Endangered Fish Passage at the 

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM)

Diversion Dam on the San Juan River

PNM Fish Passage

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation

Upper Colorado Region

Western Colorado Area Office

Grand Junction, Colorado

October 2001



Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Need for and Purpose of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Public Service Company of New Mexico Diversion Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES

No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Preferred Alternative (South Fish Passage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

North Fish Passage Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Overflow Channel Fish Passage Barrier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Comparison of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Environmental Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Colorado River Storage Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Water Resources 

Water Rights and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Fish and Wildlife Resources

Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Wildlife Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Indian Trust Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Social, Economic and Recreation Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Land Use and Vegetation Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Cumulative Affects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Summary and Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Selection of Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Plan Formulation and Public Scoping Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Consultation with other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table of Contents (Cont.)

APPENDIX A – Distribution List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

APPENDIX B -- Comments on the Draft EA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

FIGURES

Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frontispiece Map

Figure 1 - Public Service Company of New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Diversion Dam on the San Juan River

Figure 2 -San Juan Generating Station Facilities .....................................3

Figure 3 -South Fish Passage Alternative Conceptual Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 4 -North Fish Passage Alternative Conceptual Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

TABLES

Table 1. -Navajo Nation Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 2. -Threatened and Endangered Species List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 3. -Summary of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 1 - Public Service Company of New Mexico Diversion Dam

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Need for and Purpose of Action

This Final Environmental Assessment (EA) discusses providing endangered fish passage at the Public

Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) Diversion Dam on the San Juan River in San Juan County,

New Mexico. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared this EA in cooperation with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), Endangered Species Act, and related U.S. Department of the Interior policies and regulations. 

If, based on this analysis, Reclamation concludes the proposed action would have no significant impact

on the human environment, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement would not be required

before the action could be implemented.

A need has been identified by the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRRIP) to

restore endangered fish passage upstream past the PNM Diversion Dam. The purpose of establishing

fish passage would be to protect and recover native Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) and

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) populations in the San Juan Basin while water development

proceeds in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, including fulfillment of federal trust

responsibilities to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation and

the Navajo Nation. In addition, other native fish species would benefit from restored passage.

Public Service Company of New Mexico Diversion Dam

The PNM Diversion Dam (see Figure 1) was constructed in 1971. The 3.25-foot high diversion dam

(weir) is located on the San Juan River about 12 miles downstream of Farmington, New Mexico near the
Chapter 1 - Introduction

-2-

town of Fruitland at River Mile 166.6. Facilities at the diversion include a concrete weir, a series of

screened intake structures, an intake channel, a settling channel, and a pump house. 

Water flows over the dam into a stilling basin created by a concrete apron. The stilling basin is the

width of the river. The presence of the dam and the basin creates a barrier to fish moving upstream. As

flows increase, the difference in the upstream and downstream water levels is reduced. Although water

levels are reduced, water velocities increase and the weir provides an impediment to upstream fish

movement. Recovery studies conducted as part of the SJRRIP have shown that some fish are able to

move upstream past the weir but their specific method of movement is not known and the number of fish

discouraged from upstream movement by the presence of the weir is also unknown. One possible

method of upstream movement could occur during high river flows. When the flow in the San Juan

River is above 7,000 cfs, some of the flow goes around the dam making it possible for fish to move

around the dam.

A 4-foot by 6-foot sluiceway in the weir located on the north side of the river, is used to sluice the inlet

structure of sediment. Normal sluice gate operations have the sluice gate open between 8 and 12 inches. 

Trash racks and isolation gates are located at the point of diversion. A concrete settling channel about

490 feet long conveys river water to the pump house or returns it to the river (Figure 2). Diverted water

moves through traveling screens to three pumps, together they are capable of pumping a maximum of

17,000 gallons per minute (37 cfs) to a 110-acre storage reservoir. From the storage reservoir, the water

is pumped to San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). 

 

The facility provides an average of approximately 1 million gallons of water per hour (24,200 acre-feet

per year) to PNM for cooling operations for the SJGS (Tetra-Tech 2000).

San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program

Federal and State agencies, water users and Indian Tribes have been cooperating in the San Juan River

Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRRIP). Established in 1991, the SJRRIP is comprised of a

partnership between the Jicarilla Apache Nation, Navajo Nation, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute

Mountain Ute Tribe, States of Colorado and New Mexico, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Bureau of

Land Management, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and water development

interests.The goal of the SJRRIP is twofold:

1) To conserve populations of Colorado pikeminnow (formerly known as Colorado squawfish)

and razorback sucker in the basin, consistent with the recovery goals established under the

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and

2) To proceed with water development in the basin in compliance with federal and state laws,

interstate compacts, Supreme Court decrees, and federal trust responsibilities to the Southern Ute

Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation, and Navajo Nation.
-3-

Figure 2. - San Juan Generating Station Facilities
Chapter 1 - Introduction

-4-

Program elements include the following:

1) Protection of genetic integrity, management and augmentation of populations, 

2) Protection, management, and augmentation of habitat involving identifying important

reaches of the San Juan River for different life stages of the endangered fish,

3) Water quality protection and enhancement,

4) Interactions between native and non-native fish species involving determining the

distribution and abundance of non-native species,

5) Monitoring and data management to evaluate status and trends of endangered fish species

as well as other native and non-native species and to define the overall success of the

SJRRIP.

A seven-year research program was completed by the SJRRIP and flow recommendations were

approved by SJRRIP in 1999. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is restoring fish passage at the Hogback and Cudei Diversions each

of which are downstream of PNM on the San Juan River.

Scoping

Reclamation identified issues or concerns with participation from individuals, agencies, and

organizations who may be affected by the project and developed three alternatives. These alternatives

are discussed in Chapter 2: No Action, Preferred Alternative (South Fish Passage), and North Fish

Passage Alternative. The proposed action is to provide fish passage (allowing native fish to migrate

upstream) while maintaining selective passage (fish trap) to prevent non-native species movement. 

Each issue and concern described below is discussed in Chapter 3. More information on scoping

activities is included in Chapter 4.

Water Resources

Diversion Dam Operations and Water Rights - The diversion dam is used year-round to divert water

for operations of the SJGS. Operation of the fish passage facilities must not interfere with the operation

of the dam or affect the ability to divert water by PNM. PNM also needs to maintain access for

operations of the diversion facility.

Water Quality - Construction of the fish passage structure could temporarily affect water quality

downstream from the dam and the ability of domestic water providers to meet drinking water standards. 
-5-

Land and Facility Resources

Access - Before any modifications to the dam, intake channel, or the adjoining land could be made,

agreements would be needed from the Public Service Company of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation

to access the site and/or use their land and facilities.

