Upper Colorado RiverEndangered Fish Recovery Program

Presentation at Utah Division of Water Rights Public Meeting, Vernal, Utah

August 20, 2009

ObjectivesObjectives

• History of what led us to todayHistory of what led us to today

• Explanation of the Recovery ProgramExplanation of the Recovery Program

• Why legal protection of instream flow Why legal protection of instream flow is required for recovery of is required for recovery of endangered Colorado River fishes in endangered Colorado River fishes in the Green Riverthe Green River

• Provide a brief explanation of flows Provide a brief explanation of flows

SECTION. 7. (2) Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species orresult in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species.

Bonytai

Colorado pikemnnow

Razorback sucker

Humpback chub

Bonytail

History of the Recovery History of the Recovery ProgramProgram• Mid to late 1970sMid to late 1970s

– JeopardyJeopardy– Upper Colorado River BasinUpper Colorado River Basin

• 19831983– Minimum stream flows Minimum stream flows – one-for-one replacementone-for-one replacement

•stopped water development in the basinstopped water development in the basin•put limits on use of existing water suppliesput limits on use of existing water supplies•conflicted with existing federal and state laws that conflicted with existing federal and state laws that

allocate waterallocate water

– ““Head-on collision”Head-on collision”

History of the Recovery History of the Recovery ProgramProgram

• March 1984 discussions were March 1984 discussions were initiatedinitiated

• Late 1984 problem re-definedLate 1984 problem re-defined– PROBLEM: The fish are endangeredPROBLEM: The fish are endangered– SOLUTION: Recover the fishSOLUTION: Recover the fish

The Recovery Program was established in 1988 to address conflicts between theEndangered Species Act andwater development

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Park ServiceU.S. Bureau of Reclamation Western Area Power

AdministrationState of Colorado Water UsersState of Utah Environmental groupsState of Wyoming Colorado River Energy

DistributorsAssociation

Partnership

Goal: Recover the endangered fish as water development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and state water law.

Stocking endangered Stocking endangered fishfish

Managing Managing nonnativnonnative fishe fish

Recovery ElementsRecovery Elements

Research and Research and monitoringmonitoring

Habitat Habitat management – management – providing flowsproviding flows

Habitat Habitat developmentdevelopment

Habitat DevelopmentHabitat Development

Restore floodplainsRestore floodplains

Provide fish passageProvide fish passage

Screen diversionsScreen diversions

Nonnative Fish ManagementNonnative Fish Management

• Agreements to regulate Agreements to regulate stocking stocking

• Screen reservoir outlets Screen reservoir outlets (e.g., Highline Lake) or (e.g., Highline Lake) or berm ponds to prevent berm ponds to prevent escapementescapement

• Changes to State bag and Changes to State bag and possession limits to possession limits to increase harvestincrease harvest

• Management of in-river Management of in-river populations of northern populations of northern pike and smallmouth basspike and smallmouth bass

• Research to discover Research to discover nonnative fish sourcesnonnative fish sources

Research and Monitoring Research and Monitoring ElementElement

• Early in the Recovery Program, the emphasis was on Early in the Recovery Program, the emphasis was on research. We needed basic life history information about the research. We needed basic life history information about the fish and what was needed to recover them. We studied what fish and what was needed to recover them. We studied what flows were needed, habitats needs, and other limiting factors.flows were needed, habitats needs, and other limiting factors.

• By mid-1990’s, we reached a point where we could begin to By mid-1990’s, we reached a point where we could begin to take action based on the information we’d gathered to date.take action based on the information we’d gathered to date.

• Since that time, monitoring activities have been increased so Since that time, monitoring activities have been increased so we can detect the effects of these recovery activities on the we can detect the effects of these recovery activities on the endangered fish populations. endangered fish populations.

Stocking Endangered FishStocking Endangered Fish

Revised Stocking Plans Finalized in 2003Revised Stocking Plans Finalized in 2003

SpeciesSpecies RiverRiver

Annual Annual River River

TargetTarget

Fish Stocked by YearFish Stocked by Year

20042004 20052005 20062006 20072007Colorado Colorado

pikeminnowpikeminnow San JuanSan Juan 303,000303,000 281,219281,219 306,800306,800 326,547326,547 479,226479,226

Razorback Razorback suckersucker

San JuanSan Juan 11,40011,400 2,9882,988 1,9961,996 18,79318,793 16,93316,933

Colorado & Colorado & GunnisonGunnison 9,9309,930 6,2586,258 11,63311,633 11,55911,559 10,09810,098

GreenGreen 19,86019,860 25,02625,026 9,1219,121 20,40420,404 19,55319,553

BonytailBonytailColoradoColorado 5,3305,330 8,2198,219 6,0676,067 5,5545,554 5,5705,570

