ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

HABITAT RESTORATION 

AT THE 

LUCY FERRIL ELA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY 

(Grand Valley Audubon Society) 

Prepared by 

 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Western Colorado Area Office 

Grand Junction, Colorado 

for 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program 

Denver, CO 

November 2003 
ii
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................................i 

List of Figures................................................................................................................................................i 

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 

Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................................1 

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

Background Information...........................................................................................................................3 

Public Scoping..........................................................................................................................................4 

CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .................................................................5 

Alternatives...............................................................................................................................................5 

No Action Alternative:.....................................................................................................................5 

Proposed Action:..............................................................................................................................5 

Other Alternatives Considered:........................................................................................................6 

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND .................................................................................8 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................................8 

General .....................................................................................................................................................8 

Land Use and Recreation..........................................................................................................................8 

Vegetation...............................................................................................................................................10 

Fish and Wildlife Resources...................................................................................................................11 

Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................................12 

Water Quality .........................................................................................................................................13 

Water Rights...........................................................................................................................................13 

Historical and Cultural Resource Properties...........................................................................................13 

Indian Trust Assets .................................................................................................................................14 

Environmental Justice.............................................................................................................................14 

Health and Safety/Disease Vectors.........................................................................................................14 

Socioeconomic........................................................................................................................................14 

Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................................14 

Summary and Environmental Commitments..........................................................................................15 

Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................15 

CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...................................................................17 

General ...................................................................................................................................................17 

Consultation with other Agencies...........................................................................................................18 

Distribution List......................................................................................................................................18 

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................19 

ATTACHMENT A-CORRESPONDENCE ................................................................................................ A 

ATTACHMENT B-Distribution Mailing List............................................................................................. B 

List of Figures 

Frontispiece Map-Project Locator Map 

Figure 1-Ela Wildlife Sanctuary Looking South from the Existing Levee...................................................1 

Figure 2-Ela Wildlife Area Proposed Action Site Plan ................................................................................6 

Figure 3-Drawing of Proposed Notch (Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003a) ...................................................................7

Figure 4-Existing Land Uses ......................................................................................................................10 

1

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 

Proposed Action

The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program) is 

proposing to restore endangered fish habitat at the Lucy Ferril Ela Wildlife Sanctuary (Ela 

Wildlife Sanctuary) adjacent to the Colorado River near Grand Junction in Mesa County, 

Colorado (See Figure 1). By notching an existing levee that separates the ponds from the 

Colorado River, the proposed action would allow endangered fish larvae to drift from the river 

into the ponds of the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary, and use the ponds as a nursery habitat. 

Figure 1-Ela Wildlife Sanctuary Looking South from the Existing Levee 

Need for and Purpose of Action

This Final Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates effects on the human environment from 

notching the earthen levee to entrain endangered fish larvae into the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary 

ponds. The property is located in Mesa County, near Grand Junction, Colorado and is owned by 

the Grand Valley Audubon Society (Frontispiece Map). The Bureau of Reclamation 
2

(Reclamation) prepared this EA in cooperation with other federal and state agencies 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. 

In 1988, the Governors of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming; the Secretary of the Interior; and the 

Administrator of Western Area Power Administration entered into a cooperative agreement to 

initiate the Recovery Program. The Recovery Program is a cooperative partnership involving 

Federal and State agencies, environmental groups and water and power user organizations. 

Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), the Recovery Program 

seeks to recover four species of endangered fish (Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, 

humpback chub, and bonytail) while water development proceeds in accordance with Federal 

and State laws. Recovery is defined as achieving and maintaining natural self-sustaining 

populations of the species. 

Recovery Program elements include: 

 Habitat management including identifying and acquiring instream flows, changing 

operations of Federal dams, and operating other reservoirs in a coordinated manner to 

benefit endangered fish. 

 Habitat development including restoring floodplain/wetland habitats, constructing fish 

passageways around dams and other barriers in the river, and installing screens to 

prevent entrainment of endangered fish into diversion canals. 

 Native fish propagation and genetic management involving establishing facilities to hold 

adult brood stock to prevent extinction of these rare fish and maintain their genetic 

resources; develop growout ponds; conduct research to improve survival of endangered 

fish raised in captivity and stocked in the wild; and support appropriate stocking and 

reintroduction efforts. 

 Nonnative species and sportfishing entailing managing detrimental nonnative fish 

species in habitat considered “critical” to endangered fish. This also involves educating 

and distributing information to anglers to reduce accidental capture of endangered fish. 