Flooding - The land upstream from the PNM Diversion Dam experiences flooding during higher river

stages. The construction of the fish passage should not increase the magnitude or frequency of flooding.

Unique Geographical Features

Floodplain and Wetlands Protection - The San Juan River provides highly valued riparian habitat and

floodplain functions that need to be considered as fish passage is restored.

Fish and Wildlife Resources

Effects on Endangered San Juan River Fishes - Providing passage at the dam is needed to allow

endangered fish access to upstream habitat. Restoring passage complements other SJRRIP efforts such

as stocking endangered fish, meeting flow recommendations, controlling competition or predation by

non-native fish, and restoring habitat. 

Cultural Resources

Archaelogical Resource Protection -Historic and archaeological resource surveys identified no

resources eligible for listing. The Navajo Nation was included in the consultation.

Social, Economic, and Recreation Resources

Power Generation- The PNM Diversion Dam diverts water for the San Juan Generating Plant. 

Construction and operation of the fish passage and fish screen must not affect the ability to divert water

for the use at the plant.
-6-

(Page Left Blank Intentionally)
-7-

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes alternatives for providing fish passage at the PNM Diversion Dam. Alternatives

are as follows: 1) No Action, 2) Preferred Alternative (South Fish Passage), and 3) North Fish

Passage Alternative. In addition, an Overflow Channel Fish Barrier Option is being considered

with each alternative, which is discussed at the end of this chapter.

Tetra Tech ISG’s Breckenridge, Colorado office was contracted by Reclamation in 2000 to develop

design alternatives to allow for fish passage at the PNM Diversion Dam (Tetra Tech 2000). All fish

passage alternatives were designed based on the behavior of the endangered fish, their swimming

abilities, dam operation and maintenance needs, and the need to not interfere with diversions for the

SJGS.

No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, the SJRRIP would not take action to provide for endangered fish passage at the

PNM Diversion Dam. The dam would remain unaltered and continue to be a barrier to upstream

passage by endangered fish species. 

Preferred Alternative (South Fish Passage)

Under the preferred alternative, Reclamation acting on behalf of the SJRRIP, would construct a fish

passage around the PNM Diversion Dam on the south bank of the San Juan River using boulders to

create a riffle and pool sequence (Figure 3). The fish passage would be approximately 400 feet in

length. The fish passage entrance would be located downstream of the dam’s stilling basin and existing

wingwall about 20 to 30 feet below the white water. The fish passage exit would be located about 200

feet upstream of the dam and would contain a fish trap to prevent fish from returning to the river

(selective fish passage). Fish would be manually sorted and native fish would be returned to the river

via a return pipe, while non-native fish would be removed. The passage would consist of a channel with

placed boulders to create a series of boulder drops and stilling pools (Tetra-Tech 2000).

The boulder drops would create the baffle sections between each pool. A typical boulder baffle would

include several large boulders, about 4 feet in diameter placed in the center of the channel section with

about 18 inch spacing between each boulder. Smaller rock material would line the rest of the channel. 

During normal flow conditions, upstream of each boulder baffle would be a pool that would be 2 to 4

feet deep. Water surface levels from one pool to the next would drop about 0.25 feet. Maximum

velocities would be about 2.7 to 2.9 fps with about 1.35% slope (Tetra-Tech 2000). The current

conceptual design would maintain a minimum water depth of 1.5 feet in the fish passage. 

The preferred alternative also includes sorting facilities consisting of a trap, crane, storage shed, and

sorting table. Portable power would be used to operate the crane and fish sorting facilities. Fencing at

the site would also be required (Tetra-Tech 2000). PNM needs temporary access across the fish passage

and the PNM Diversion Dam. PNM crosses the dam when replacement transformers are shipped by rail

for the SJGS. The transformers are too large to use the existing bridge near Fruitland to cross the San

Juan River. Because of the infrequency of replacing the transformers, it is 
Chapter 2 — Alternatives

-8-

Figure 3. - South Fish Passage Alternative Conceptual Drawing
-9-

recommended that when crossing the fish passage becomes necessary, the fish passage structure be

temporarily closed and filled with material rather than constructing a deck bridge across the fish passage

of adequate size to support the transformers. 

Preliminary construction cost is estimated to be about $605,000.00. Maintenance costs are estimated to

be about $73,200.00 annually.

North Fish Passage Alternative

Under the North Fish Passage Alternative, Reclamation acting on behalf of the SJRRIP, would construct

a fish passage around the PNM Diversion Dam on the north bank of the San Juan River (Figure 4 ). The

fish passage would be a concrete and baffle channel type fish passage structure. The fish passage

entrance would be located downstream of the dam apron and existing wingwall, approximately 20 to 30

feet below the white water being created at the apron toe. Natural lighting would be used to light the

fish passage. Grating would be installed over the top of the structure to prevent trash and debris from

entering during flood events. Experimental grouted river rock may be installed on the passage floor to

provide diversity in flow velocities, including pockets of low velocities to serve as resting areas. 

Maximum average velocities in the steeper sections of the passage would reach 3 fps (Tetra-Tech,

2000). Two baffle types have been proposed; the chevron baffle and a vertical slot style baffle. 

The passage alignment would run from the fish entrance at the downstream end of the diversion around

the northwest wing wall and under the PNM intake channel. The passage would be set low enough to

cross under PNM’s intake channel and maintain an acceptable grade between the upstream and

downstream ends of the channel. Crossing through the diversion is not feasible because it would create

a significant obstruction inside the channel and hinder diversion operations and maintenance (TetraTech 2000). The North Fish Passage Alternative would also include selective fish passage features to

prevent non-natives from moving upstream of the diversion dam.

Preliminary construction costs are estimated to be about $1,228,000.00. Maintenance costs are

estimated to be about $24,400.00 annually.

Overflow Channel Fish Passage Barrier Option

A “Texas Crossing” (about 2-feet high, 12 feet-wide concrete apron) would be constructed across a lowlying area (Overflow Channel) of the river bank on the south side of the river just upstream of the PNM

diversion (See Figure 2). The bank reportedly overtops when flows in the main river channel reach

about 7,000 cfs and water passes around the diversion dam (Tetra-Tech 2000). The SJRRIP flow

recommendations at the Shiprock gage include flows of 10,000 cfs for 5 days and 8,000 cfs for 10 days

per year. These higher flow events could provide an opportunity for non-native fish to move upstream

of the diversion dam. The overflow fish barrier would prevent non-natives from using the overflow

channel to move upstream and is include in both the Preferred and North Passage Alternatives. 

Preliminary construction costs are estimated to be about $16,000.00.
Chapter 2 — Alternatives

-10-
-11-

Figure 4. - North Fish Passage Alternative Conceptual Drawing
Chapter 2 — Alternatives

-12-

Comparison of Alternatives

 With the No Action alternative, a fish passage structure would not be built at the PNM Diversion Dam. 

