether the interim agreement's intent to protect water users confers a benefit that would otherwise create a repayment obligation; and recommended this be studied for planning of the long-term contract. Wilderness Aware urged the inclusion of a safe boating passage as part of the project. The city of Grand Junction requested some clarification on the description of their water supply facilities at the Redlands Diversion Dam and stressed the need that the program should be designed/assessed so that the city would not be in a position of "taking" (harming) the endangered fish that could be directed into the vicinity of their facilities. The High Country Citizens' Alliance endorsed the proposals on the condition that the interim agreement and final EA provide protection to other Gunnison Basin water uses; and they requested that it be acknowledged that power generation is an incidental purpose of the Aspinall Unit. Gunnison Basin Power had similar comments and added more recognition of historic agreements to protect water uses is needed. The Colorado Department of Health concluded that the project would comply with the Clean Water Act and applicable sections of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The Colorado Department of Agriculture stressed the importance of protecting existing water uses from an agricultural standpoint. The Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer concluded that the project would not adversely affect cultural resources. The Fish and Wildlife Service wrote that the program would be beneficial to the endangered fish and would not affect other threatened and endangered species. Also, it is not anticipated that the proposed actions would result in any harm (incidental take) to the endangered fishes. The Colorado River Energy Distributors Association asked several questions to help clarify the functioning and need of the fish passageway and requested that the impact to power users be assessed. Also, they felt the initial project could precipitate other actions that need to be evaluated. The Department of Energy--Western Area Power Administration-- suggested that they, and other participants in the Recovery Program, be added as signatories to the interim 44