9681 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

successfully used a passage facility over a manmade barrier, then this might expand the range of these fishes and aid in their recovery. This premise was made even though there were little biological data available on functional criteria (swimming speeds, endurance) necessary for passing these fishes, and the lack of behaviorial information about their capacity to adapt to using a fish passageway if it were provided. No laboratory or experimental testing had been conducted to observe whether or not any of these fishes that were known to migrate would actually use a fish passageway. First Consideration For Fish Passage In the upper Colorado River basin, the consideration to use fish passage in maintstem rivers was first proposed in 1982 to restore the Colorado squawfish to upstream reaches above a low-head diversion dam on the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado. Fish passage facilities would be considered a non-flow alternative for providing habitat for sub-adult and adult endangered fishes that were known to migrate. Although the Redlands Water and Power Company agreed to allow construction and operation of a fish passage facility pursuant to conditions of their FERC exemption, the Service was unable to generate the necessary funding for construction of this fish passage facility. In late 1984 and early 1985, biological opinions were issued to Federal agencies in response to formal Section 7 biological consulations for several proposed oil shale projects near Parachute, Colorado. As a conservation measure to offset anticipated detrimental impacts due to water depletions to a 15-mile reach of occupied habitat in the upper Colorado River, between Palisade, Colorado and the confluence with the Gunnison River, several oil-shale companies agreed to fund a fish passage facility at the Redlands Diversion Dam on the Gunnison River. The Redlands Diversion Dam is a low-head 3