Fish passage would continue to be restricted for endangered fishes. Under the Preferred and North Fish

Passage Alternatives, fish passage structures would be constructed at the PNM Diversion Dam. The

Preferred Alternative is located on the south bank of the San Juan River and would be located on land

leased to the Public Service Company of New Mexico by the Navajo Nation. The North Fish Passage

Alternative would be constructed on the north bank of the San Juan River which is owned by the Public

Service Company of New Mexico. 

Environmental Commitments

The proposed action includes measures needed to:

! ensure ease of fish movement and selectively reduce upstream passage of non-native fish,

! maintain PNM’s ability to divert 24,200 acre-feet per year of water under contract with the

United States and the Broken Hill Properties for use at the San Juan Generating Plant,

! protect water quality in the San Juan River,

! ensure that an increase in magnitude or frequency of upstream flooding would not occur as a

result of the construction or operation of the fish passage,

! maintain PNM and Navajo Nation access to their properties and facilities, and

! limit disturbance to riparian areas and protect mature cottonwood trees.

The degree to which proposed measures would alleviate concerns for potentially affected resources

and interests are discussed within the applicable sections of the next chapter.

To comply with requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act, the federal agencies of the SJRRIP (Reclamation, BIA, and Service), consulted with the Service

on the Proposed Action. Formal consultation was initiated and an incidental take statement was

issued for the construction and operation of the fish passage.

Reclamation will request permits under the Clean Water Act before beginning work in the river. 

401 Certification from the State of New Mexico and Environmental Protection Agency (Navajo

Nation) will also be requested. If dewatering is required, the contractor will be required to obtain a

construction dewatering permit from the State of New Mexico. Permit conditions will be

environmental commitments for either fish passage action.
-13-

Construction and operation and maintenance easements and/or rights-of-ways would be required

from the Navajo Nation and Public Service Company of New Mexico to construct the fish passage. 

Permit conditions would also be included as environmental commitments.
-14-

CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

General

This chapter discusses resources that may be affected by actions taken to provide fish passage at the

Public Service Company of New Mexico’s Diversion Dam. During preparation of this Final EA,

information on issues and concerns were received from affected water users, resource agencies,

private interests, recreational interest groups and citizens, and other parties (see Chapter 4,

Consultation and Coordination, for further details). 

For each resource, the potentially affected area and/or interests are identified, existing conditions are

described, and impacts expected under the No Action, Preferred Alternative (South Fish Passage)

and North Fish Passage Alternative are discussed.

The project is located in San Juan County, New Mexico along the San Juan River approximately

1 mile west of the town of Fruitland, New Mexico. San Juan County has a population of

approximately 110,000 (State of New Mexico 2000) and Farmington, the largest city in the area, was

founded in the 1870's. Fruitland is a small farming community of approximately 700 people. 

Colorado River Storage Project

Between 1958 and 1963, Reclamation constructed Navajo Dam on the San Juan River as part of the

Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). The CRSP provides for the comprehensive development

of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The project furnishes the long-term regulatory storage needed to

allow States in the upper basin to meet their flow obligation at Lees Ferry, Arizona, as defined in the

Colorado River Compact, and still utilize their apportioned water. Water stored by the project

provides a portion for direct use in the upper basin. Sediment and flooding are better controlled; and

recreation development and fish and wildlife conservation for some species have benefitted. The

project produces a significant amount of hydroelectric power to meet the needs of the upper basin

and adjacent areas.

The CRSP includes four storage units: Glen Canyon on the Colorado River in Arizona near the Utah

border; Flaming Gorge on the Green River in Utah near the Wyoming border; Navajo on the San

Juan River in New Mexico and Colorado; and the Wayne N. Aspinall Storage Unit on the Gunnison

River in west-central Colorado. Authorized with, but not part of, are a number of participating

projects which share in the power revenues of the larger project to help pay for irrigation

construction costs.

Navajo Reservoir extends 35 miles up the San Juan River, 13 miles up the Pine River, and 4 miles

up the Piedra River in southern Colorado. When filled, the surface area of the reservoir occupies

15,610 acres, with a total capacity of 1,708,600 acre-feet and an active capacity of 1,036,100

acre-feet (USDI 1981). An environmental impact statement is being prepared to evaluate the
-15-

environmental, social and economic impacts of modifying Navajo Dam operations to meet the

recommendations for the San Juan River downstream of Farmington through the reaches of

designated critical habitat for two fish species listed as endangered under the Endangered Species

Act, or reasonable alternative to the flow recommendations. 

Water Resources

Water Rights and Use

The PNM Diversion Dam has the ability to annually divert approximately 24,200 acre-feet of water

for use at the SJGS. The SJGS obtains water from two existing contracts. A total 16,200 acre-feet is

diverted under a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation and 8,000 acre-feet can be diverted under

a contract with Utah International Inc. (now Broken Hill Properties Ltd (BHP)). The BHP

agreement is effective as long as SJGS is operational. 

The water contract with Reclamation expires on December 31, 2005 and PNM has proposed to enter

into a subcontract with the Jicarilla Apache Nation for 16,200 acre-feet of Jicarilla Contract Rights

from Navajo Reservoir on terms mutually agreed to by both parties for a term beginning January 1,

2006 and ending December 31, 2022. This water would replace the water currently under contract

with the Bureau of Reclamation. A separate environmental assessment is being prepared by

Reclamation for the Jicarilla subcontract.

The Navajo Nation diverts water for irrigation from Navajo reservoir as part of the Navajo Indian

Irrigation Project. Downstream of the PNM diversion, the Hogback and Cudei diversion structures

maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs divert additional irrigation water. The Bureau of Indian

Affairs prepared an environmental assessment on these structures (BIA 2000), and restored

endangered fish passage in 2001. 

The No Action alternative could affect the Jicarilla Apache Nation Water Sub-Contract because the

Biological Opinion issued for the contract is based on the SJRRIP restoring fish passage at the PNM

Diversion Dam (See Threatened and Endangered Species Section). The No Action alternative

would have no direct effect on other water rights and uses. However, taking no action could

indirectly result in failure to make sufficient progress in SJRRIP efforts to restore endangered fish

populations. This could trigger future compliance requirements under the Endangered Species Act,

which in turn could put water users at risk of assuming responsibility for such compliance. 

