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