8211 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Review Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment In July, 1997 the draft EA was distributed to agencies, organizations, and interested parties listed in Appendix C. Approximately 25 comment letters were received. In addition there were several "letters to the editor" of the Grand Junction newspaper that were considered as comment letters. Meetings were held with affected water users, landowners, Mesa County, and representatives of boating groups during the draft EA review period. There were four general areas of comment: First of all, a large number of comment letters from the public centered around the opinion that the proposed project was a waste of taxpayers money; in other words the public benefits were far out-weighed by the public costs. The lack of use of the nearby Redlands fish ladder was also commented on frequently; concern was that the Redlands ladder was not receiving much endangered fish use, so why build another one. Other important areas of concern centered around concerns that water users and uses be protected; that GVIC not be held liable if endangered fish entered and were lost in their canal; and that operation and maintenance costs and responsibilities be clearly addressed. The following list of concerns/issues received in the draft EA review are presented with the most frequently cited comments presented first: *Waste of taxpayers' money *Lack of Redlands fish ladder use; thus GVIC passage may not work *Water rights (and supplies) should be protected *O&M responsibilities should be addressed more clearly; GVIC should not be responsible *Cost range ($250,000-$1,000,000) presented in draft EA is too large *Non-native fish management concerns * "Incidental take" (loss of endangered fish in canal) needs to be addressed more clearly *Recreational boating may be improved by the passage; boating needs to be considered at future passages *Water supply and hydrology discussion needs minor changes * Future fish screens need to be addressed * Other: is habitat available upstream; is there a monitoring program; are Orchard Mesa Check operations affected; is selenium an issue; fish should be helped and passage is step in right direction; and success of Recovery Program will help in future water development These comments are addressed below (responses are in italics). In addition changes have been made in the text of this final EA where appropriate. #1. A number of public comments related to the cost of efforts to recover the fish, including the cost of the GVIC passage, and was believed by many to be a waste of taxpayer money. There is a high cost associated with recovery efforts for many threatened and endangered species. Rehabilitation or restoration of degraded ecosystems from human activities is not easy and requires a significant economic cost to society. In the past century, 40 North American fish 24