Providing fish passage at the PNM Diversion Dam would have no long term affect on the water

users’ ability to fully use their water rights. If flows in the San Juan River fall below 500 cfs, the

fish passage may become inoperable; however, PNM may be able to continue to divert water. The

Preferred Alternative and North Fish Passage Alternative would require about 100 cfs to operate the

fish passage facility. Flows to operate the fish passage would be non-consumptive.
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

-16-

Under the North Fish Passage Alternative alignment, the fish passage would cross underneath

PNM’s existing intake channel. This may require temporary closure of the intake facility, requiring

temporary pumping while the portion of the passage crossing under the intake channel is

constructed. Currently, PNM operates with approximately 20 days of storage in its water storage

ponds. Appropriate measures would be required if the fish passage construction affects PNM’s

ability to maintain adequate water storage for the SJGS. 

 

Additional operation and maintenance work would also be required for the fish passage; however,

the funding and responsibility for these activities would be provided by the SJRRIP. 

Water Quality

Since May 1983, the SJGS has operated as a National Pollutant Discharge Eliminated System

(NPDES) permitted zero liquid discharge facility. None of the fish passage alternatives would alter

SJGS’s operations.

 

Fish passage construction (Preferred and North Fish Passage Alternatives) could cause temporary

water quality changes downstream by increasing turbidity. There are no known downstream

diversions used for domestic water, therefore, no impacts are projected for drinking water supplies. 

Best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be implemented to reduce the

amount of sediment introduced into the river during construction. Water Quality Certifications and

“dredge and fill” permits under the Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 would be required from

the Army Corp of Engineers, the State of New Mexico, and the Environmental Protection Agency

(Navajo Nation) for the Preferred and North Fish Passage Alternatives. 

Fish and Wildlife Resources

Aquatic Resources

In the vicinity of the PNM Diversion Dam, the San Juan River historically provided warmwater

habitat to the aquatic community. Since Navajo Dam began operation in 1962, releases of water

from the bottom of the reservoir have changed the character of the river from Navajo Dam to

Farmington. The San Juan River below the Navajo Dam has been studied for the SJRRIP. The most

abundant species collected in the reach of river from Farmington to the PNM Diversion Dam include

flannel mouth sucker, bluehead sucker, common carp, speckled dace and channel catfish (Ryden and

Pfeifer 1994). Flathead minnow and red shiners are also known to occur in the vicinity of the PNM

Diversion Dam (NMGFD 1995). The diversion dam presents a potential obstruction to upstream

fish movement. The pump station intake is screened with traveling screens. It is assumed that these

screens will prevent entrainment of most life stages of fish.

Under the No Action Alternative, the diversion dam would continue to be a barrier to upstream fish

movement. The Preferred Alternative and North Fish Passage Alternatives would restore fish 
-17-

Table 1 - Navajo Nation Species of Concern

Species Status Habitat Type

Type of 

Project Impact Projected

Bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus) NESL Group 4 San Juan River Restored selective passage (Beneficial)

Flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis) None San Juan River Restored selective passage (Beneficial)

Mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) NESL Group 4 San Juan River Restored selective passage (Beneficial)

Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) NESL Group 2 San Juan River Restored selective passage (Beneficial)

Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) NESL Group 2

ESA Endangered

San Juan River Restored selective passage (Beneficial)

Speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) None San Juan River Restored selective passage (Beneficial)

Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) NESL Group 2

ESA Endangered

San Juan River Restored selective passage (Beneficial)

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) NESL Group 2

ESA Endangered

Cottonwood Riparian

Winter Migrant

Temporary displacement during

construction

Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus mesae-verdae) NESL Group 3

ESA Endangered

Upland None

Mancos saltbrush (Proatriplix pleiantha) None Upland None

Golden eagle (aquila chrysaetos) NESL Group 3 Upland None

Rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus) None Upland None

Ferruginous hawak (Buteo regalis) None Upland None

Mountain plover (Chararius montanus) NESL Group 4

ESA Candidate

None

Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax

traillii extimus)

NESL Group 2

ESA Endangered

Riparian/Wetland None

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) NESL Group 2 Upland None

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) NESL Group 2

ESA Endangered

Upland None

Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) NESL Group 2 Riparian/Wetland None

Mancos milk-vetch (Astragalus humillimus) NESL Group 2 Upland None

Monument Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus

monumentalis)

None Upland None

Cottam milk-vetch (Astragalus monumentalis

cottamii)

None Upland None

Splendid scorpion weed (Phacelia splendens) None Upland None
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

-18-

passage. Under all alternatives, it is assumed the traveling screen use would continue to prevent fish

entrainment for most life stages.

Wildlife Resources

Wildlife resources within the project area include those species commonly associated with riparian

habitats. The Navajo Nation Natural Heritage Program (2000) provided a list of species of concern

that may occur within the project area (Table 1). Wildlife may be temporarily displaced during

construction under the Preferred and North Passage Alternatives, however, long term effects are not

predicted.

Threatened and Endangered Species

A biological assessment for fish passage at PNM was prepared pursuant to Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Appendix A). The Service provided a list of

endangered, threatened, and candidate species that may be affected by the proposed action. Informal

consultation identified six (6) Federally endangered, three (3) threatened, and one (1) candidate

species that may occur within the project area (USFWS 2000). Table 2 shows the results of the

biological assessment.

Table 2. - Threatened and Endangered Species

Species Status Anticipated Effects

Bald eagle Threatened No affect

Razorback sucker Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect

(Beneficial)

Colorado pikeminnow 

with critical habitat

Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect

(Beneficial)

Southwester willow

Flycatcher

Endangered No affect

Mancos milkvetch Threatened No affect

Mesa Verde cactus Endangered No affect

Mexican spotted owl Threatened No affect

Mountain plover Candidate No affect

Black-footed ferret Endangered No affect

Knowlton’s cactus Endangered No affect
-19-

Reclamation, the Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs consulted with the Service on the affects

of restoring fish passage at the PNM Diversion Dam. The Service concurred with the biological

assessment’s determination of no affect determination for southwestern willow flycatcher, bald

eagle, Mancos milkvetch, and Mesa Verde Cactus. The biological assessment also determined that

the proposed action would have a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” on Colorado

pikeminnow and razorback sucker, but requested that an incidental take statement be issued for the

construction and operation of the fish passage facility. During the consultation, the Service

determined that formal consultation was necessary to address incidental take. The Service

concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the

Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify

designated critical habitat. An incidental take statement was issued that authorized incidental take in

the amount of not to exceed five (5) Colorado pikeminnow and five (razorback sucker) per year for

the life of the project (Consultation No. 2-22-00-F-412, USFWS 2001b). 

Under the No Action Alternative, the PNM Diversion Dam will continue to impede movement of

fish upstream. The Preferred and North Passage Alternatives would restore fish passage upstream of

the PNM Diversion Dam thus modifying critical habitat for the Colorado pikeminnow. Both

alternatives are expected to may affect, but not likely to adversely affect the razorback sucker,

Colorado pikeminnow, or designated critical habitat. Effects of the fish passage are projected to be

beneficial. 

