7316

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7316
• Author: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
• Title: Redlands Dam Fishway Feasibility Study, Gunnison River, Colorado.
• USFW Year: 1986.
• USFW - Doc Type: Walla Walla.
• Copyright Material: NO

Funds and Funding Sources
Currently, $4UO,000 of Windy Gap funds are available. An additional $4UU,000
are needed for design and construction. Potential Fundiny sources include:
o Windy Gap payment for the Taylor Draw Project ($120,000)
o Funding through the Recovery Implementation Plan
o Funding through a future Biological Opinion (e.y. Two Forks)
o Supplemental FWS funds
Issues
A. High Cost: The cost of the project is estimated at $1,000,000 for design,
construction, and evaluation. This is six times the original estimate
prepared in 1964. (The original design was rejected early in the Corps'
feasibility study because it had a very low biological rating.)
B. Limited Recovery Value: Making tree Gunnison River accessible to the
endangered fish would be of limited recovery value. Most biologists
believe that the Gunnison River is on the fringe of the Colorado
syuawfish's and razorback sucker's distribution and that cold water
temperature in the Gunnison kiver would preclude significant spawning
activity.
C. No Immediate Application Elsewhere In The Upper Basin: No reservoirs or
diversion dams are planned in occupied habitat in the foreseeable future.
However, if a project were to erne rye, the information from the Corps'
feasibility study would provide the information necessary to recommend a
design and accurately estimate the cost for a fish passageway.
D. FWS Commitment To Construct Redland Fish Passage: FWS has negotiated and
received funds through several oil shale Section 7 consultations to
construct a fish passageway at Redlands; however, these agreements are
nonbinding; i.e., "should FWS fail to receive the necessary authority or
otherwise be unable to construct the fish passage, the FWS shall apply
payment to alternative measures. ."
Recomrnendati ons
1. Suspend activity on the project indefinitely. Rationale:
o limited recovery value
o limited application elsewhere in the basin
o high cost
Keep our options open to construct a fish passaaye if RWPC should decide
to refurbish the diversion dam.
2. Conclude the current project with a report that: (1) defines the criteria
for evaluating when fish passage as an appropriate conservation measure,
(2) documents the most appropriate design to use, and (3) provides a formula
for determining the cost of a passage structure at another site.