8211

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8211
• Author: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Title: Final Environmental Assessment
• USFW Year: 1997.
• USFW - Doc Type: Providing Fish Passage at the Grand Valley Irrigation Company diversion Dam on the Colorado River.
• Copyright Material: NO

#5. The cost range ($250,000-$1,000,000) presented in the draft EA is too large; the government
should have abetter idea on the exact costs. The estimated costs were presented in a wide range
for "bidding" purposes. An exact estimate has been developed and is within this range.
However, the exact estimate is not publicized so that construction bids are not influenced. This
is a common technique to try to get the best construction bid possible and to lower overall costs.
#6. Do non-native fish need to be controlled? Some commentors would prefer having non-native
sport fish in the river (for example, catfish or bass). Why recover the endangered Colorado River
fishes that are considered by some to be trash fish? In the introduction to this EA, the formation
of the Recovery Program was described as a cooperative effort among the States, Federal
agencies, water users, and environmental groups. This diverse group of interests has the goal of
allowing water development to proceed to meet the needs of society, while recovering the
endangered fish.
The endangered fish are native to the Colorado River and are found nowhere else. They evolved
in a dynamic river system and their health is a symptom of the overall health of the river. With
the introduction offish species such as channel catfish to the river, local residents favored the
palatability of introduced fishes over the native fishes. As Quartarone (1993) stated "The
endangered fish fell into disfavor and seemed to become a scapegoat for criticism. "
A survey of Colorado and Utah residents who live in the basin was conducted in 1994 by
Colorado State University (Vaske et al. 1995). Awareness of the endangered fishes was
expressed by 71 percent of the general public responding, 88 percent by environmental groups,
89 percent by anglers, and 95 percent by elected officials. Overall, 66 percent of the
respondents supported efforts to recover the fish; 13 percent were neutral; and 21 percent were
opposed.
Non-native fish control with associated stocking plans and restrictions are part of the Recovery
Program. There is no non-native control associated with the fish passage as explained in the
final EA; however other Recovery Programs elements are aimed at reducing non-native fish in
certain areas. This includes the channel catfish in the river and connected ponds and gravel
pits. It is recognized that this will cause a reduction in available sport fish recreation. Stocking
programs will offset this impact to a degree, but will not replace the total recreation losses.
#7. Water users expressed a concern that providing passage at their diversion dam would place
them in danger under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act that is related to the taking of
endangered species. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits the taking of listed
species without proper Federal and state permits. "Taking" is defined broadly to include
activities from harassment to capture. Incidental take refers to takings that result from, but are
not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by a Federal agency or
applicant. Actions that result in an incidental take of endangered species are addressed in a
biological opinion prepared by the Service. On this fish passage project, the primary concern is
the potential loss offish into the GVIC Canal. The Service can authorize an acceptable level of
26