 Research, monitoring and data management provides information about what these fish 

need to survive, grow, and reproduce in the wild. Efforts include compiling data on the 

number, sizes, and locations of endangered fish; monitoring endangered fish population 

trends; and making river flow recommendations. 

Need: The loss of floodplain habitat is a factor that has contributed to the decline of the 

endangered fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin. To reverse this trend, the Recovery 

Program seeks opportunities to restore, enhance, and protect floodplain habitats that will support 

recovery of the species. 

The razorback sucker is one of four species of Colorado River fishes that are in danger of 

becoming extinct. This species in particular is dependant upon floodplain habitat to ensure its 
3

survival and recovery. Razorback suckers spawn on the ascending limb of the hydrograph 

during spring runoff. After eggs hatch, larvae begin to drift downstream. Larvae that drift into 

floodplain wetlands have a better chance of survival than those that remain in the main channel. 

Floodplain wetlands have warmer water temperatures, resulting in greater food production and 

faster growth rates for young fishes, thereby increasing the chances of survival because larger 

fish are less vulnerable to predation. Floodplain habitats also provide a quiet-water shelter from 

main channel river currents, which reduces energy expenditure that can be used for growth. 

Inundated wetland vegetation also offers hiding places for avoiding predators. 

Construction of levees has disconnected many floodplain wetlands from the main river channel, 

thereby denying access to larvae that are drifting down the river. Without access to these nursery 

habitats, the few larvae are able to survive. The river environment is harsh compared to the 

floodplain wetland environment. Water temperatures are colder, food is relatively scarce, and 

there is no cover available to escape predation. 

The plan for Ela Wildlife Sanctuary is to put a notch in the levee near the upstream end of the 

property. This would allow a portion of the Colorado River to flow through the property during 

spring runoff. Some of the razorback sucker larvae drifting down river at this time of year would 

become entrained in the ponds at Ela Wildlife Sanctuary. The ponds will provide important 

nursery habitat that may help prevent the extinction of this species. 

Purpose: The purpose of the proposed action is to facilitate entrainment of drifting razorback 

sucker larvae into the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary ponds. In these types of environments, larvae are 

able to survive and grow until they are ready to leave for the river to join the adult population. 

Without these types of habitats, few razorback sucker larvae are able to survive. 

Background Information

Lucy Ferril Ela Wildlife Sanctuary

The Ela Wildlife Sanctuary is located within the Grand Valley Audubon Society Nature Center 

in Mesa County, Colorado, about 1.5 miles west of downtown Grand Junction along the 

Colorado River (See Frontispiece Map). The Ela Wildlife Sanctuary comprises about 26 acres of 

the total 70 acre property. The Grand Valley Audubon Society has considered constructing a 

Nature Center using recycled materials, and powered and heated without external energy 

sources. The primary purposes, or goals for managing the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary is to preserve 

wildlife habitat, and serve as a resource for community education and riparian restoration 

research (Rare Earth Science, 2003). The property was historically mined for gravel, prior to 

creation of the wildlife area. A levee along the Colorado River was constructed during mining to 

protect the area from seasonal flooding. During high river flows, water backs up into the 

property and river flows overtop the levee at about the five year flood event frequency. 
4

The Ela Wildlife Sanctuary provides wildlife habitat for more than 300 avian species including 

neo-tropical migrants. Winter resting areas for waterfowl is a major use. 

Public Scoping

A public scoping letter was mailed to various agencies and adjoining landowners on June 19, 

2003. In addition, a notice seeking public comments was published in the Grand Junction Daily 

Sentinel newspaper on June 29, 2003. Reclamation requested assistance in identifying issues 

and concerns associated with the proposed projects. Reclamation requested comments to be 

received by July 20, 2002. A draft environmental assessment was release for public review and 

comment on October 7, 2003 and was mailed to 30 agencies, organizations and local residents. 

Reclamation requested that written comments on the draft environmental assessment be received 

by November 7, 2003. No comments were received. 

Additional information about public scoping is included in Chapter 4-Consulation and 

Coordination. 
5

CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives

Alternatives evaluated in this environmental assessment include a No Action and the Proposed 

Action. 

No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, the Recovery Program would not 

take action to enhance endangered fish habitat at Ela Wildlife Sanctuary. A notch to entrain 

larval razorback sucker would not be constructed in the existing levee. 

