8089

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8089
• Author: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
• Title: Final Environmental Assessment Gunnison River Activities, Passageway Around the Redlands Diversion Dam and Interim Agreement to Provide Water for Endangered Fish.
• USFW Year: 1995.
• USFW - Doc Type: Grand Junction, Colorado.
• Copyright Material: NO

operation planning will reduce this impact. In addition recreation use will be monitored during
the interim agreement duration, for use in evaluating proposals for the long-term water contract.
Under the No Action Alternative, problems associated with a river portage or take-out will
remain until a safe, legal public facility to exit the river is developed. It is recognized that
people do take boats out of the river near the diversion and will probably continue to do so
despite the safety hazards and trespass conditions. Three written and one verbal comment on
the draft EA expressed concern that the fish passageway would increase the difficulty and danger
in taking crafts out on the east side of the river. The reason for this would be that the concrete
wing wall (see Figure 1) would preclude taking craft out along an area of bank approximately
80 feet long, beginning 65 feet upstream from the diversion dam. There was also concern from
one reviewer that the wall's design (protruding as a "V" into the river) would cause dangerous
currents.
In current designs, the wall parallels the bank. In one respect, removing a craft will be
extremely difficult and dangerous along the bank where the wall will be present. In another
respect the presence of the wall will cause boaters to take out approximately 50 feet further
upstream than current use, and this will add a little more distance and room for error above the
dangerous crest of the diversion. With the No Action alternative and the fish passageway
proposal, an area of open bank would remain immediately upstream from the Redlands
Diversion Dam and downstream from the city of Grand Junction's intake (see Figure 1) and
could serve as a last resort area to exit the river, but is certainly not recommended from a safety
standpoint.
The section on Vegetation and Land Use, in Chapter 3, discusses the possibility that BLM lands
on the west side of the river may be exchanged for Redlands Water and Power Company lands
on the east side. One comment on the draft EA expressed concern that if this exchange
occurred, the fish passageway would then preclude public access for river recreation. This is
not true. The close proximity of the diversion dam would preclude developing a public take-out
because the take-out would attract the public into a hazardous situation. This would make a
dangerous situation even more dangerous. If the exchange were to occur, the fish passageway
would-not preclude development of a public take-out a safe distance upstream or an emergency
take-out near the diversion dam.
It has also been suggested that the endangered fish program fund a safe boater take-out further
upstream as a mitigation measure. This is not included in the plan (in other words, it will not
be funded by the Endangered Species Program) because it has been concluded that the proposals
do not adversely affect the present situation. However, Reclamation and the Service will
cooperate with the public and interested agencies in solving the boater take-out at a safe location.
At the present time, local, state, and Federal groups are working together to see that a safe
boater take-out is developed on the Gunnison River.
36