BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THE

GRAND VALLEY PROJECT

DIVERSION DAM

ENDANGERED FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES

prepared by

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Western Colorado Area Office

August 2000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This biological assessment was prepared to evaluate anticipated project effects on federally listed

threatened and endangered species and their habitats resulting from the construction of fish

passage facilities at the Grand Valley Project Diversion Dam in Mesa County, Colorado. The

project is located on the Colorado River approximately 7 miles northeast of Palisade, Colorado

(see Figure 1). The facilities will consist of a selective fish passage structure to allow

endangered fish, as well as other native fishes, to move upstream of the diversion dam. A fish

screen will also be installed in the Government Highline Canal to prevent fish entrainment. The

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Implementation Program has identified this

diversion dam as a barrier to fish movement and the need to restore passage to connect 44 river

miles of endangered fish critical habitat upstream with 193 river miles of critical habitat

downstream.

Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and subsequent evaluations

resulted in the identification of five (5) endangered and one (1) threatened species that may

occur within the project area. This biological assessment also evaluates one additional species,

Uinta Basin hookless cactus, known to occur in the area, but not included on the Service list. 

The species and anticipated effects are listed below.

Species (Common Name) Status Anticipated Effects

Uinata Basin Hookless

Cactus

Threatened No effect

Razorback Sucker Endangered May effect, not likely to adversely effect

(Beneficial)

Colorado Pikeminnow Endangered May effect, not likely to adversely effect

(Beneficial)

Humpback Chub Endangered No effect

Bonytail Chub Endangered May effect, not likely to adversely effect

(Potentially Beneficial)

Bald Eagle Threatened No effect

Southwestern Willow

Flycatcher

Endangered No effect

The project would result in no additional water depletions. Water needed to operate the fish

passage structure and fish screen is non-consumptive and would be immediately returned to the

river. The project area is located 8.5 river miles upstream of the “15-miles reach”, a sensitive

reach of the Colorado River. The “15-Mile Reach includes the section of the Colorado River

from the Grand Valley Irrigation Company Diversion Dam to the confluence of the Colorado

and Gunnison Rivers. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Implementation
Program identified three diversion dams at the upstream end of the “15-Mile Reach” as barriers

to endangered fish movement. Restoring fish passage at these structures would connect 53 river

miles of critical habitat (Grand Valley Irrigation Company Diversion Dam to Rifle, Colorado)

with 185 river miles of critical habitat downstream (Lake Powell to Grand Valley Irrigation

Company Diversion Dam).

A final Programmatic Biological Opinion was issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in

1999 that addressed Bureau of Reclamation’s operations, depletions, other depletions, and

funding and implementation of Recovery Program actions in the Upper Colorado River above

the confluence with the Gunnison River. It was determined that recovery actions including fish

passage structures and fish screens would likely benefit endangered fish.

The proposed project is not expected to impact bald eagle and southwestern willow flycatcher

and is expected to be beneficial to three listed Colorado River fishes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pg.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose 01

1.2 Recovery Program 01

1.2 Agency Coordination 02

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Design 02

2.2 Construction 04

2.3 Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Measures 04

3.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

3.1 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus 05

3.2 Razorback Sucker 06

3.3 Colorado Pikeminnow 09

3.4 Bonytail Chub 11

3.5 Humpback Chub 13

3.6 Bald eagle 15

3.7 Southwestern willow flycatcher 16

4.0 CONCLUSIONS 18

5.0 LITERATURE CITED 20

6.0 FIGURES

Figure 1 - Three Diversion Dams on the Colorado River 23

Figure 2 - Drawing of Grand Valley Project Fish Facilities 24

Figure 3 - Conceptual Design for Fish Ladder 25

7.0 ATTACHMENTS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Memorandum 
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The Grand Valley Project (GVP) Diversion Dam and Government Highline Canal are major

features of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Grand Valley Project. The project was constructed from

1912 to 1917 and provides irrigation water to approximately 26,000 acres in the Grand Valley. 

The Grand Valley Project Dam and the Government Highline Canal have been operated and

maintained by the Grand Valley Water Users Association since 1949. The Grand Valley Project

provides irrigation water to four irrigation districts (Grand Valley Water Users Association and

the Orchard Mesa, Palisade, and Mesa County Irrigation Districts), and water is used for

hydropower production for the Grand Valley Project and as cooling water for the Public Service

Company of Colorado Cameo Coal Generating Plant.

The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing to construct a selective fish passage structure at the

Grand Valley Project (GVP) Diversion Dam and install a fish screen in the Government Highline

Canal. A need has been identified to allow endangered fish to move upstream past the GVP

Diversion Dam and to prevent endangered fish from becoming entrained in the Government

Highline Canal. The Purpose of the project is help restore native Colorado pikeminnow and

razorback sucker populations in the 44 miles of river between the diversion and the city of Rifle,

Colorado. Other purposes include the protection of existing water rights and uses. 

1.2 Recovery Program

The Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker are only found in the Colorado River Basin and

are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Colorado River has

been highly developed for human use, resulting in significant habitat changes. The introduction

of non-native fish into the river system further impacted the endangered fish with predation and

competition for food and habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains that the

endangered fish risk extinction unless timely actions are taken to reverse habitat losses.

As a result of listing and the need to meet current and future water needs within the Upper

Colorado River Basin, the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fishes in the

Upper Colorado River Basin (Recovery Program) was established. This cooperative effort

includes the States of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming; Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Western Area Power Administration, water development interests and
2

environmental organizations. The Recovery Program’s goal is to allow water development to

proceed to meet the needs of the basin while recovering the endangered fish (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1987a). So long as progress is being made under the Recovery Program, the

program serves as the best method of averting confrontations between resource protection and

water development.

The Recovery Program consists of five (5) major elements (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1987a and 1987b):

1) Protection of in-stream flows for habitat.

2) Habitat development and maintenance.

 3) Native fish stocking.

4) Management of non-native species and sport fishing.

5) Research, monitoring, and data management.

