Laserfiche WebLink
<br />FISH PASSAGE--Will the fish passageway increase.problems with non-native fish competing <br />with native fish; will the fish use the passageway; and how much water is needed to operate <br />the passageway? <br /> <br />The fish passageway will not increase problems between native and non-native fish. During <br />planning, it was recognized that the passageway could potentially increase the number of <br />non-native fish in the lower Gunnison River; to prevent this from happening, the passageway <br />will be designed and operated to allow only native fish to move upstream. Approximately <br />100 eft will be needed to operate the passageway. A passageway of this type has not been <br />used for the endangered fish in the Colorado River drainage, so success cannot be <br />guaranteed. The fish, panicularly the Colorado squawjish, are a strong migratory fish so <br />it is likely thry will use the passageway. Monitoring will provide the final answer. <br /> <br />NEPA COMPUANCE--Is an overall EIS needed for changes in the operation of the Aspinall <br />Unit; and shouldn't an EIS be required for the fish passageway and water agreement? <br /> <br />One of the purposes of the environmental assessment is to determine whether an <br />environmental impact statement is needed. 1t slwuld be noted that the waler agreement is <br />temporary and effects will be monitored. Prior to implementation of long-term flow changes, <br />additional NEPA compliance, perhaps involving an environmental impact statement, will be <br />needed. <br /> <br />WATER RlGHTS--What effect will the fish passageway and interim agreement have on existing <br />water rights; what is the effect of the proposal on Redlands Diversion Dam water rights and <br />water use; and does the proposal only intend to protect water for fish but not for water <br />users? <br /> <br />There will be no effect on waler rights which are protected under State law. The RedJands <br />Diversion Dam has a very senior right and in low flow conditions can call upon junior water <br />rights to shut down. As explained in the environmental assessment, many water users have <br />used water from flow regimes that followed construction of the Aspinall Unit. The proposal, <br />under the interim agreement, is designed to protect these existing waler uses dependent upon <br />waler availability. The agreement would provide that water shonages be shared by <br />endangered fish in drought periods. <br /> <br />ECONOMICS--Will the proposals affect hydropower production; what are the cumulative <br />economic effect of these and other Federal programs? <br /> <br />Hydropower should not be significantly affected as discussed in the environmental <br />assessment. 1nterim agreement provisions state that endangered fish waler cannot bypass <br />the powerplants of the Aspinall Unit. The economic effects of the present proposals have <br />been considered, and Alternatives A and B have been developed to try to protect economic <br />benefits related to historic operations of the Aspinall Unit. From a larger perspective, the <br /> <br />42 <br />