Laserfiche WebLink
<br />species (27 species and 13 subspecies) have become extinct (Miller et al. 1989), The majority of <br />these extinctions were related to the alteration of habitat and the detrimental effects of <br />introduced fishes. <br /> <br />Between 1989 and 1997, the Recovery Program reported a total expenditure of over $54 million, <br />The cost for implementation of the Program is estimated between $60 and $112 million through <br />the year 2003. About two-thirds of the funding will be used for a variety of capital construction <br />projects including restoration of floodplain habitats, acquisition of water and water rights, <br />construction of fish passageways, and construction of facilities for growing fish for stocking. <br /> <br />The Recovery Program is certainly not without controversy or problems; however, it is <br />recognized by many water leaders as the best way to avoid conflicts between laws enacted by <br />Congress to preserve and protect endangered species and use of water to meet human needs and <br />to enhance the quality of peoples' lives, It isa cost of having reliable and safe water supplies in <br />the arid west. The States of Colorado, Wyoming. and Utah; Federal agencies, water users, <br />power users, and environmental groups have joined to carry out and fund recovery actions such <br />as the GVIC fish passage, They feel the alternative of endless litigation is not in the public <br />interest. <br /> <br />#2. At the time of publication of the draft EA, only one Colorado squawfish had used the <br />Redlands Fish Ladder on the Gunnison River; and this lack of use was cited as a reason not to <br />build another fish passage; Use of the Redlands Fish Ladder has increased substantially. This <br />year (1997) is thefirstfullyear of operation. As of August 18, 1997, 18 Colorado squawfish <br />have used the ladder and moved up into the Gunnison River. This level of use is considered very <br />encouraging that fish will indeed use these ladders/passages and upstream habitats will be <br />opened for the fish. In addition to the endangered fish, thousands of other native fish have used <br />the Redlands Ladder. <br /> <br />#3. Concerns were expressed on the effect on water rights and water uses, Appendix B contains <br />detailed information on streamflow and water rights and has been updated in response to several <br />comments. Overall the project is designed to not interfere with water uses or to increase costs <br />to water users. It is recognized that there will be operational costs for the proposal; and if fish <br />screens are included in the future, these could be substantial. These costs will be borne by the <br />Recovery Program, The passage project will not proceed without the approval of GVIC, the <br />water user organization most affected. <br /> <br />#4. Commentors requested that operation and maintenance costs (and responsibilities) be spelled <br />out more clearly and should not be the responsibility of GVIC. All operation and maintenance <br />costs will be funded by the Recovery Program or the Fish and Wildlife Service, This includes <br />costs of fish screens if they are needed in the future. Prior to construction, GVIC, Reclamation, <br />and the Fish and Wildlife Service will all sign operation agreements spelling this out. Without <br />this agreement, construction will not occur. <br /> <br />25 <br />