1.2 Agency Coordination and Consultation

A list of Federally threatened or endangered species was requested from the U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service on June 16, 2000. The Service responded on July 17, 2000 with a list of six

species that may occur within the project area. 

The species list included the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Southwestern willow

flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucious),

Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), Humpback chub (Gila cyphia), and Bonytail (Gila

elagans). One additional threatened species, Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus)

is also evaluated in this biological assessment.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Design

Fish Ladder

The proposed project was designed based on the behavior of the endangered fish, their

swimming habits, dam operations and maintenance needs, and the need to limit impacts to

diversions for irrigation and hydropower uses. 

The fish passage structure would be built through the dam roller bay closest to Interstate 70

(Figure 1). The structure would consist of a fish ladder with a series of baffles or boulders to

reduce flows to allow endangered fish to swim upstream of the diversion dam. 
3

An instream boulder pool-rifle type design was used to restore fish passage at the Grand Valley

Irrigation Company Diversion Dam in 1998, and a side channel concrete ladder type design was

constructed at the Redlands Diversion Dam in 1996. Both fish passage structures appear to be

successful and are being used by endangered and native fishes. Because of the close proximity

of Interstate 70 and the Union Pacific Railroad, an instream type structure is needed.

Approximately 25 to 35 cfs would be needed to operate the ladder. An additional 100 to 150 cfs

would be needed to serve as an attraction flow to help fish find the ladder. The water should

always be available without effecting existing water rights.

A selective passage facility is also being considered in the preliminary design at the GVP fish

ladder. The selective passage facility would consist of a fish trap similar to the one at the

Redlands Diversion Dam to allow the sorting of native and nonnative fishes. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service would operate the selective passage facility from April to October of each year. 

Selective fish passage at the GVP is being considered because the Bureau of Reclamation’s

preferred alternative at the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam is to remove the structure (U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation 1999). The Price-Stubb Diversion Dam is approximately 5 miles downstream from

the GVP Dam and 3 miles upstream from the GVIC Diversion Dam (see Figure 1). A Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) permit is being reviewed by FERC for a proposed

hydropower plant at the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam. If the permit is approved, a fish ladder

would be constructed at Price-Stubb with selective passage. Selective fish passage would be

constructed at either the GVP or Price-Stubb diversion dams, but not both.

Fish Screen

A fish screen to prevent fish from entering the Government Highline Canal is also included in

the project designs for the fish passage facilities. Two fish screen locations are being evaluated

at this time. 

Screening option 1 would be located in the canal about 2,000 feet downstream from the

headworks. The screen would prevent fish from becoming entrained in the canal further

downstream and would direct fish to a pipe chute which would return them to the river. A flow

of 80 to 120 cfs would be needed to operate the chute. Therefore, it would be necessary to divert

this additional flow into the canal so the amount of water remaining for irrigation and

hydropower purposes is unchanged. The fish screen and chute would be located upstream from

the existing gage that measures flow in the canal. Fish screens would be removed for

maintenance and during times of heavy icing in the canal. An additional gage would be installed

to measure flow of water to the chute. 

Screening option 2 would involve removing the inlet gates at the diversion dam and replacing

them with screens. This option would also include installing a check structure in the canal

somewhere downstream. This option would not require additional flows to be diverted to
4

operate a fish return chute. The western most roller gate could be operated to maintain sweeping

flows across the screens. For this option, the canal entrance width would need to be enlarged to

allow sufficient screen area to prevent fish impingement, and prevent trash and debris from

collecting on the screen. This option would also allow for removable screens. 

With both screen options, the fish screen would be operated from April to November of each

year.

 

2.2 Construction

The fish passage facilities would be completed under a construction contract. The Grand Valley

Water Users Association would participate in the design process to ensure the facility does not

conflict with the operations and maintenance of the diversion dam and canal system. Temporary

construction easements and permits would also be acquired from all affected land owners prior

to construction. Following construction, any damaged area would be restored, as near as

possible, to its original condition.

Access to the project area would be via westbound Interstate 70. Construction staging and

material storage would be on the bank upstream from the dam and on a gravel bar downstream of

the dam. A cofferdam would be used to direct the river around the work area and river flows

would not be affected. Reclamation would request Clean Water Act, Section 404 approval under

Regional General Permit No. 057 for projects that benefit recovery of endangered fish. The

contractor or Reclamation would request water quality certification under Section 401. If

discharging water from dewatering is needed, the contractor would obtain a Section 402 permit. 

Construction would begin after post-peak runoff (July-August) of 2001 to 2002 and take one to

two years to complete both the ladder and screen.

Total project cost estimates for the selective fish passage and the fish screens are approximately

$8,000,000.00.

2.3 Operations, Maintenance and Replacement Measures

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would operate the fish passage structure from April through

October each year. The Service would monitor native and endangered fish use of the ladder. 

The fish screen would be operated from April through November. The Grand Valley Water

Users Association will operate the fish screen.

A total of 125 to 345 cfs of Colorado River flow would be needed to operate the fish passage

structure and fish screen. Because the water is immediately returned to the river and normally at

least 640 cfs passes over the dam in this reach, no measures are need to augment existing water

supplies for the fish passage or fish screen. Approximately 1,620 cfs is diverted into the

Government Highline Canal for a prolonged period during the irrigation season. Due to physical
5

limitations of the diversion dam, a river flow of approximately 2,600 cfs is necessary to maintain

sufficient upstream water surface elevation in the river. When the river flow drops below that

level, it is not possible to divert a full supply into the canal.

