Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

1
Upper Colorado RiverEndangered Fish Recovery
Program
Presentation at Utah Division of Water Rights
Public Meeting, Vernal, Utah August 20, 2009
2
Objectives

• History of what led us to today
• Explanation of the Recovery Program
• Why legal protection of instream flow is required
  for recovery of endangered Colorado River fishes
  in the Green River
• Provide a brief explanation of flows

3
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
or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat of such
species.
4
Bonytail
5
History of the Recovery Program

• Mid to late 1970s
• Jeopardy
• Upper Colorado River Basin
• 1983
• Minimum stream flows
• one-for-one replacement
• stopped water development in the basin
• put limits on use of existing water supplies
• conflicted with existing federal and state laws
  that allocate water
• Head-on collision

6
History of the Recovery Program

• March 1984 discussions were initiated
• Late 1984 problem re-defined
• PROBLEM The fish are endangered
• SOLUTION Recover the fish

7
The Recovery Program was established in 1988 to
address conflicts between theEndangered Species
Act andwater development
8
Partnership
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service National Park
Service U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Western Area
Power Administration State of Colorado
Water Users State of Utah Environmental
groups State of Wyoming Colorado River
Energy Distributors Association
9
Goal Recover the endangered fish as water
development proceeds in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act and state water law.
10
Recovery Elements
Habitat development
Habitat management providing flows
11
Habitat Development
Restore floodplains
Provide fish passage
Screen diversions
12
Nonnative Fish Management

• Agreements to regulate stocking
• Screen reservoir outlets (e.g., Highline Lake) or
  berm ponds to prevent escapement
• Changes to State bag and possession limits to
  increase harvest
• Management of in-river populations of northern
  pike and smallmouth bass
• Research to discover nonnative fish sources

13
Research and Monitoring Element

• Early in the Recovery Program, the emphasis was
  on research. We needed basic life history
  information about the fish and what was needed to
  recover them. We studied what flows were needed,
  habitats needs, and other limiting factors.
• By mid-1990s, we reached a point where we could
  begin to take action based on the information
  wed gathered to date.
• Since that time, monitoring activities have been
  increased so we can detect the effects of these
  recovery activities on the endangered fish
  populations.

14
Stocking Endangered Fish
15
Revised Stocking Plans Finalized in 2003
Species River Annual River Target Fish Stocked by Year Fish Stocked by Year Fish Stocked by Year Fish Stocked by Year
Species River Annual River Target 2004 2005 2006 2007
Colorado pikeminnow San Juan 303,000 281,219 306,800 326,547 479,226
Razorback sucker San Juan 11,400 2,988 1,996 18,793 16,933
Razorback sucker Colorado Gunnison 9,930 6,258 11,633 11,559 10,098
Razorback sucker Green 19,860 25,026 9,121 20,404 19,553
Bonytail Colorado 5,330 8,219 6,067 5,554 5,570
Bonytail Green 10,660 13,093 9,080 8,315 10,813
16
Habitat Flow Mgmt Identify Flows
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)

17
Regulatory Support for Flow Protection

• 1980 Service requested Section 7 consultation on
  Upper Colorado River Basin projects under
  construction and also for those in operation
• 1987 Recovery Program Founding Document
• 1992 Flaming Gorge Biological Opinion
• 1993 Recovery Program Section 7 Agreement and
  Recovery Action Plan
• 2000 Flaming Gorge Flow and Temp. Recs and
  Corresponding EIS, ROD, and BO in 2005

18
Founding Document for the Recovery Implementation
Program

• Published September 29, 1987
• Provided framework for recovery of CO River
  Fishes including
• - institutional arrangements
• - 5 recovery elements including meeting
  instream flow needs
• - areas of focus including Green River
• - strategy for reoperation of federal
  reservoirs to meet instream flows
• - legal protection of flows