None of the alternatives considered would change the amount of water diverted for use by PNM. 

The effects of PNM’s diversions were covered under a separate consultation with the Service for the

proposed Jicarilla Apache Nation Water Subcontract (USBR 2001b, USFWS 2001a). A

Memorandum of Understanding dated October 24, 1991 and resulting reasonable and prudent

alternative (RPA) document for the Animas-La Plata Project (ALP) addressed depletions in the San

Juan Basin (USFWS 1991). The consultation concluded that the San Juan River Recovery

Implementation Program and resulting seven-year study would offset annual depletion of 57,000

acre-feet per year (af/y) in excess of the annual baseline depletions identified in the SJRRIP. 

Furthermore, it stated that, based on results of hydrologic modeling conducted during development

of the RPA, it was Reclamation’s opinion that an additional 57,100 af/y depletion would not

“appreciably affect Reclamation’s ability to mimic the natural hydrograph under current levels of

depletions of the San Juan River.” Those baseline studies included the 16,200 af/y currently

consumed by SJGS. 

The biological opinion issued by the Service on February 15, 2001 (Consultation #2-22-00-I-469,

USFWS 2001a) for the Jicarilla Apache Nation Water Subcontract concurred with a “may affect, not

likely to adversely affect” determination for southwestern willow flycatcher, Colorado pikeminnow,

and razorback sucker. The concurrence was based on the commitment of the SJRRIP to fund the

construction and operation of a selective fish passage at the PNM Diversion Dam, Reclamation’s

commitment to operation of Navajo Dam in a manner that will mimic the natural hyrograph, and

Reclamation’s participation in the SJRRIP. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

-20-

The No Action Alternative could require Reclamation to reinitiate consultation with the Service for

the Jicarilla Water Sub-Contract. Under the Preferred and North Fish Passage Alternatives, the

baseline depletion of 16,200 af/y for SJGS would not be affected; and the agencies and entities

would continue to participate in the SJRRIP and operate Navajo Dam to benefit the endangered

fishes in the San Juan River. 

Historic and Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are physical or other expressions of human activity or occupation. Such resources

(hereby referred to as historic properties) include culturally significant landscapes, prehistoric and

historic archaeological sites and isolated artifacts or features, historic structures, human burials,

sacred sites and traditional cultural properties (TCPs). TCPs are sites or areas of important cultural

value to existing communities. Historic properties that are eligible for inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of

1966, as amended in 1992 (NHPA), and may also be protected under the Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), and Executive Order 13007, Protection of

Native American Sacred Sites, and other state, agency, or tribal laws and policies. 

The PNM Diversion Dam lies in the San Juan Basin, an area well known for its archaeology and

contemporary/historical Native American culture. Nearby cultural/archaeological attractions include

Mesa Verde National Park, Aztec Ruins National Monument, Salmon Ruins, and the Navajo and Ute

Mountain Ute Indian Reservations. 

Known cultural traditions in the vicinity of the PNM Diversion Dam include the Archaic (3,000 to

500 B.C.), the Anasazi (A.D. 1-1300), the Navajo/Ute Settlement Period (A.D. 1450-1870) and

Euroamerican settlement (A.D. 1870- Present). A number of contemporary Native American tribes

have ancestral and traditional ties to the San Juan Basin. 

It is not anticipated there will be significant impacts to cultural resources. The footprint of the

Preferred Alternative is in the floodplain of the San Juan River, where there is a negligible

likelihood that cultural resources will occur. Additionally, a file search at the Navajo Nation Historic

Preservation Office indicate the area has been previously surveyed, and no cultural resource sites

have been recorded. Both the north and south banks of the river have been previously disturbed

during the construction of the PNM Diversion Dam.

However, if during the planning and construction of the fish passage, additional project features are

identified, they will undergo cultural resources review in consultation with the New Mexico State

Historic Preservation Officer and/or Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, as

appropriate. 

No mitigation measures are proposed since the nature of the proposed action is such that there is no

potential to cause effects to historic properties. This recommended determination was submitted to

the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer and Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation

Officer for their concurrence. 
-21-

Indian Trust Assets

The United States has a trust responsibility to protect and maintain rights reserved by or granted to

American Indian Tribes or Indian individuals by treaty, statutes and executive orders. This trust

responsibility requires Federal agencies take actions reasonably necessary to protect Indian trust

assets (ITAs). Reclamation’s ITA policy states that Reclamation will carry out its activities in a

manner that protects ITAs and avoids adverse impacts when possible. When Reclamation cannot

avoid impacts, it will provide appropriate mitigation or compensation. 

Four Indian Tribes have adjudicated and unadjudicated water rights claims to water of the San Juan

River Basin. They are the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Navajo Nation, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe,

and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe.

Jicarilla Water Right

The Jicarilla Apache Nation’s water rights in the San Juan Basin were quantified through the 1992

Jicarilla Apache Water Rights Settlement Act (106 Stat. 2237). The Act provides rights to 6,500

acre-feet per year (af/y) from the San-Juan Chama Project, and to depletions of 25,500 af/y from

Navajo Reservoir or the Navajo River. The 1880 priority date of these “future use” federally

reserved water rights was subordinated in the 1955 priority date of the San Juan-Chama Project and

Navajo Unit. The Act also allows the Jicarilla’s to market or lease this water through third-party

contracts for use outside the Reservation. The Jicarilla’s water rights based on historic and existing

uses were also quantified in the Act, with a total annual diversion of 5,563 af/y, or a depletion of

2,195 af/y; and a net evaporation from existing stock ponds and reservoirs of 2,187 af/y. These

historic water rights retained a priority date of 1880. They are included in the depletion baseline

used by the Service in their Section 7 consultation process, along with the 6,500 af/y from the San

Juan-Chama Project. 

Because the 25,500 af/y depletion right is not included in the Service’s depletion baseline,

Reclamation has been working with the Jicarilla Apache Nation to utilize their 25,500 af/y depletion

right (Jicarilla Apache Water Subcontract and other small contracts). Depletions currently under

contract with Reclamation, when renewed, may be subcontracted to the Jicarilla Apache Nation. 

The Jicarilla Apache Water Subcontract was discussed in greater detail in the Threatened and

Endangered Species section of this document.