Additional flow required for either Fish Screen Option 1 or fish ladder would aggravate this

problem. Therefore, when natural flows in the river falls below 2,600 cfs, GVWUA may elect to

cease use of the fish screen and/or fish ladder. Since canal entrainment could potentially be

more detrimental to fish survival than temporary inability to pass the diversion dam, fish passage

will be terminated before fish screening. Therefore, if the fish ladder requires a total of 125 cfs

to operate and the fish screen requires 100 cfs, both facilities will be operated down to a river

flow of 2,825 cfs. At flows below 2,825 cfs, the flow to the fish ladder will decrease until ladder

flow is completely off at a river of 2,700 cfs. The 100 cfs for the Fish Screen Option 1 is

necessary to return the fish and debris to the river through the chute. If the flow is not available

and debris is heavy, it may be necessary to remove the fish screens as soon as the river flow

drops below 2,700 cfs. At river flows below 2,600 cfs, both Fish Screen Option 1 and the fish

ladder would not be operational.

Since Fish Screen Option 2 would not require additional flows, therefore it may be possible to

operate the screen at river flows below 2,700 cfs. However, the screens would restrict some flow

into the canal. This could require removal of the screens at flows at or near 2,600 cfs.

3.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified six (6) federally listed threatened or endangered

species that could potentially occur within the project area in a memorandum dated July 17, 2000

(see attachment). These species are listed in Table 1 of the Executive Summary. Although the

Service did not include Uinta hookless cactus, a Federally threatened plant, it is known to occur

within the upper Colorado River basin and was also evaluated in this biological assessment. The

known distribution and status of these species in the project area are discussed below.

Inventories were conducted by Reclamation biologists in June/July 2000. Inventories included

visual surveys for Uinta Basin hookless cactus, bald eagle nesting habitat and Southwestern

willow flycatcher habitat. Literature research and personal communications were used to

evaluate effects on the Colorado River endangered fishes.

3.1 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus

The Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service as threatened in 1979 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979). The plant is also protected

in Colorado as threatened. 
6

Life History:

Little is known about the life history of the Uinta Basin hookless cactus. It is a small cactus

usually only visible when flowering. Pinkish colored flowering occurs in April-May. After

blooming, the cactus may shrink below the ground or become a dull grayish-green color. 

Habitat Preferences / Details:

Uinta Basin hookless cactus generally occurs on cobbley, gravelly, or rock surfaces on river

terrace deposits and lower mesa slopes. An exception is the clay badlands population of Pariette

Draw near Myton, Utah. This population is morphologically distinct. The cactus is found at

elevations between 4,000 and 5,900 feet. Typical slope is between 5-30%. Vegetation

associations include desert scrub dominated by shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), galleta (Hilaria

jamesii), black-sage (Artemesia nova), and Indian Rice grass (Stipa hymenoides) (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1990a). 

Distribution and Abundance:

The plants’ distribution is known to occur in three major population centers in portions of the

Unitah Basin in Utah and the Upper Colorado River and Gunnison Basins in Colorado (Delta,

Garfield, Mesa and Montrose Counties). Inventories have documented 22,000 plants and the

total population number is estimated at 50,000 plants (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990a).

Impacts of the Proposed Project:

The Bureau of Reclamation surveyed the project area for Uinta Basin hookless cactus. No

cactus were found within the project area. The project area has been highly altered with the

construction of the Grand Valley Project Diversion Dam and Government Highline Canal in

1918, construction of Interstate 70, and the Union Pacific Railroad. The closest known

population occurs in Plateau Creek Basin south of the project area (U.S. Dept. of Interior 1985).

3.2 Razorback Sucker

The Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife on October 23, 1991 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Critical habitat was

designated on March 21, 1994 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

Life History:

The razorback sucker is an endemic species unique to the Colorado River Basin. Razorback

sucker were historically abundant and widely distributed within warmwater reaches throughout

the Colorado River Basin. The species can be identified by its large fleshy subterminal mouth
7

and is the only sucker with an abrupt sharp-edged dorsal keel behind its head. Adults often

exceed 3 kg (6 pounds) in weight and 600 mm (2 feet) in length.

Males are smaller and slimmer than females but have larger fins and a more exaggerated

predorsal keel. In late winter to spring, both sexes exhibit breeding colors of dark brown to

black dorsally and yellow ventrally with a lateral band that can be orange, reddish, or violet. 

Riverine spawning is linked to the ascending limb of the hydro graph, generally during May or

June in the upper Colorado River Basin (Minckley et al 1991). Spawning appears to be ritual.

Habitat Preference/Details:

Razorback suckers occupy a variety of habitats during their lives. In general, razorback suckers

prefer calmer, flatwater reaches over higher velocity whitewater or canyon reaches (Minckley et

al. 1991). Adults occupy shoreline and mainline channel habitats including slow runs, shallow to

deep pools, backwaters, eddies, and other slow velocity habitats associated with sand substrates

(Tyus and Karp, 1990; Osmundson and Kaeding 1991). During spawning, preference appears to

consist of gravel and cobble substrates clear of fine materials. The fish create depressions of

20 cm or more for spawning. All documented spawning in rivers occur in broad, flatwater areas

(Minckley et al. 1991). Young fish remain along shorelines in embayments and tributaries and

then disperse into channels or larger backwaters. Juveniles appear to drift downstream into these

habitat types (Minckley 1991). Tyus and Karp (1990) and Osmundson and Kaeding (1991)

describes these habitat preferences in greater detail. 

Distribution and Abundance:

Historically, razorback suckers were found in the mainstem Colorado River and major tributaries

in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and in Mexico

(Minckley 1983). Population declines can be attributed to constructions of dams and reservoirs,

introduction of nonnative fishes, and dewatering of the Colorado River system (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1999). Reproduction may also be affected by selenium contamination in the

Upper Colorado River.

The current distribution and abundance of razorback sucker has been significantly reduced

throughout the Colorado River system (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). In the upper

Colorado River basin, razorback sucker populations are the largest in the Green River and lower

Yampa River. In the Colorado River, most razorbacks are found in the Grand Valley near Grand

Junction, Colorado (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). In 1991 and 1992, 28 adults were

collected from isolated ponds adjacent to the Colorado River near DeBeque, Colorado (Burdick

1992). 

Razorback sucker’s range in the Colorado River currently extend upstream to Rifle, Colorado. 