19
Flaming Gorge Biological Opinion USFWS 1992

• Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives
• Refine Flaming Gorge Operations for flow and
  temperature to resemble historic conditions
• Conduct a 5 year study to determine appropriate
  winter and spring flows
• Investigate feasibility of retrofitting river
  bypass tubes
• Legally Protect flows from FG to Lake Powell
• Work with Service to further refine flows after
  5-year study
• Also provided a limited flow recommendation that
  became the 1994 summer and fall protected flows
  from FG. Dam to the Duchesne River

20
(No Transcript)
21
1993 Recovery Program Section 7 Agreement and
Recovery Action Plan

• Developed the Recovery Implementation Program
  Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP) which identified
  actions needed to recover fish
• One of the primary actions was to Provide and
  Protect Instream Flows
• Stated what needed to be done and by who,
  Federal, State, water users, etc. to accomplish
  these actions items

22
Habitat-Flow Management

• Identify Flows through flow recommendations
• FG BO 1992 summer and fall
• -- GR Flow and Temp Recs 2000 winter spring
• Provide Flows
• BOR EIS and ROD 2005
• -- USWFS BO 2005
• Protect Flows FG Dam to Duchesne River
• --1994 State of Utah summer and fall
• -- 2009 State of Utah winter spring

23
Biological Benefit for Flow Protection
SUMMER THROUGH WINTER BASE FLOW -- Anticipated
Effects of Proper Flows

• Excerpt from Table 5.5.Flow and temperature
  recommendations by hydrologic condition for Reach
  2 (Yampa River to White River) to benefit
  endangered fishes in the Green River downstream
  of Flaming Gorge Dam.
• Gradually declining flows after the peak will
  provide reproductive cues
• Base flows scaled to hydrologic condition favor
  backwaters and low-velocity shoreline nursery
  habitats
• Limit differences in water temperature variation
  at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers
  to prevent cold shock to Colorado pikeminnow
  larvae drifting out of the Yampa River and into
  the Green River, and Warmer temperatures also
  will promote better growth

24
Biological Benefit for Flow Protection
SPRING PEAK FLOW -- Anticipated Effects of
Proper Flows

• Excerpt from Table 5.5.Flow and temperature
  recommendations by hydrologic condition for Reach
  2 (Yampa River to White River) to benefit
  endangered fishes in the Green River downstream
  of Flaming Gorge Dam.
• Inundate floodplain 1 of 4 years to provide warm,
  food-rich environments for fish growth.
• In 1of 2 years provide bankfull flows to rework
  in-channel sediment deposits, including spawning
  substrates, increase habitat complexity, form
  in-channel sand bars, and prevent or reverse
  channel narrowing.
• In all years flows will provide channel
  maintenance by exceeding the incipient-motion
  threshold thereby removing fine sediments
• Provide conditions for gonad maturation and cues
  for spawning migrations and reproduction by the
  endangered fishes

25
Timeline

• 1973 Endangered Species Act formally established
• 1973 Humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow listed as
  endangered
• 1980 Bonytail listed as endangered (1991
  razorback sucker listed)
• 1980 USFWS enters into Section 7 consultation
  with BOR on FGD operations final B.O. delayed
• 1980-1991 research effects to provide flow
  recommendations
• 1987 Recovery Program Established
• 1992 USFWS issues FG Biological Opinion
  includes requirement to Legally protect flows
  from FG Dam to Lake Powell 5 years of
  additional research to refine flows.
• 1993 Recovery Program issues Section 7 agreement
  which provides process to allow for the Program
  to act as the RPA for water projects undergoing
  Section 7 Consultation
• 1994 Utah State Engineer protects flows in Green
  River from FGC to Duchesne River confluence in
  summer and fall
• 1992 to late 1990s additional research
• 2000 Flow and Temperature Recommendations for
  Green River d/s of FG Dam
• 2005 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Record
  of Decision, and Biological Opinion on 2000
  Recommendations
• 2005-Present Formal Implementation of 2000
  Recommendations