Green Green 10,66010,660 13,09313,093 9,0809,080 8,3158,315 10,81310,813

FLOW RECS: History•’15-Mile’ Reach (Kaeding and Osmundson 1989)

•Flaming Gorge (USFWS 1992)

•Yampa (Modde et al 1999)

• Green River (Muth et al 2000)

• Gunni / Colo (McAda 2003)

•Duchesne (Modde and Keleher 2003)

•White (Irving et al. – draft)

•Price (UDWR – draft)

Habitat Flow Mgmt – Identify Flows

Regulatory Support for Flow Regulatory Support for Flow ProtectionProtection

• 1980 Service requested Section 7 consultation 1980 Service requested Section 7 consultation on Upper Colorado River Basin projects under on Upper Colorado River Basin projects under construction and also for those in operationconstruction and also for those in operation

• 1987 Recovery Program Founding Document1987 Recovery Program Founding Document• 1992 Flaming Gorge Biological Opinion1992 Flaming Gorge Biological Opinion• 1993 Recovery Program Section 7 Agreement 1993 Recovery Program Section 7 Agreement

and Recovery Action Planand Recovery Action Plan• 2000 Flaming Gorge Flow and Temp. Recs and 2000 Flaming Gorge Flow and Temp. Recs and

Corresponding EIS, ROD, and BO in 2005Corresponding EIS, ROD, and BO in 2005

Founding Document for the Founding Document for the Recovery Implementation Recovery Implementation ProgramProgram• Published September 29, 1987Published September 29, 1987• Provided framework for recovery of CO Provided framework for recovery of CO

River Fishes including: River Fishes including: - institutional arrangements- institutional arrangements- 5 recovery elements including - 5 recovery elements including

meeting instream flow needsmeeting instream flow needs- areas of focus including Green River- areas of focus including Green River- strategy for reoperation of federal - strategy for reoperation of federal

reservoirs to meet instream reservoirs to meet instream flowsflows

- legal protection of flows - legal protection of flows

Flaming Gorge Biological Flaming Gorge Biological Opinion – USFWS 1992Opinion – USFWS 1992Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives

– Refine Flaming Gorge Operations for flow and Refine Flaming Gorge Operations for flow and temperature to resemble historic conditionstemperature to resemble historic conditions

– Conduct a 5 year study to determine appropriate Conduct a 5 year study to determine appropriate winter and spring flowswinter and spring flows

– Investigate feasibility of retrofitting river bypass Investigate feasibility of retrofitting river bypass tubestubes

– Legally Protect flows from FG to Lake PowellLegally Protect flows from FG to Lake Powell– Work with Service to further refine flows after 5-Work with Service to further refine flows after 5-

year studyyear studyAlso provided a limited flow recommendation that Also provided a limited flow recommendation that

became the 1994 summer and fall protected flows became the 1994 summer and fall protected flows from FG. Dam to the Duchesne Riverfrom FG. Dam to the Duchesne River

1993 Recovery Program Section 7 1993 Recovery Program Section 7 Agreement and Recovery Action PlanAgreement and Recovery Action Plan

– Developed the Recovery Implementation Developed the Recovery Implementation Program Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP) Program Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP) which identified actions needed to which identified actions needed to recover fishrecover fish

– One of the primary actions was to One of the primary actions was to “Provide and Protect Instream Flows”“Provide and Protect Instream Flows”

– Stated what needed to be done and by Stated what needed to be done and by who, Federal, State, water users, etc. to who, Federal, State, water users, etc. to accomplish these actions itemsaccomplish these actions items

Habitat-Flow ManagementHabitat-Flow Management

• Identify Flows through flow recommendations Identify Flows through flow recommendations

– – FG BO 1992 – summer and fallFG BO 1992 – summer and fall

-- GR Flow and Temp Recs 2000 – winter & spring-- GR Flow and Temp Recs 2000 – winter & spring

• Provide Flows Provide Flows

– – BOR EIS and ROD 2005BOR EIS and ROD 2005

-- USWFS BO 2005 -- USWFS BO 2005

• Protect Flows – FG Dam to Duchesne RiverProtect Flows – FG Dam to Duchesne River

--1994 State of Utah – summer and fall--1994 State of Utah – summer and fall

-- 2009 State of Utah – winter & spring-- 2009 State of Utah – winter & spring

Biological Benefit for Flow Biological Benefit for Flow ProtectionProtection

Excerpt from Table 5.5.—Flow and temperature Excerpt from Table 5.5.—Flow and temperature recommendations by hydrologic condition for Reach recommendations by hydrologic condition for Reach 2 (Yampa River to White River) to benefit 2 (Yampa River to White River) to benefit endangered fishes in the Green River downstream of endangered fishes in the Green River downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam.Flaming Gorge Dam.