Most razorbacks have been documented in flooded gravel pit ponds adjacent to the river. 
8

Razorback suckers have been documented as far upstream as river mile 183.6 and in 1988 as far

as river mile 235 near Rifle, Colorado (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999; Burdick 1992).

To date, the Service has stocked 10,998 4- to 11-inch razorback sucker in the upper Colorado

River near Parachute, Colorado. Razorback sucker have been documented drifting over all three

diversion structures (Burdick 2000). The Recovery Program approved plans to stock 102,100 6-

inch and 30,600 12-inch razorback sucker between Rifle and DeBeque Canyon, Colorado within

the next five years (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

Critical habitat was designated for the razorback sucker by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on

March 21, 1994. The three designated areas encompass 1) Colorado, Mesa and Garfield

Counties, 2) Colorado, Delta and Mesa Counties and 3) Utah, Grand, San Juan, Wayne, and

Garfield Counties (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

The project area is within the critical habitat designation for Colorado, Mesa and Garfield

Counties and reads as follows:

Colorado, Mesa and Garfield Counties. The Colorado River and its 100-year flood plain

from the Colorado River Bridge at exit 90 north off Interstate 70 in T. 6 S., R. 93 W.,

section 16 (6th Principal Meridian) downstream to Westwater Canyon in T. 20 S., R. 25

E., section 12 (Salt Lake Principal Meridian) including the Gunnison River and its 100

year flood plain from the Redlands Diversion Dam in T. 1 S., R. 1 W., section 27 (Ute

Meridian) to the confluence with Colorado River in T. 1 S., R. 1 W., section 22 (Ute

Meridian).

Impact from the Proposed Project:

It is anticipated that the proposed project will have a positive effect on the distribution and

abundance of razorback sucker. The Recovery Program identified three diversion structures on

the Upper Colorado River as barriers to endangered fish movement. Restored passage at all

three diversion structures would connect the sensitive “15-Mile Reach” with a total of 53 river

miles of upstream critical habitat. Fish passage at the GVP Diversion Dam will connect the last

44 river miles of critical habitat (GVP to Rifle).

The Programmatic Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers

fish passage and fish screening at the Grand Valley Project Diversion Dam as a reasonable and

prudent alternative for development on the Upper Colorado River (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1999). Fish passage was restored at the GVIC Diversion Dam in 1998 and it is

anticipated that fish passage at the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam will be restored in 2002. 

Because the proposed project will not required additional depletions from the Colorado River

and is designed to restore endangered fish passage and prevent canal entrainment, the Grand
9

Valley Project Fish Passage Facilities may effect, but is not likely to adversely effect the

Razorback sucker. Project effects would be beneficial to the recovery of the Razorback sucker.

3.3 Colorado Pikeminnow

The Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife on March 11, 1967 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967). Critical habitat was

designated on March 21, 1994 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). 

Life History:

The Colorado pikeminnow (formerly known as the Colorado squawfish) is an endemic species

unique to the Colorado River Basin. It is the largest cyprinid fish native to North America. It is

a streamlined riverine fish that can reach lengths of 1.8 m and weights of 45 kg (Minckley 1973). 

The Colorado pikeminnow is a long-lived (50 + yrs.), large, elongated fish with large nearly

horizontal mouth and long, slender pharyngeal teeth adapted for grasping and holding prey

(Minckley 1973, Osmundson et al 1997). 

Once Colorado pikeminnows reach a size of 3 or 4 inches, their diet consists almost exclusively

of other fishes. Males become sexually mature earlier and at a smaller size than females. All

fish mature by age 7 and 500 mm (20 inches) in length (Vanicek and Kramer 1969). 

Spawning is linked to the descending limb of the natural hydrograph as waters reach or exceed

20O C (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Spawning generally occurs between late June and

late August. 

Habitat Preference/Details:

Spawning sites are comprised of clean-cobble substrate with deep interstitial voids (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1999). The Colorado pikeminnow is believed to migrate to pool/riffle areas

near the spawning sites. The fish appear to use deep pools, eddies, or mixing zones as resting

areas near the spawning sites (Holden 1999). Warm water temperature, discharge, and

photoperiod (on or near Spring Solstice) are possible spawning and/or spawning migration cues

(Holden 1999).

Young of year Colorado pikeminnow are found most frequently in backwaters. These waters

appear to be important nursery habitat until the fish reaches approximately 100 mm total length

(Holden 1999).

Adult Colorado pikeminnow have been collected from all habitat types but most frequently from

low-velocity areas including runs, eddies, backwaters, and pooled canyon mouths. During

spring (pre-runoff and runoff) adults tend to use backwaters, flooded mouths of washes, and
10

other low-velocity habitats that are warmer than main channel habitats. As warm waters and

flows recede, they use eddies and other low-velocity habitats associated with the main channel. 

During the fall and winter they continue to use lower-velocity shoreline habitats (Holden 1999).

Distribution and Abundance:

Historically, Colorado pikeminnow were distributed throughout warm water reaches of the

Colorado River Basin from Wyoming to Mexico. By the 1970's, the fish was extirpated from the

lower basin below Glen Canyon Dam and from portions of the upper basin. Colorado

pikeminnow are currently restricted to the Upper Colorado River Basin and inhabit warm water

reaches in the Colorado, Green, and San Juan Rivers and their associated tributaries. Population

declines can be attributed to constructions of dams and reservoirs, introduction of nonnative

fishes, dewatering of the Colorado River system and the loss of natural hydrology (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1999). 

In the Colorado River, Colorado pikeminnow are found in low numbers with recruitment in

pulses from infrequent strong year classes (Osmundson and Burnham 1998). In the spring of

2000, sixty-five 14- to18-inch adult Colorado Pikeminnow were stocked in the upper Colorado

River near Parachute, Colorado. These fish were fitted with radio-transmitters to monitor

movements. Fish have been documented drifting over the Grand Valley Project Dam. One of

the tagged Colorado pikeminnow was recently moved into the Government Highline Canal. 