Proposed Action: Tetra Tech Inc. of Breckenridge, Colorado was contracted to prepare a 

habitat restoration report for the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary (Tetra Tech Inc, 2003a). Survey data 

were collected in August 2000. The purpose of the report was to determine the floodability 

characteristics of the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary and provide proposed modifications at the site to 

promote entrainment of larval endangered fishes from the river. 

The proposed action would construct one notch to increase flow through frequency at the Ela 

Wildlife Sanctuary (Figures 2). Because the backwater currently controls inundation frequency 

(starting at less than the 1.11 year event), the flow through condition would have little change on 

inundation frequency. The approximate dimensions of the notch would be a 50 feet-wide bottom 

width along the left river bank, with 7:1 side slopes (Figure 3). The invert of the upstream notch 

would be set at elevation 4,536.0 feet. Elevation 4,536.0 feet represents a river discharge 

between 11,250 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 14,000 cfs. The notch would flow through 

approximately with the 1.11-year flow event. The natural backwater condition would provide a 

water surface elevation in the ponds of approximately 4,535.0 feet immediately before river 

water begins flowing through the notch. When the backwater reaches the notch invert elevation 

of 4,536.0 feet, approximately 1 foot of head would be over the invert and 160 cfs could pass 

through the notch. Approaching the 5-year flow event where the pond naturally connects to the 

river by levee overtopping, approximately 1,000 cfs could pass through the notch. At and above 

the 5-year event the notch would become submerged and flows overtopping the levee and road 

would be essentially the same as occurs under existing conditions. 

The side slopes of the notch would constructed with a 7:1 ratio to accommodate the pedestrian 

trail that currently exists at the project site and allow for construction and maintenance access. 

About 2,000 cubic yards (CY) of levee material would be excavated. Excavated materials would 

be used onsite to construct an offset levee that would maintain the existing level of flood 

protection (currently less than the 5-year return frequency flood) to adjacent properties after the 

project is completed. The offset levee would be constructed with an average top width of 8 feet 

and elevation of 4540.0 feet. 

The notch would be constructed to withstand forces of the 100-year flood peak event to 
6

minimize the potential of river capture through the pond. The notch would be lined and 

protected with 40 CY of 3-foot diameter boulders and 300 CY of 18-inch diameter riprap. 

Construction of both the levee flow-through notch and subsequent section of raised levee would 

be accessed via Dike Road and the existing pedestrian trail. The trail would be rebuilt and 

aligned through the notch and along the offset levee. Construction of the notch would be 

completed in the fall of 2003 during low river flows. 

Figure 2-Ela Wildlife Area Proposed Action Site Plan 

Other Alternatives Considered:

Several preliminary alternatives were considered for enhancing endangered fish habitat at the Ela 

Wildlife Sanctuary. These included 1) lowering the backwater channel at the boat launch to 

increase the frequency of backwater into the site, 2) lowering the backwater channel and 

notching the levee to promote flow through the site, and 3) installing a culvert between the river 

and the Ela Wildlife Area’s largest pond. These alternatives were discarded because they would 

not maximize entrainment of drifting larvae. In addition, using Redlands Canal water to fill and 
7

maintain the ponds was also considered. This alternative was eliminated because of elevated 

selenium levels associated with the Gunnison River and Redlands water; and because this would 

not provide the seasonal connectivity with the Colorado River needed to entrain drifting larval 

razorback sucker. 

Figure 3-Drawing of Proposed Notch (Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003a) 
8

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

General

This chapter discusses resources that may be affected by the proposed action of notching the 

levee at the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary. During the preparation of this Draft EA, information on 

issues and concerns was received from project-area residents and Colorado State Parks (see 

Chapter 4, Consultation and Coordination, for further details). 

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

are described, and impacts expected under the No Action and Action Alternative is discussed. 

This chapter concludes with a summary comparison of the alternatives and a list of mitigation 

measures. 

The project area is located in Mesa County, Colorado, along the Colorado River, which includes 

the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary. Mesa County has a population of about 119,281 (U.S. Census, 

2001). Grand Junction, founded in 1881, is the largest city in the area with a population of about 

41,986. Although agriculture remains important in Mesa County today, some light 

manufacturing and service industries influence the economy. Tourism is also a significant 

source of economic activity for the area. 

Streamflow and floodplain habitat of both the Colorado and Gunnison rivers have been 

significantly altered by water diversions and uses, infringement by railroads, gravel operations, 

highways and bridges, flood control levees, channelization, and by the operation of upstream 

storage reservoirs. 

