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