This fish passed through the first canal siphon and was located in the canal near Island Acres

State Park. Later this fish was located above the Grand Valley Project Dam near the Interstate

70 tunnel. This fish apparently swam back up the canal, through the siphon, and back through

the headgates at the diversion dam (Burdick 2000).

Critical habitat was designated for the Colorado pikeminnow by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service on March 21, 1994 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). The six designated areas

encompass 1) Yampa River, 2) Green River, 3) White River, 4) Gunnison River, 5) Colorado

River and 6) San Juan River (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

The project area is within the critical habitat designation for Colorado, Mesa and Garfield

Counties and reads as follows:

Colorado, Mesa and Garfield Counties; and Utah, Grand, San Juan, Wayne, and Garfield 

Counties. The Colorado River and its 100-year flood plain from the Colorado River

Bridge at exit 90 north off Interstate 70 in T. 6 S., R. 93 W., section 16 (6th Principal

Meridian) downstream to North Wash, including the Dirty Devil arm of Lake Powell up

to the full pool elevation, in T. 33 S., R 14 E., section 29 (Salt Lake Principal Meridian).

Impact from the Proposed Project:
11

It is anticipated that the proposed project will have a positive effect on the distribution and

abundance of Colorado pikeminnow. The Recovery Program identified three diversion

structures on the Upper Colorado River as barriers to endangered fish movement. Restored

passage at all three diversion structures would connect the sensitive “15-Mile Reach” with

approximately 53 miles of upstream critical habitat. Fish passage at GVP Diversion Dam would

reconnect the last 44 river miles of critical habitat (GVP to Rifle). 

The Recovery Program has stocked 65 14- to 18-inch Colorado pikeminnow so far in 2000 and

has approved a plan to stock 800 6-inch and 400 10-inch Colorado Pikeminnow within the next

five years in the Colorado River between Rifle and DeBeque Canyon. The basic philosophy

used by the Service for stocking is to stock fish upstream and allow the fish to drift downstream

into suitable habitat (Burdick 2000). Construction of the fish passage facility and fish screen

would allow drifting Colorado pikeminnow to move back upstream of the dam and would

prevent entrainment in the Government Highline Canal. 

The Programmatic Biological Opinion issued 1999 considers fish passage and fish screening at

the Grand Valley Project Diversion Dam as a reasonable and prudent alternative for

development on the Upper Colorado River ( U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). 

Because the proposed project will not required additional depletions from the Colorado River

and is designed to restore endangered fish passage and prevent canal entrainment, the Grand

Valley Project Fish Passage Facilities may effect, but is not likely to adversely effect Colorado

pikeminnow. Project effects would be beneficial to the recovery of the Colorado pikeminnow.

3.4 Bonytail

The bonytail (Gila elegans) was classified as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

on April 23, 1980 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980). Critical habitat was designated on

March 21, 1994 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

Life History:

Bonytail are considered big or mainstream river species that prefer pools and eddies. It has an

elongated body with a thin caudal peduncle, which gives the bonytail its name. Adult bonytail

have been described as gray or olivaceous on the back with silvery sides and a white belly. 

Breeding males exhibit bright red-orange lateral slashes between the paired fins, and small

tubercles on the head and anterior of the body. Breeding females are more subdued and

tubercles are less well developed. A slight orange coloration at the base of the fins is present in

both sexes throughout most of the year (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b).
12

Bonytail generally reach total lengths of 300-350 mm, however specimens up to 600 mm have

been documented (Minckley 1973). Bonytail are closely related to humpback chub (Gila cypha)

and roundtail chub (Gila robusta).

Habitat Preference/Detail:

Bonytail have always been considered big- or mainstream species, but little is known about the

habitat preferences of the bonytail, primarily because the fish is so rare. Bonytail appear to

prefer pools and eddies rather than areas with more current (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1990b). Bonytail in Lake Mohave appear to occupy lacustrine habitat rather than upstream

riverine habitat near Hoover Dam. Cold water releases from Lake Mead are believed to limit the

use of the riverine habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b). 

Distribution and Abundance:

Historically, the bonytail was distributed throughout the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basin. 

Currently the bonytail is restricted to portions of Lake Mohave and Lake Mead and small nonreproducing populations in upper basin in Desolation and Cataract Canyons (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1990b).

Extensive work since 1974 to develop hatchery stock primarily from Lake Mead was conducted

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Stocking in the Upper Colorado River between Palisade

and Loma, Colorado is being considered by the Recovery Program.

Critical habitat was designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1994 consisting of

portions of the Yampa, Green and Colorado Rivers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). The

project area is approximately 57 river miles upstream of the critical habitat area. The critical

habitat area is describe as:

Utah, Grand County; and Colorado, Mesa County. The Colorado River from Black

Rocks (river mile 137) in T. 10 S., R. 104 W., section 25 (6th Principal Meridian)

downstream to Fish Ford in T. 21 S., R. 24 E., section 35 (Salt Lake Principal Meridian).

Impact from the Proposed Project:

It is anticipated that the proposed project may have a beneficial effect on the distribution and

abundance of bonytail. The Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program identified

three diversion structures on the Upper Colorado River as barriers to endangered fish movement. 

Restored passage at all three diversion structures may provide for expansion of the distribution

of bonytail. 
13

Designated critical habitat for bonytail is approximately 57 river miles downstream of the project

area, however, the Recovery Program has approved a stocking plan that would stock 25,600

4-inch and 12,800 8-inch bonytail within the next 5 years within the Palisade-Loma stretch of the

Colorado River (Nesler 1995, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Stocking plans are

currently under review and may be canceled because of concerns with potential hybridization

with other chub species and the limited availability of bonytail for stocking (Nesler 2000). The

Yampa River in Dinosaur National Monument below Warm Springs is rated as a higher priority

for stocking than the Colorado River (Nesler 1998). The Palisade-Loma reach of the Colorado

River is approximately 9 river miles downstream of the Grand Valley Project Diversion Dam. 