Land Use and Recreation

The Ela Wildlife Sanctuary is located about 1.5 miles west of Grand Junction, Colorado, along 

the Colorado River (See Frontispiece Map). The area totals about 26 acres in size. The property 

was purchased by the Grand Valley Chapter of the Audubon Society to preserve wildlife habitat, 

and to provide for environmental education and riparian restoration research (Rare Earth 

Science, 2003). Before the property was purchased by Audubon, it was mined by United 

Companies for gravel. One large and five small ponds are remnants of past mining activities. A 

pedestrian trail around the property provides access for birding and nature walks. 

In 2003, the Recovery Program purchased an easement from the Grand Valley Chapter of the 

Audubon Society to enhance endangered fish habitat on the property by creating larval nursery 

habitat for razorback sucker. Colorado pikeminnow are also expected to benefit from the 

habitat enhancement. 
9

The Ela Wildlife Sanctuary is a popular area for bird watching and nature walks. The property is 

located adjacent to Colorado State Parks-Connected Lakes. Under both the No Action and 

Proposed Action, the property would continue to provide recreational opportunities. 

Adjoining land uses include Colorado River State Parks-Connected Lakes, agricultural and 

residential properties, and the Grand Valley Audubon Society’s Nature Center site (Figure 4). 

Connected Lakes provides fishing, picnicking, and hiking recreation opportunities to the 

surrounding community. A State Park boat ramp is located on the Colorado River just west of 

the Ela Wildlife Area. During spring runoff, the boat ramp becomes submerged as Colorado 

River water backs up the existing channel. Under the proposed action, the boat ramp would 

continue to be inundated with Colorado River backwater during high spring runoff. The 

proposed action is predicted to have no effect on the boat ramp (Tetra Tech 2003b). A letter 

dated September 2, 2003 from Robert Muth, Director for the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program to David Fox, Colorado Division of Parks, provided assurances that if 

any unexpected problems do occur that are directly attributable to the notch in the levee, the 

Recovery Program would take appropriate corrective action (Recovery Program, 2003). 

Ela Wildlife Sanctuary and the adjoining properties are within the 100-year floodplain of the 

Colorado River. As the river rises, water begins to back up a drainage near the State Park’s boat 

launch. As the river continues to rise, water also inundates a portion of the State Park and water 

backs up along Dike Road. The proposed action would not increase or decrease this occurrence 

and would provide no additional flood protection for adjoining landowners. The proposed action 

includes the construction of an offset levee just upstream of the notch to maintain the existing 

levels of flood protection to upstream adjoining landowners. Adjoining landowners would 

continue to experience flooding at the five-year frequency; however the proposed action would 

not increase the frequency of flooding on adjoining properties. 

Temporary construction access across Grand Valley Audubon’s property would be needed to 

allow heavy equipment to notch the levee. Disturbance to the existing hiking trail could be 

minimized if additional construction access were also granted from the adjoining landowner. If 

soil compaction occurs from heavy equipment use, disking may be necessary to revegetate the 

temporary access. 

Land use would not change as a result of the proposed action and surrounding landowners would 

continue to be susceptible to seasonal flooding on about a five year flood frequency. 
10

Figure 4-Existing Land Uses 

Vegetation

The Ela Wildlife Sanctuary can be characterized as a disturbed river bottomland site. Rare Earth 

Science, LLC (2003) identified nine major plant communities within the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary. 

These communities were 1) young cottonwood forest, 2) mixed riparian forest 3) mixed riparian 

scrub-shrub, 4) mixed Tamarisk scrub, 5) semi-desert shrubland, 6) pond banks and dikes, 7) 

river bank, 8) ephemeral pond basin and 9) weedy barrens and slash zones. Species found 

included Rio Grande cottonwood (Populus deltoids ssp. Wislizenni), Tamarisk (Tamarix 

ramosissima), Russian olive (Eleganus angustifolia), skunkbrush (Rhus trilobata), Russian 

knapweed (Acroptilon repens), bittersweet nightshade (Solunum dulcamara), groundsel tree 

(Baccharis salicina), Russian knapweed (Salsola australis), kochia (Bassia sp.), common 

rabbitbrush (Chrysothamunus nauseousus), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), alkali 

sacaton (Sporobatus airoides), poverty weed (Iva axilaris), broadleaved cattail (Typha latifolia), 

saltmarsh bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), tule sedge (Schoenoplectus pungens), saltgrass 

(Distichlis spicata), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), whiplash willow (Salix lasiandra), Arizona 
11

centaury (Centaurium calycosum), cocklebur (Xabtguyn strumarium), paintbrush (Castilleja sp.), 

virgin’s bower (Clematis ligusticifolia), pale smartweed (Persicaria lapathifolia), flax-leaved 

rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus linifolius), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), reed canary 

grass (Phalaroides arundinae), muhly (Muhlenbergia asperifolia), red-rooted cyperus (Cyperus 

erythrorhizos), spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), sprangletop (Diplachne fascicularis). 