• Gradually declining flows after the peak will Gradually declining flows after the peak will provide provide reproductive cuesreproductive cues;;

• Base flows scaled to hydrologic condition favor Base flows scaled to hydrologic condition favor backwaters backwaters andand low-velocity low-velocity shoreline nursery habitatsshoreline nursery habitats;;

• Limit differences in Limit differences in water temperaturewater temperature variation at the variation at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers to confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers to prevent cold prevent cold shock to Colorado pikeminnow larvaeshock to Colorado pikeminnow larvae drifting out of the drifting out of the Yampa River and into the Green River, and Warmer Yampa River and into the Green River, and Warmer temperatures also will temperatures also will promote better growthpromote better growth;;

SUMMER THROUGH WINTER BASE FLOWSUMMER THROUGH WINTER BASE FLOW -- -- Anticipated Effects of Proper FlowsAnticipated Effects of Proper Flows

Biological Benefit for Flow Biological Benefit for Flow ProtectionProtection

Excerpt from Table 5.5.—Flow and temperature Excerpt from Table 5.5.—Flow and temperature recommendations by hydrologic condition for Reach 2 recommendations by hydrologic condition for Reach 2 (Yampa River to White River) to benefit endangered (Yampa River to White River) to benefit endangered fishes in the Green River downstream of Flaming Gorge fishes in the Green River downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam.Dam.

• Inundate floodplainInundate floodplain 1 of 4 years to 1 of 4 years to provide warm, food-rich provide warm, food-rich environments for fish growthenvironments for fish growth..

• In 1of 2 years provide In 1of 2 years provide bankfull flowsbankfull flows to to rework in-channel rework in-channel sediment deposits, including spawning substrates, increase sediment deposits, including spawning substrates, increase habitat complexity, form in-channel sand bars, and prevent or habitat complexity, form in-channel sand bars, and prevent or reverse channel narrowingreverse channel narrowing. .

• In all years flows will provide In all years flows will provide channel maintenance bychannel maintenance by exceeding the incipient-motion threshold thereby exceeding the incipient-motion threshold thereby removing fine removing fine sedimentssediments

• Provide conditions for Provide conditions for gonad maturation and cues for spawning gonad maturation and cues for spawning migrations and reproductionmigrations and reproduction by the endangered fishes by the endangered fishes

SPRING PEAK FLOWSPRING PEAK FLOW -- Anticipated Effects of Proper Flows -- Anticipated Effects of Proper Flows

TimelineTimeline• 1973 Endangered Species Act formally established1973 Endangered Species Act formally established• 1973 Humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow listed as endangered1973 Humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow listed as endangered• 1980 Bonytail listed as endangered (1991 razorback sucker listed) 1980 Bonytail listed as endangered (1991 razorback sucker listed) • 1980 USFWS enters into Section 7 consultation with BOR on FGD operations 1980 USFWS enters into Section 7 consultation with BOR on FGD operations – –

final B.O. delayed final B.O. delayed • 1980-1991 research effects to provide flow recommendations1980-1991 research effects to provide flow recommendations• 1987 Recovery Program Established1987 Recovery Program Established• 1992 USFWS issues FG Biological Opinion – includes requirement to 1992 USFWS issues FG Biological Opinion – includes requirement to “Legally “Legally

protect flows from FG Dam to Lake Powell” “ 5 years of protect flows from FG Dam to Lake Powell” “ 5 years of additional research additional research to refine flows.to refine flows.

• 1993 Recovery Program issues Section 7 agreement which provides process 1993 Recovery Program issues Section 7 agreement which provides process to to allow for the Program to act as the RPA for water projects allow for the Program to act as the RPA for water projects undergoing Section 7 undergoing Section 7 ConsultationConsultation

• 1994 Utah State Engineer protects flows in Green River from FGC to 1994 Utah State Engineer protects flows in Green River from FGC to Duchesne Duchesne River confluence in summer and fallRiver confluence in summer and fall

• 1992 to late 1990s additional research1992 to late 1990s additional research• 2000 Flow and Temperature Recommendations for Green River d/s of FG 2000 Flow and Temperature Recommendations for Green River d/s of FG DamDam• 2005 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Record of Decision, and 2005 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Record of Decision, and Biological Biological

Opinion on 2000 RecommendationsOpinion on 2000 Recommendations• 2005-Present Formal Implementation of 2000 Recommendations2005-Present Formal Implementation of 2000 Recommendations