Because the proposed project will not required additional depletions from the Colorado River, 

the Grand Valley Project Fish Passage Facilities will have no effect for bonytail. If the Recovery

Program stocks bonytail in the Colorado River from Palisade to Loma, Colorado in the future,

the Project may be beneficial. The proposed project would eliminate barriers to bonytail

movement and prevent entrainment in the Government Highline Canal.

3.5 Humpback Chub

The humpback chub (Gila cypha) was classified as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service on March 11, 1967 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967). Critical habitat was

designated on March 21, 1994 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

Life History: 

The humpback chub is a medium-sized fish (<500 mm) that is endemic to the Colorado River

Basin. The humpback is closely related to the bonytail (Gila elegans) and the roundtail chub

(Gila robusta). Humpback chub have a laterally-compressed and tapering fusiform body, short

narrow caudal peduncle with deeply forked tail fin, and large falcate paired fins. Adults have a

narrow flattened head with small eyes and a long fleshy snout and inferior subterminal mouth

(Valdez and Rayel 1995).

Humpbacks spawn in March to June depending on locality and water temperature. Spawning has

been documented to occur soon after the highest spring flow when water temperatures approach

20o

 C. Juvenile fish are found in low velocity shorelines and backwaters. Recruitment beyond

the 2-year age class is extremely rare. Low water temperatures and predation by non-native fish

are believed to be the primary factors influencing recruitment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1999).

Habitat Preference/Detail: 

The humpback chub requires warmer water to induce spawning (>20o C). Adult humpback

appear to prefer white water canyons, however its original distribution is not known. Data in
14

Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon indicates that young utilize shallow areas (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1999).

Distribution and Abundance:

The original distribution of humpback chub is unknown. Fossil records trace humpback chub to

about 4000 B.C. but the species was not described until the 1940's. Until the 1950's, humpback

chub was known only to occur in the Grand Canyon. Specimens were later documented from the

Upper Green River, the lower Yampa, the White River, and the Colorado River near Moab,

Utah.

The largest populations occur in the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers in the Grand Canyon, 

and in Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon in the upper Colorado River. Fish have also been

documented in DeBeque Canyon and one fish collected in the Gunnison River (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1999).

Critical Habitat was designated on March 21, 1999 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999) and

includes a portion of the Colorado River approximately 57 river miles downstream from the

project area. The designation is as follows:

Utah, Grand County; and Colorado, Mesa County. The Colorado River from Black

Rocks in T. 10 S., R. 104 W., section 25 (6th Principal Meridian) downstream to Fish

Ford in T. 31 S., R. 24 E., section 35 (Salt Lake Principal Meridian).

 Impact from the Proposed Project:

It is anticipated that the proposed project have no impact on the distribution and abundance of

Humpback Chub. Humpback chub have been documented to show fidelity for the canyon

reaches and move very little. Movements of adult chub in Black Rocks were usually restricted

to 1 mile or less. Movements have been documented from Black Rocks to Westwater Canyon

(approximately 14 miles), but these movements are rare (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). 

The proposed project is not expected to effect humpback chub because the Black Rocks

population is approximately 57 miles downstream of the project area, the Service does not plan

to stock humpback chub upstream of Black Rocks, and the Colorado River above Palisade does

not provide the needed white water canyon type habitat used by the humpback chub.

Because the proposed project will not require additional depletions from the Colorado River 

and known populations of humpback chub are found 57 miles downstream of the project area,

the project is not expected to effect humpback chub. 

3.6 Bald Eagle
15

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was classified as endangered in 43 of the 48

contiguous states on February 14, 1978. The species was reclassified threatened by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service August 11, 1995 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b).

Life History:

The bald eagle is distinctive by it white head, white tail plumage, dark brown to charcoal black

wing and body plumage, and massive yellow bill. The bald eagle ranges from 30-43 inches (75-

108 cm) in height and has a wing span between 7-8 ft. Males often appear darker than females. 

Females are larger than males. Immature bald eagles (6 months to 2 years old) have a dusky

head and tail plumage (Peterson 1990; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1994). 

Feeding habitats are eclectic, reflecting the opportunistic behavior of large raptors. Prey include

fishes, ground dwelling scuirids, waterfowl, ungulate carrion and lagomorphs (U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation 1994). 

Age of first breeding is commonly assumed to be coincident with acquisition of definitive adult

plumage. Breeding commonly occurs between ages 6 and 7 years old. Nest building and repair

occur every year. Both male and females build stick nests used over many years. Nests can be

as large as 3 m (10 ft.) high and 2.1 m (7 ft.) wide. Alternate nests may be present in the

breeding area, but pairs usually use one nest until it either falls from the tree or the tree is lost

(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1994).

Egg laying normally occurs in early February to mid-April depending on elevation. Average

clutch size is two eggs. Incubation averages 31 to 35 days. Eggs hatch in mid-March to midMay and the nesting period lasts 11 to 14 weeks. Both genders incubate, brood and feed young

but the female performs most of the tasks. Fledglings are dependent on adults for 6 to 10 weeks

and adults will feed juveniles other than their own (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1994).

Habitat Preference/Detail:

Bald eagles occupy riparian or lacustrine habitats almost exclusively during the breeding season,

but occasionally exploit upland areas for food and roost sites, especially during the winter. Nests

sites are mostly commonly distributed around the periphery of lakes and reservoirs larger than 80

acres in size. Nesting also occurs linearly along forested corridors of major rivers, usually

within 1 mile of shore, however cases have been reported of birds nesting as far as 9.3 miles

from water while exploiting locally abundant prey such as prairie dogs (U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation 1994). 

Distribution and Abundance:
16

The bald eagle is the only species of Haliaeetus occurring in and restricted to North America. 

Historic bald eagle distribution included every state (except Hawaii) and Canadian province and

portions of northern and eastern Mexico (Brown 1976). Populations became depressed in the

1960's from effects of use of the pesticide DDT.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife considers the Colorado River to be bald eagle winter range. 