Navajo Water Rights

The Navajo Nation has substantial quantities of water resource ITAs in the San Juan River Basin,

based on historic use and reserved water rights. Because the reservation borders the San Juan River,

the Navajo Nation has Winters Doctrine rights (rights based on the 1908 Supreme Court Decision

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564) on this river. The San Juan River, with water storage in

Navajo Reservoir, is the only reliable and readily developable source in the northern portion of the

Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation’s water rights in the San Juan River Basin have not been

determined.
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

-22-

According to a biological assessment prepared for the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, use of water

on the Navajo Nation now includes a baseline depletion (i.e., accounted for in the development of

the hydrologic parameters necessary to satisfy ESA requirements) of 301,499 af/y for the following

projects: 280,600 af/y for the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP), 12,100 af/y for the Hogback

Project, 7,899 af/y for the Fruitland Irrigation Project, and 900 afy for the Cudei Irrigation Project

(Keller-Bliesner Engineering and Ecosystems Research Institute Inc. 1999).

Colorado Ute Tribes Water Rights

Under the Winters Doctrine, the Colorado Ute Tribes (Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Southern Ute

Indian Tribe) have a priority appropriation right of 1868, when the Colorado Ute Tribes entered into

a treaty with the United States. These water rights were quantified under the Colorado Ute Indian

Water Rights Settlement Agreement of 1988. In the Settlement Agreement, the Colorado Ute Tribes

accepted Animas LaPlata Project (ALP) reserved water rights to satisfy a portion of their Winters

Doctrine water rights claims. Provisions of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of

1988 can be found in Chapter 1 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the

Animas-La Plata Project (USBR 2000).

Affects on Tribal Water Rights

The No Action Alternative would limit the SJRRIP’s ability to meet recovery goals for the Colorado

pikeminnow and razorback sucker and could potentially limit the Tribes’ ability to develop their

water rights. 

Under the Preferred and North Fish Passage Alternatives, the construction and operation of a fish

passage facility at the PNM Diversion, which in conjunction with other recovery actions, would aid

in meeting the SJRRIP’s recovery goals for the Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. 

Recovery goals of the program include the downlisting and delisting of the Colorado pikeminnow

and razorback sucker, and could assist the Tribes’ in obtaining favorable Section 7 consultations to

develop additional water rights. 

Navajo Nation Lands

The property south of the San Juan River is Indian trust lands within the Navajo Reservation. A

11.276 acre tract adjacent to the river was leased in 1971 to the Public Service Company of New

Mexico for the purposes of “constructing, reconstructing, using, operating, maintaining, relocating

and removing a low weir, dike, and roadway and for the purpose of diverting during the course of

construction of a temporary coffer dam and diversion channel.” The lease period is for fifty years. 

The South Fish Passage Alternative would be constructed on the Navajo land currently leased to

PNM for the diversion dam. Permits and easements from the Navajo Nation for construction,

operations and maintenance of the fish passage facility would be required. Impacts to ITAs would

be minimal and specific mitigation requirements would be identified in the appropriate Navajo

permits.

The No Action alternative and North Passage Alternative would have no affect on the Navajo Nation

ITA. 
-23-

Environmental Justice

As part of the NEPA process, agencies are required to identify and address disproportionately high

and adverse human health or environmental affects on minority and low-income communities. 

Executive Order 12898 requires that “the responsibilities set forth shall apply equally to Native

American programs.” 

As discussed in the ITA section, four Indian Tribes have adjudicated and unadjudicated water rights

within the San Juan Basin. In addition, Navajo Nation communities are located in northwestern

New Mexico near the project area. 

The Navajo population is in need of additional water. The City of Gallup and the Navajo Nation in

concert with Reclamation have proposed a water supply system (Navajo-Gallup Pipeline) that would

provide about 37,000 af per year to those areas from a diversion source on the San Juan River. 

Currently, depletions of this quantity of water are not included in the baseline depletion for the

SJRRIP; however, the city of Gallup and the Navajo Nation are identifying alternative water project

supplies with the assistance of the states of New Mexico, Arizona and Reclamation. The fish

passage proposed action is not projected to disproportionately affect minority and/or low-income

communities. The fish passage will contribute to the success of the SJRRIP which is necessary for

future water development.

Social, Economic and Recreation Factors

The total population of San Juan County, New Mexico is estimated at 109,899 (USDOC 2000). 

Native Americans comprise 39 percent of the County’s population. On average, residents of San

Juan County earn less than other New Mexico residents. In 1989, per capita income for San Juan

County was $8,900 while for the State it was $11,246 (USDOC 1992).

The Public Service Company of New Mexico’s San Juan Generating Station is a major employer for

San Juan County with about 439 full-time employees. An additional 400 people are employed by

Broken Hills Properties, which operates the La Plata and San Juan mines which supply SJGS with

coal. 

The San Juan River provides recreational opportunities for fishing and rafting; however, most of

these recreational activities occur on the San Juan River from Navajo Dam to Farmington or on the

San Juan River below Shiprock. An 8 mile stretch of river below Navajo Reservoir is managed by

the State of New Mexico as “Quality Trout Waters” and provides some of the best trout fishing in

the southwest. The San Juan below Shiprock is managed by the Navajo Nation as a warm water

fishery, primarily with catfish and large mouth bass associated with the San Juan arm of Lake

Powell. The stretch of the San Juan River between Farmington and Shiprock receives little

recreational management because of private ownership, several diversion structures, and the lack of

public access.

The No Action, Preferred and North Fish Passage Alternatives are not projected to affect these

resources.
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

-24-

Land Use and Vegetation Resources

Lands along the San Juan River from Farmington to Shiprock are primarily used for agriculture. In

the project area, lands south of the San Juan River are part of the Navajo Reservation, while

properties north of the San Juan River are held in private ownership. At the PNM Diversion Dam,

PNM owns the north bank of the river and entered into a 50-year lease with the Navajo Nation on

the south river bank as discussed earlier in the Indian Trust Assets section. 

The northern property has been developed to house SJGS’s pump houses, which pump river water to

reservoirs at the SJGS. The property has been leveled and graveled. The property is primarily bare

of vegetation with the exception of a few scattered Russian olive trees and small clumps of willows

and tamarisk along the San Juan River.

The leased Navajo lands were disturbed during construction of the PNM weir in the 1970s. During

weir construction, a large cofferdam diverted the entire San Juan River through this leased property. 

 An earthen berm developed to divert the San Juan River around the weir construction site remains. 

Willow, tamarisk and Russian olive are the dominate species along the south river bank with several

scattered mature cottonwood trees. During periods of high flow (greater than 7,000 cfs), the river

floods an area south of the earthen berm. A small narrow band of willows and tamarisk has

developed in this area.

None of the alternatives are predicted to affect land use. Vegetation resources would be slightly

affected by the Preferred and North Bank Fish Passage Alternatives. The Preferred Alternative

would affect about 0.5 acres of willows and tamarisk, and may require the removal of one mature

cottonwood tree at the fish passage entrance. The Army Corp of Engineers would be consulted to

address wetland impacts and develop appropriate mitigation if necessary.