Species composition is not expected to change at Ela Wildlife Sanctuary, however, the 

distribution will likely change as a result of flow-through, scouring and deposition. One of 

Audubon’s goals is riparian restoration which includes plans to remove and control tamarisk and 

Russian olive. The proposed action will complement Audubon’s activities. 

In consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the levee notching would 

require authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Because fill material will be 

placed below the ordinary high water line (OHW), the activity would be within the jurisdiction 

of the Clean Water Act. Because the desired outcome is to provide seasonal connectivity 

between the pond and the Colorado River, the exposed sides of the notches in the levee will need 

protection. The proposed action would protect the notches with riprap material. Reclamation 

would request authorization from the Corps under Regional General Permit No. 57, Projects 

Beneficial to the Recovery of the Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Species. This proposed 

action would have no effect on jurisdictional wetlands. 

Fish and Wildlife Resources

Fish and Wildlife resources are diverse at the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary. A detailed list of species is 

available in the “Environmental Summary Report, Grand Valley Audubon Society Nature Center 

Site, Grand Junction, Colorado” (Rare Earth Science, 2003). 

Common terrestrial species to riparian areas along the Colorado River include Northern 

sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus graciosus), Northern whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris 

septentrionalis), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Canada 

goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyhynchos), rock dove (Columba livia), mourning 

dove (Zenaida macroura), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), black-chinned hummingbird 

(Archilochus alexandri), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), black-billed magpie (Pica pica), 

Amercian robin (Turdus migratorius), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Western 

meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Brewer’s blackbird (Euhagus cyanocephalus), house finch 

(Carpodacus mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), 

Western small-footed myotis (Myotis californicus stephensi), long-legged myotis (Myotis volans 

interior), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus cinereus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), blacktailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii), least chipmunk 

(Tamias minimus), Northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), Ord’s kangaroo rat 

(Dipodmys ordii sanrafaeli), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), house mouse (Mus 

musculus), common muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), coyote (Canis latrans), long-tailed weasel 

(Mustela frenata), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), bobcat (lynx rufus), mule deer (odocoileus 

hemionus), tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo woodhousii 
12

woodhousii), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) (CDOW 

2002). 

Wildlife would be impacted by increased noise and activity during construction, however this 

would be short-term. Construction activities would be precluded during the nesting season and 

during the winter months when migratory waterfowl congregate along the Colorado River. 

Common fish species in the Colorado and Gunnison rivers include bluehead sucker (Catostomus 

discobolus), flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), roundtail chub (Gila robusta), 

common carp (Cyprinus carpio linnaeus), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), red shiner 

(Cyprinella lutrensis), sand shiner (Noptropis stamineus), and channel catfish (Ictalurus 

punctatus) (Burdick, 2001). 

Riparian and wetland dependent wildlife species are predicted to benefit from the increased 

freshening flows into the ponds. Fish species are predicted to benefit from increased access to 

existing habitats. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified five threatened or 

endangered species that could be directly affected by the proposed action. These include: 1) 

Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), 2) razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), 3) 

humpback chub (Gila cypha), 4) bonytail (Gila elegans), and 5) bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus). 

For purposes of Section 7 Compliance with the Endangered Species Act, this EA also serves as 

the biological assessment for federally listed species. 

Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker are known to occur in backwater habitats near the 

Ela Wildlife Sanctuary and the proposed project is designed to enhance designated critical 

habitat. Ela Wildlife Sanctuary is located within designated critical habitat for the Colorado 

pikeminnow and razorback sucker. In 2002, the Service documented larval razorback sucker in 

the Gunnison River upstream of the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary Site (McAda, 2002). 