Eagles have been observed in concentrations at the mouth of DeBeque Canyon and usage

observed throughout the riparian corridor. The closest known nest site is Westwater (CDOW

2000). A major roosting site was recorded on the south side of Plateau Creek (UTM 750850,

4341250) approximately 10 miles southeast of the project site (Bureau of Land Management

1996).

Impacts from the Project:

No roosting or nesting habitat was found on the eastside of the project area, however bald eagles

may use the area during winter for foraging. Three large cottonwoods are found across the river

near the Dam facilities buildings. One large cottonwood trees also occurs along the river near

the proposed Option 1 fish screen. Larger stands of cottonwood trees occur further south of this

site, approximately 1/4 mile downstream. No cottonwood trees would be removed during

construction. 

Construction activities during the winter season in the may result in the birds avoiding the area

during the construction period, however the project is not expected to affect wintering bald eagle

habitat. No known wintering concentrations of bald eagle are known within 1 mile of the project

area, therefore, the project is not expected to impact bald eagles.

3.7 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

The southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) was listed by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service as endangered on February 27, 1995 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). 

Critical habitat was designated on July 22, 1997 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997).

Life History:

The southwestern willow flycatcher is a small riparian obligate neotropical migrant,

approximately 15 cm (5.75 inches) long. It has a greyish green back and wings, whitish throat,

light grey-olive breast, and pale yellowish belly. Two wingbars are visible; the eye ring is faint

or absent. The upper mandible is dark, the lower is light. The Southwestern willow flycatcher is

an insectivore and feeds in dense riparian vegetation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995).

The southwestern willow flycatcher normally nests in late May or early June and fledges young

in early to mid-July. Birds typically arrive onsite in May, build nests in late May to June, lay
17

eggs and incubate in June and July, and fledge in late June to early August (Sogge et al. 1997).

The presence and status is often confused by the presence of migrating individuals of the

northern subspecies passing through southwestern willow flycatcher breeding habitat. The nest

is a compact cup of fiber, bark and grass, typically rimmed with feathers and lined with layers of

grass or other fine, silky material. Material dangling from the bottom of the nest is often seen

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). 

Habitat Preference/Detail:

The Southwestern willow flycatcher occurs in riparian habitats along water bodies, wetlands and

streams, where dense vegetation growths of willows (Salix sp.), Baccharis, arrowweed (Plucea

sp.), buttonbush (Cephalanthus sp.), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), Russian olive (Eleagnus sp.) or

other plants are present. Scattered overstory of cottonwood (Populus sp.) are often also present

Flycatchers use these riparian communities for both nesting and foraging (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995). Nesting habitat is described in detail in Sogge et al. (1997).

Distribution and Abundance:

The breeding range of the Southwestern willow flycatcher includes southern California, Arizona,

New Mexico, southwestern Colorado, extreme southern portions of Nevada and Utah and

Western Texas. The Southwestern willow flycatcher is currently known to breed in only about

75 sites in riparian habitats in the southwest. The known breeding population is estimated

between 300 and 500 pairs (Sogge et al. 1997). 

Population declines are believed to be contributed primarily from habitat loss and modification,

however Black-headed cow bird parasitism is also believed to make a significant contribution.

Two territorial males were documented in Plateau Creek approximately 10 miles southeast of the

project area. These birds were documented in 1995 by WestWater Engineering. Both sites were

described as a thick, narrow band of willows with one or more tall trees or shrubs adjoining with

open country on each side of the band (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1996).

Impact from the Project:

No habitat described in Sogge et al. occurs within the proposed fish passage project area. The

Colorado River is riprapped along both banks to protect Interstate 70 and the Union Pacific

Railroad. The bank is nearly vertical with large boulders. North of the dam, a large (>2 acres),

dense patch of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) occurs along the southern bank where

seasonal flooding occurs. One mature tamarisk (6 ft.) is located approximately 100 yards

downstream of the diversion dam on the south bank.
18

Several patches (<50 ft.) of salt cedar (Tamarix pentandra) occur along the river near the

proposed Option 1 fish screen outlet channel. These patches may provide some limited habitat

for southwestern willow flycatcher, but these areas will not be modified by construction

activities. Scouring rush (Equistum hyemale ), skunkbush (Rhus trilobata), canary reed grass,

and poison ivy (Rhus radicans) are the predominate vegetation within the Option 2 fish screen

area. No habitat for Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat occurs within or in close proximity

of the Option 2 fish screen site. 

Because Fish Screen Option 1 would be constructed during the winter months, outside the

nesting season for Southwestern willow flycatcher, and the project would not remove or disturb

nesting habitat, the proposed project is not expected to impact Southwestern willow flycatchers.

Constructing the fish ladder and Fish Screen Option 2 (replacing the existing intake gates with

screens) would not impact Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat and, therefore is expected to

have no effect. 

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

No new depletions would occur from the proposed project. The proposed project would be

beneficial to razorback sucker and Colorado Pikeminnow by restoring fish passage to reconnect

44 miles of critical habitat upstream of the diversion dam. Constructing selective fish passage at

either the GVP Diversion Dam or Price-Stubb Dam would be beneficial to razorback sucker and

Colorado pikeminnow by restricting movement and removing non-native fish which compete

with or are predators of the endangered fish. Installing fish screens in the Government Highline

Canal would also be beneficial to the razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow because it

would reduce the risk of these endangered fish becoming entrained in the canal.

The proposed project could be beneficial to the bonytail if stocking occurs in the Colorado River

between Palisade and Loma. Bonytail would have to move some 7 miles upstream from Palisade

to use the ladder, but with fish passage restored at the Diversion Dam, bonytail could continue to

expand their range. In addition, if bonytail use the fish ladder, screening at the Government

Highline Canal would prevent potential entrainment.

Because the proposed project is some 57 river miles above the Black Rocks population of

humpback chub and the proposed project will not impact flows or water quality in the Black

Rocks portion of the Colorado River, the proposed project is not expected to effect humpback

chub.

The proposed project is also not expected to effect Uinta hookless cactus, bald eagle, and

Southwestern willow flycatcher. 
19

5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Brown, L.H. 1976. Eagles of the world. Universe Books, New York.