The North Bank Fish Passage Alternative would affect less vegetation than the Preferred

Alternative. Because the area was leveled and graveled, little vegetation has re-established on the

PNM property. Several Russian olive and tamarisk would be removed at the fish passage entrance

and exit. The are no wetlands that would be affected by the North Fish Passage Alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides for the evaluation of the cumulative

effects of a project in combination with other projects to be implemented in the same area and time

period. Some of the water resource activities in the San Juan Basin that would have cumulative

impacts associated with the PNM Fish Passage facility include the operation of Navajo Dam, the

Animas-La Plata Project, the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, the NavajoWater Development Plan,

San Juan Basin coalbed methane gas development, the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Pipeline, the

Jicarilla’s Navajo River Water Development Plan, the San Juan River Basin Recovery

Implementation Program including restoring fish passage at the Hogback and Cudei Diversions, and

other future Tribal water development.

Implementation of these projects could potentially use all available water in the San Juan River

Basin while recovery of the endangered fish species continues.
-25-

These projects are described in greater detail in the draft environmental assessment for the Jicarilla

Apache Water Sub-Contract (USBR 2001).

Summary and Mitigation Measures

In summary, the primary effect of the proposed action would be to allow native fish to migrate into

upstream habitat and assist in the recovery of Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. The

project is designed and would be operated to avoid impacts or harm to existing water users, uses,

and water rights. Both fish passage concepts (rock and concrete structures) have been used

successfully in the Upper Colorado River Recovery Program in Colorado.

Table 3 summarizes a comparison of impacts of the No Action, Preferred, and North Bank Fish

Passage Alternatives.

The following environmental and social/economic commitments are included in the project plan.

< Disturbed areas would be restored through the replacement of topsoil, preparation of land for

seeding, and seeding with grasses and shrub species. All reasonable measure will be

implemented to avoid the loss of mature trees. Any mature trees lost as a result of

construction activities would be replaced with a planting ratio of 10 seedlings to one mature

tree at a location approved by the Navajo Nation and PNM.

< There would be no affect on PNM water rights, water uses, or water supplies. If flows in the

San Juan River are insufficient to meet the requirements for fish passage operations and

PNM’s water entitlements, fish passage operations would discontinue until flows increased

to meet PNM’s entitlements.

< Private landowners and the Navajo Nation would be protected by mutually agreed

stipulations to minimize construction impacts and to rehabilitate any damages.

< All construction contracts would have “Stop Work” clauses that would require the contractor

to stop construction activities if threatened or endangered species were encountered. If this

would occur, construction would be halted until consultation with the Service was

completed.

< All construction contracts would have a “Stop Work” clause that would require the

contractor to stop construction activities if cultural resources were encountered. If this

would occur,

 construction would be halted until consultation with the State Historical Preservation Officer

was completed.

< There would be no adverse economic effects or increased cost to PNM.

< Construction, operation, and maintenance expenses would be borne by the SJRRIP and/or the

Service.

< Construction activities (coffer dams, etc.) in the San Juan River would be restricted to

periods of low river flows to protect water quality and aquatic resources. 

< All stipulations included in Clean Water Act permits for the project would be followed.
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

-26-

Table 3- Summary of Alternatives

Feature No Action Alternative Preferred Alternative

(South Bank, Boulder)

Alternative 2

(North Bank, Concrete)

Type of Passage None Open channel with boulder rifflepools

Concrete with optional roughed

bottom.

Baffles

 

Drop between baffles

None

na

Rock drops with

18 inch spacing

0.25 ft.

Chevron or vertical style

0.4 ft

Alignment

 Entrance

 

 Slope

 Av. Velocities

 Exit

 

 Return Pipe 

na

na

na

na

na

-30 ft from apron

1.35%

2.7 to 2.9 fps

-200 ft from upstream 

dam apron

50 ft from passage 

exit

-30 ft. from apron 

0.25% to 4%

1.5 to 3.3 fps

90 ft from dam

50 ft from passage

exit

Passage

 500 cfs: Depth

 500 cfs: Velocity

 4000cfs: Depth

 4000cfs: Velocity

 10000cfs: Depth

na

na

na

na

na

2.1 ft.

3.0 fps

Controlled at gates

Controlled at gates

Controlled at gates

5.2-3.6 ft.

1.5-2.2 fps

6.2 ft.

1.6 fps

7.7 ft.

Access na South Side of River- through

Navajo Nation 

North Side - via Hwy 550

Bridge decks na Only temporary crossing Two crossings

Passageway Operations

 Min river flow

 na 500 cfs 500 cfs

Property Issues na Easement required from Navajo

Nation

Easement required from PNM

Effect on W.S. elevation at

PNM Diversion

 River at 500 cfs

 River at 19,500 cfs na

na

0.0 ft

0.01 ft

0.0ft

0.01 ft

Maintenance na Trash & some sediment Trash & some sediment

Estimated Cost

 Construction

 Maintenance per year

na

na

-$605.000

-$73,200

-$1,228,000.000

-$24,400
-27-

Selection of Preferred Alternative

The South Fish Passage Alternative has been identified as the Preferred Alternative in this final

environmental assessment. The South Fish Passage Alternative would construct a fish passage that is

more natural in function and appearance, has a cost savings (almost half the cost of the North Fish

Passage Alternative), has the ability to handle higher river flows and provide greater attraction

flows, and has less impacts to PNM’s operations during construction (North Fish Passage would

require crossing PNM’s intake channel).

 It is also believed that the rock-type structure proposed under the Preferred Alternative would be

more beneficial to native fishes than the concrete-type structure proposed for the North Fish Passage

Alternative. Ascending a concrete passage with metal baffles is believed to be more stressful to fish

than ascending a rock-type passage. A rock-type fish passage was determined to be non-compatible

with PNM’s intake channel and pumping facilities located on the north bank of the river, therefore,

this type of fish passage for the North Fish Passage was eliminated from consideration. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

-28-

CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Plan Formulation and Public Scoping Activities

Tetra Tech Inc., was hired to prepare conceptual design alternatives for fish passage at the PNM

Diversion Dam. A scoping document was sent in June 2000 to individuals, agencies, Indian Tribes,

and organizations. The Draft EA was mailed on April 27, 2001 to the parties identified in the

distribution list and comments have been incorporated in this Final EA. Reclamation, on behalf of

the SJRRIP, continues to work with all parties to address impacts associated with the various fish

passage alternatives. The New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission was the only party who

provided comments on the Draft EA. These comments are attached in the Appendices and have

been incorporated into this Final EA.