Humpback chub and bonytail have not been documented at either site. However, bonytail may 

be stocked in the area by the Recovery Program. If stocked, the proposed actions would also 

benefit bonytail. The proposed action may affect, not likely to adversely affect (Beneficial 

Effect), Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail; and would not adversely modify 

designated critical habitat. Incidental take of endangered species is not predicted to occur as a 

result of the proposed action. The proposed action would have no effect on humpback chub. 
13

Preferred habitats for bald eagle occur adjacent to the project site. Mature cottonwood trees, 

which are preferred bald eagle winter roost sites are absent from the site. Two wintering bald 

eagles have been observed roosting in mature cottonwood trees at the confluence of the Colorado 

and Gunnison Rivers about 2 miles upstream of the project area (Shannon, 2003). The proposed 

action would have no effect on the bald eagle. 

The Service issued written concurred with Reclamation’s determination that the proposed project 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker or 

bonytail. A copy of the Service’s concurrence letter is included in the Appendices. 

Water Quality

Elevated salinity and selenium levels occurring in both the Colorado and Gunnison rivers have 

resulted in the implementation of federal programs to address water quality issues. Reclamation 

and the Natural Resource Conservation Service have implemented salinity control projects in 

both the Grand and Uncompahgre Valleys to reduce salt loads in the Colorado River mainstem 

as part of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program. Projects have been limited primarily to 

the lining of irrigation canals, piping laterals, and on-farm efficiency improvements. The 

proposed project is predicted to have no effect on salinity concentrations in the Colorado River 

or affect the Colorado River Salinity Control Program’s ability to meet targeted salinity 

reductions in the lower Colorado River. 

The National Irrigation Water Quality Program (NIWQP) evaluated selenium levels in selected 

backwater sites along the Colorado and Gunnison rivers. Elevated selenium levels were detected 

from samples collected from ponds in and near the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary (Krueger, 2003). The 

Gunnison River exceeds the State of Colorado selenium water quality standards and the 

Redlands Canal south of the property returns diverted Gunnison River water to the Colorado 

River. The proposed action is predicted to improve water quality conditions at the Ela Wildlife 

Sanctuary with increased flushing and dilution with Colorado River water. 

Water Rights

The proposed action does not affect the amount of water or ability to divert water for 

consumptive uses in the Colorado River. Therefore, the proposed action is predicted to have no 

effect on water rights. 

Historical and Cultural Resource Properties

Cultural resource inventories were conducted in 2003 by Reclamation staff, and it was 

determined that the proposed project would have no effect on historical or cultural resource 

properties. In the unlikely event that cultural or historic resources are encountered during 

construction, activities would be halted and consultation with the Colorado State Historic 
14

Preservation Officer initiated. 

Indian Trust Assets

Indian trust assets are legal interests in property held by the United States for Indian Tribes or 

individuals. Reclamation and other Federal agencies share the responsibility to protect these 

assets. There have been no trust assets identified in the project area, and therefore no impact on 

these assets is predicted. 

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice provides that Federal agencies analyze 

programs to assure that they do not disproportionately adversely affect minority or low income 

populations or Indian Tribes. There are no potentially affected minority or low income 

populations in the project area, and no adverse effects related to environmental justice are 

predicted. 

Health and Safety/Disease Vectors

Standing water provides breeding habitat for mosquitoes and other biting flies. These insects can 

serve as potential disease vectors. The proposed action would likely reduce the amount of 

standing water by introducing river flow into and out of the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary Ponds. 

Therefore, the proposed action is predicted to have no effect on health and safety/disease vectors. 

 

Socioeconomic

There is no direct socioeconomic effect to implementing the proposed action other than some 

limited employment opportunities during construction. Indirectly, the proposed project is 

designed to enhance fish habitat to increase the likelihood of endangered fish recovery, allowing 

continued water development in the Colorado and Gunnison River basins as identified in the 

Recovery Program Goals. 

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment, which result from the incremental impact of 

the action, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time. 

Past and present activities that have affected river-related resources in the area include irrigation, 

urban development and recreational activities associated with construction and operation of the 

Aspinall Unit and the Uncompahgre Project, Grand Valley Project, and activities associated with 

the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 
15

Implementation of all or any of these projects has affected and continues to affect the human 

environment including but not limited to water quality, water rights, socioeconomic and wildlife 

resources. Incremental cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed 

action are anticipated to be too small to measure. 

Summary and Environmental Commitments

In summary, the primary effect of the proposed action would be to improve habitat for the 

Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker at the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary. 

The proposed actions would have no effect on land use, water quality, water rights, Indian trust 

assets, and historical and cultural resources. The proposed action would also have no effect on 

the bald eagle, or humpback chub. The proposed actions may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker and bonytail. In addition, the 

proposed action would not adversely modify designated critical habitat. 