Burdick, B.D. 1992. A plan to evaluate stocking to augment or restore razorback suckers in the

Upper Colorado River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Report, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Burdick, B.D. 2000. Personal Communications on July 31, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2000. Personal communication with Mike Grode on July 21,

2000. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction Colorado.

Holden, P.B. (Ed.). 1999. Flow recommendations for the San Juan River. San Juan River Basin

Recovery Implementation Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, N.M.

Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. 

Minckley, W.L. 1983. Status of the razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus (Abbott), in the lower

Colorado River Basin. Southwest Naturalist 28(2):165-187.

Minckley, W.L., P.C. Marsh, J.E. Brooks, J.E. Johnson, and B.L. Jensen. 1991. Management

toward recovery of razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). In W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon,

Eds. Battle Against Extinction. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Nesler, T. P. 1998. Five Year Stocking Plan for Endangered Colorado River Fish Species in

Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver.

Nesler, T.P. 2000. Personal Communications on July 31, 2000 with Tom Chart, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation Upper Colorado Regional Office. Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Osmundson, D.B. and Burnham. 1998. Status and Tends of the Endangered Colorado

squawfish in the Upper Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

127:959-972.

Osmundson, D.B. and L.R. Kaeding. 1991. Flow recommendations for maintenance and

enhancement of rare fish habitat in the 15-Mile Reach during October-June. Final Report. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado. 
20

Osmundson, D.B., R.J. Ryel and T.E. Mourning. 1997. Growth and survival of Colorado

Squawfish in the upper Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136-

687-698.

Peterson, R.T. 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds: A completely new guide to field marks of

all species found in North America west of the 100th Meridian and North of Mexico. Houghton

Mifflin Company, Boston.

Sogge, M.K., R.M. Marshall, S.J. Sferra and T.J. Tibbitts. 1997. A Southwestern Willow

Flycatcher Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol. National Park Service, Colorado

Plateau Research Station, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Tyus, H.M. and C.A. Karp. 1990. Spawning and movements of razorback sucker, Xyrauchen

texanus, in the Green River basin of Colorado and Utah. Southwestern Naturalist 35:427-433.

Bureau of Land Management 1996. Replacement of Plateau Creek Pipeline: Biological

Assessment. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction Resource Area, Grand Junction,

Colorado.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1994. Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. Bureau of

Reclamation, Montana Projects Office, Billings, Montana

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1999. Price-Stubb Fish Passage Draft Environmental Assessment:

Providing Endangered Fish Passage at the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam on the Colorado River. 

Grand Junction, Colorado.

U.S. Department of Interior. 1985. Plant Inventory for the Jerry Creek Exchange. Bureau of

Land Management, Grand Junction Resource Area files.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Native fish and wildlife: endangered species. Federal

Registrar 32-4001.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Determination that Uinta Basin hookless cactus

(Sclerocactus glaucus) is a threatened species. Federal Registrar 44-58868-58870.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Determination that Bonytail Chub (Gila elegans) is an

endangered species. Federal Registrar 45-27710-27713.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987a. Recovery implementation program for endangered fish

species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado. 
21

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987b. Final environmental assessment: Recovery

implementation program for endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. U.S.

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990a. Unitah Basin Hookless Cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus)

Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990b. Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. Colorado River Fishes

Recovery Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: the

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) determined to be an endangered species. Federal

Registrar 56-54957-54967.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994.. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Determination of Critical Habitat for Four Colorado River Endangered Fishes; Final Rule. 

Federal Registrar 59-13374-13400.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. Endangered and Threatened Species: Southwestern

Willow Flycatcher; Final Rule. Federal Registrar 60-10694-10715.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Endangered and Threatened Species; Bald Eagle

Reclassification; Final Rule. Federal Registrar 60-36000.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final

Determination of Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Federal Registrar 62-

39129-39147..

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Final Programmatic Biological Opinion. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Flow Recommendations to Benefit Endangered Fishes in

the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers. Recovery Program Project Number 54, Draft Final Report. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Vanicek, C.D. and R.H. Kramer. 1969. Life history of the Colorado squawfish Ptychocheilus

lucious and the Colorado chub Gila robusta in the Green River in Dinosaur National Monument,

1964-1966. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 98(2):193.
22

Valdez, R.A. and R.J. Ryel. 1995. Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha)

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Final Report to Bureau of Reclamation, Salt

Lake City, Utah. Contract No. 0-CS-40-09110. BIO/WEST Report No. TR-250-05. 286 pp.
FIGURES 6.0

23
FIGURES 6.0

24

$Z

$Z

$Z

$Z

$Z

Gunnison River

Colorado River

Redlands Diversion Dam

and Fish Ladder

Loma

Fruita X(

X(

X(

X(

#

S

Grand

Junction

DeBeque

Price-Stubb Diversion Dam

GVIC Diversion Dam and Fish Passage

Grand Valley Project Diversion Dam

Rifle

X(

Palisade

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x xxx x

x x

x

x x

x

x xxx

x

x x

x

x

x x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x x x x x x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x xx

x x

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

$Z

%[

$Z

$Z

#·

232 .3

Grand Valley Project

Diversion Dam

Colorado

River

Plateau Cr. Interstate 70

Hwy 6

#

S Palisade

Price-Stubb Dam

GVIC Diversion Dam

and Fish Passage

FIGURE 1 -Three Diversion Dams on the Colorado River
FIGURES 6.0

25

Option 1 

Fish Screen Site

Grand Valley Project

Diversion Dam

Option 2

Fish Screen Site

Fish Ladder

Construction Area

Colorado River

To DeBeque

Government Highl ni e Canal

Union Pacific Railroad

River Flow

;

;

;

P al teau Creek

Hwy 65

To Palisade To Collbran Interstate 70

FIGURE 2 - Drawing of Grand Valley Project Fish Facilities
FIGURES 6.0

26

FIGURE 3 - Conceptual Design for Fish Ladder
7.0 ATTACHMENTS