Consultation with other Agencies

Reclamation staff, acting on behalf of the SJRRIP, continue to informally coordinate and consult

with the Fish and Wildlife Service to comply with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and

Endangered Species Act; the Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and the

New Mexico Environmental Quality Division to comply with requirements of the Clean Water Act;

and the State Historic Preservation Officer and Federal Advisory Committee to comply with the

National Historic Preservation Act. Consultation results and comments on the Draft EA have been

incorporated in this Final EA.

Distribution List

Appendix A contains the mailing list for this Final EA. The list includes all individuals, agencies,

and organizations to whom Reclamation sent the scoping document in June 2000. In addition, others

who have specifically requested a copy of the Draft EA are included on the list. 
-29-

REFERENCES CITED

Bureau of Indian Affairs 2000. Final Environmental Assessment, Hogback Diversion Dam and

Cudei Diversion Dam, Navajo Area Office, US Bureau of Indian Affairs, Gallup, New

Mexico.

Holden P.B.1999. Flow recommendations for the San Juan River. San Juan River Basin

Recovery Implementation Program, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico.

Keller-Bliesner Engineering and Ecosystems Research Institute Inc. 1999. Navajo Indian Irrigation

Project Biological Assessment. Prepared for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Indian Irrigation

Project, Farmington, New Mexico, July 11, 1999.

Navajo Nation Natural Heritage Program 2000. Information Letter from Brent Nelson on Fish

 and Wildlife in the Vicinity of Public Service Company of New Mexico Diversion Dam,

September 27, 2000.

New Mexico Game and Fish Department 1995. Informational Letter from J.A. Maracchini on

 Fish and Wildlife in the Vicinity of SJGS, February 21. Sante Fe, New Mexico.

Ryden, D.W. and F.K. Pfeifer 1994. Adult Fish Community Monitoring on the San Juan River.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado River Fisheries Project, Grand Junction,

 Colorado.

 

State of New Mexico 2000. Website URL.

www.edd.state.nm.us/communities/sanjuan.html.

Tetra-Tech 2000. Conceptual Development Report, Public Service Company of New Mexico

Diversion Dam Fish Passage Structure, Fruitland, New Mexico. Tetra-Tech ISG,

Breckenridge, Colorado.

US Bureau of Reclamation 1997. Final Environmental Assessment, Providing Fish Passage at

 the Grand Valley Irrigation Company Diversion Dam on the Colorado River. US Bureau of

Reclamation and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado.

_________ 2000a. Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado-New Mexico, Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement. Upper Colorado Region.

_________ 2000b. Biological Assessment for the Jicarilla Water Subcontract. US Bureau of

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Area Office.
_________ 2001. Draft Environmental Assessment, Jicarilla Apache Nation

 Water Subcontract. US Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Durango,

Colorado.

US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census 1992. 1990 Census of Population: Social and

 Economic Characteristics, New Mexico. Washington, D.C.

_________ 2000. Population Division, Administrative Records and Methodology Research

 Branch. San Juan County Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, July 1,

1999.

US Department of Interior 1981. Water and Power Resources Services, Project Data. U.S.

 Government Printing Office, Denver, Colorado. 1463 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service 1991. Memorandum of Understanding entered into by USFWS,

 USBR, BIA, States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, the Navajo Nation, the Southern

Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, and the Jicarilla Apache Nation.

_________ 2000. Letter from Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office,

 US Fish and Wildlife Service to Technical Services Director, Western Colorado Area Office,

US Bureau of Reclamation on August 2, 2000.

_________ 2001a. Consultation #2-22-00-I-469, Biological Opinion for the Jicarilla Apache

Subwater Contract dated February 15, 2001. New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office,

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

________ 2001b. Consultation #2-22-00-F-412, Biological Opinion for the Public Service

Company of New Mexico Fish Passage dated September 17, 2001. New Mexico Ecological

Services Field Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST

A-1

Distribution Mailing List

Ms. Susan Jordan

Nordhaus Law Firm

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Mr. Kelsey A Begaye, President

The Navajo Nation

Window Rock, Arizona

Mr. Paul Blanchford

Navajo Nation 

Division of Environmental Protection

Window Rock, Arizona

Ms. Cindy Crist

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

Environmental Programs

Towaoc, Colorado

Mr. Bill Enenbach

State of New Mexico

Office of State Engineer

Aztec, New Mexico

Mr. Dave Firestone

Public Service Company of New Mexico

Waterflow, New Mexico

Mr. Ernest House Sr., Chairman

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

Towaoc, Colorado

Mr. Randy Kirkpatrick

San Juan Water Commission

Farmington, New Mexico

Mr. Nick Medley

New Mexico Game and Fish Department

Sante Fe, New Mexico

Mr. Robert Ashman

Public Service Company of New Mexico

Waterflow, New Mexico

Leonard C. Burch, Chairman

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Ignacio, Colorado

County Commissioners

San Juan County

Aztec, New Mexico

Mr. Jim Dee

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Navajo Area Office

Gallup, New Mexico

Mr. Johnnie Francis

The Navajo Nation

Department of Water Resources

Ft. Defiance, Arizona

Ms. Pathimi Goodtracks

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Department of Natural Resources

Ignacio, Colorado

Mr. Ed Kelly

New Mexico Environmental Department

Sante Fe, New Mexico

Mr. Scott McElroy

Greene, Meyers & McElroy PC

Boulder, Colorado

Mr. Joe Muniz

Jicarilla Apache Nation

Department of Natural Resources

Dulce, New Mexico
A-2

Mr. James Olguin, Councilman

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Ignacio, Colorado 

Mr. Stanley Pollack

The Navajo Nation

Water Rights Counsel

Window Rock, Arizona

Ms. Janice Sheftel

Maynes, Bradford, Shipps & Sheftel

Durango, Colorado

Mr. Lestor K. Taylor

Nordhaus Law Firm

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Mr. Roger Vacenti, President

Jicarilla Apache Nation

Dulce, New Mexico

Mr. Peter Wilkenson

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Sante Fe, New Mexico

Tom Wesche

HabiTech, Inc.

Laramie, Wyoming

Mr. Frank Pfiefer

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Grand Junction, Colorado

Mr. Jude Smith

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Ms. Sandy Spon

New Mexico Water Quality Department

Sante Fe, New Mexico

Mr. Arvin Trujillo

The Navajo Nation

Division of Natural Resources

Window Rock, Arizona

Mr. John Whipple

New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

Sante Fe, New Mexico

Tom Pitts

Water Consult.

Loveland, Colorado

John Leeper

The Navajo Nation

Department of Water Resources

Ft. Defiance, Arizona
APPENDIX B – Comment Letters
B-1-
B-2-