Wildlife would be impacted by increased noise and activity during construction, however this 

would be short-term. Impacts associated with construction would be mitigated by restricting 

construction activities to avoid the normal nesting season. Riparian and wetland dependent 

wildlife and fish species would benefit from additional habitat access and freshening flows. 

Vegetation resources impacts would be limited to temporary construction disturbances. Clean 

Water Act Section 404 authorization would be obtained to discharge riprap material to protect 

the newly created notch in the levee. 

Mitigation Measures 

1). Authorization would be obtained from Grand Valley Audubon to notch the existing levee. 

2). Section 404 authorization would be obtained from the Corps prior to initiating construction 

activities. Removed levee material would be discharged in uplands sites above the ordinary high 

water line and used to construct the offset levee. 

4). Construction and levee removal activities would be limited to before and after the spring 

runoff period when river levels are low. 

5) Construction activities would occur outside the normal nesting season to protect nesting 

waterfowl and migratory birds. 

6) Areas disturbed during construction would be revegetated with appropriate plant species (i.e. 

willows, grasses). 
16

7) If any unexpected problems occur that are directly attributable to the notch in the levee, the 

Recovery Program would take the appropriate corrective action. 
17

CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

General

A public scoping letter was mailed to various agencies and adjoining landowners on June 19, 

2003. In addition, a notice seeking public comments was published in the Grand Junction Daily 

Sentinel newspaper on June 29, 2003. Reclamation requested assistance in identifying issues 

and concerns associated with the proposed project. Reclamation requested comments to be 

received by July 20, 2002. 

A total of four (4) comment letters were received during the public scoping process. Three of the 

comment letters were from adjoining land owners. Issues and concerns identified included 1) 

concerns about historical flooding of adjoining properties and increasing flood frequency, 2) 

notching the existing dike defeating its intended purpose and reducing its ability to protect 

floodway properties, 3) past non-native fish control efforts, and 4) suggested other alternatives 

using Redlands Canal water to fill ponds at the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary or using the existing 

breach created during the 1983 flood. 

A comment letter was also received from Colorado State Parks regarding Connected Lakes State 

Park which is located immediately downstream of the Ela Wildlife Sanctuary. Concerns focused 

around effects to the existing boat launch, other park facilities, visitors and access roads. 

Specifically, State Parks identified concerns regarding increased velocity and inundation, 

sedimentation, turbulence and impairment to boat launching activities, and erosion of the levee at 

the launching area. 

A meeting was held onsite on August 22, 2003 with representatives from the Grand Valley 

Audubon Society, the Upper Colorado River Endanger Fish Recovery Program, Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Reclamation and adjoining landowners. The purpose of the 

meeting was review the proposed action with adjoining landowners and address issues and 

concerns. Individuals attending the meeting included Bob Wilson and Steve Watson-Grand 

Valley Audubon Society, Pat Nelson-Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program, John Toolen-Colorado Division of Wildlife, Terry Stroh-Bureau of Reclamation, Ila 

Royle-adjoining landowner, Charles Adams-adjoining landowner, and Jane Maxon-adjoining 

landowner. Adjoining landowners were concerned about the potential for increased flooding, 

changes in the river floodway, loss of the existing levee’s integrity, and odor from Audubon 

ponds. 

A draft environmental assessment was release for public review and comment on October 7, 

2003 and mailed to 30 agencies, organizations and local residents. Reclamation requested that 

written comments on the draft environmental assessment be received by November 7, 2003. No 

comments were received. The draft environmental assessment became the final environmental 

assessment without revisions. 
18

Consultation with other Agencies

Reclamation staff continues to informally coordinate and consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Colorado State Parks and the Grand Valley Audubon Society. A copy of 

correspondence with Colorado State Parks is included in Attachment A. A complete list of 

Agencies is included in the Distribution List. 

Distribution List

Appendix A contains the mailing list for this Final Environmental Assessment. The list includes 

all individuals, agencies, and organizations to which Reclamation sent the scoping document. In 

addition, others who have specifically provided written comments or requested a copy of the 

draft EA are included on the list. 
19

REFERENCES 

Burdick, B.D. 2001. Five-year evaluation of fish passage at the Redlands Diversion Dam on the 

Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado: 1996-2000. Recovery Program Project Number 

CAP-4b. Final Report prepared for the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered 

Fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado River 

Fishery Project, Grand Junction, CO. 57 pp + appendices. 

Krueger, R. 2003. Personal communications with Rick Krueger, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contaminants Specialist, on August 12, 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, 

Colorado. 

 

Rare Earth Science, LLC. Environmental Summary Report, Grand Valley Audubon Society 

Nature Center Site, Grand Junction, Colorado. 109 pp. + attachments. 

Shannon, C. 2003. Personal communication with Charley Shannon, Western Colorado Wildlife 

Habitat Association, on April 16, 2003. 

Tetra Tech Inc, 2003a. Floodplain Habitat Restoration, Audubon (AU) Site, Colorado River, 

Grand Junction, Colorado, Flood Inundation Study, Final Report. Contract No. 1425-6-CA-40-

1730A, Tetra Tech Inc. Project No. 10600.36, Breckenridge, CO. 

Tetra Tech Inc, 2003b. Letter to David Fox, Colorado State Parks, from Jason Carey dated 

August 30, 2003.

A

ATTACHMENT A-CORRESPONDENCE 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

B

ATTACHMENT B-Distribution Mailing List 
1

Grand Valley Audubon Society 

P.O. 1211 

Grand Junction, CO 81502-1211 

Mr. John Toolen 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 

711 Independent Ave. 

Grand Junction, CO 81505 

Mr. Larry Abbott 

Colorado Department of Transportation 

222 South Sixth St. 

Grand Junction, CO 81501 

Mesa County Department of Planning and 

Development 

P.O. Box 2000 

Grand Junction, CO 81502 

Mr. Pat Nelson 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

P.O. Box 25486, DFC 

Denver, CO 80225 

Mr. Al Pfister 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

764 Horizon Dr., Bldg. B 

Grand Junction, CO 81506 

Mr. Marian Atkins 

Bureau of Land Management 

2815 H Rd. 

Grand Junction, CO 81506 

Mr. Steven Glazer 

High Country Citizen’s Alliance/Sierra Club 

P.O. Box 459 

Crested Butte, CO 81224 

Mr. Dave Kanzer 

Colorado River Water Conservation District 

P.O. Box 1120 

Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 

Ms Dianna Leinberger 

Club 20 

P.O. Box 550 

Grand Junction, CO 81502 

Mr. Ken Jacobson 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

400 Rood Ave., Room 142 

Grand Junction, CO 81501 

Mr. Chuck McAda 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

764 Horizon Dr., Building B 

Grand Junction, CO 81506 

Mr. Pat Oglesby 

Trout Unlimited 

3095 Evanston 

Grand Junction, CO 81504 

Mr. Randy Seaholm 

Colorado Water Conservation Board 

1313 Sherman St., Room 721 

Denver, CO 80203 

Ms. Penny C. Starr 

Western Colorado Congress 

124 Bristlecone Dr. 

Ridgway, CO 81432 

Mr. Everett Sunderland 

Upper Colorado River Commission 

355 S 400 E 

Salt Lake City, UT 84111 

Mr. Greg Trainor 

City of Grand Junction 

250 North Fifth St. 

Grand Junction, CO 81501 

Mr. Paul Von Guerard 

U.S. Geological Survey 

764 Horizon Dr., Rm 125 

Grand Junction, CO 81506 

Mr. Brad Taylor 

Colorado State Parks 

West Regional Office 

361 32 Rd. 

Grand Junction, CO 81520 

Mr. John Gaarde 

2384 N. San Miguel Dr. 

Grand Junction, CO 81503-1416 
2

Ms. Debra Green 

476 E. Scenic Dr. 

Grand Junction, CO 81503-1508 

Mr. Clyde Maxson 

600 Dike Rd. 

Grand Junction, CO 81503-2714 

Mr. Charles Adams 

550 Dike Rd. 

Grand Junction, CO 81503-2712 

Ms. Ila Royle 

533 Dike Rd. 

Grand Junction, CO 81503-2711 

Mr. Dale Reece 

2065 Blue Water Dr. 

Fruita, CO 81521-9419 

Sheldon Real 

2439 River Rd. 

Denver, CO 80217-5567 

Ms. Patoria Brewer 

596 Dike Rd. 

Grand Junction, CO 81503-2712 

United Sand and Gravel Company 

P.O. Box 3609 

Grand Junction, CO 81502-3609 

Mr. Ronald Johnson 

P.O. Box 1373 

Grand Junction, CO 81502-2373 

Howard and Grace Fitch 

602 Dike Road 

Grand Junction, CO 81503