Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Presentation at Utah Division of Water Rights Public Meeting, Vernal, Utah August 20, 2009

Objectives History of what led us to today History of what led us to today Explanation of the Recovery Program Explanation of the Recovery Program Why legal protection of instream flow is required for recovery of endangered Colorado River fishes in the Green River 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 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 or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species.

Bonytai Colorado pikemnnow Razorback sucker Humpback chub Bonytail

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

History of the Recovery Program March 1984 discussions were initiated March 1984 discussions were initiated Late 1984 problem re-defined Late 1984 problem re-defined – PROBLEM: The fish are endangered – SOLUTION: Recover the fish

The Recovery Program was established in 1988 to address conflicts between the Endangered Species Act and water development

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 Partnership

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

Stocking endangered fish Managing nonnative fish Recovery Elements Research and monitoring Habitat management – providing flows Habitat development

Habitat Development Restore floodplains Provide fish passage Screen diversions

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

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. 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-1990’s, we reached a point where we could begin to take action based on the information we’d gathered to date. By mid-1990’s, we reached a point where we could begin to take action based on the information we’d 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. Since that time, monitoring activities have been increased so we can detect the effects of these recovery activities on the endangered fish populations.

Stocking Endangered Fish

Revised Stocking Plans Finalized in 2003 SpeciesRiver Annual River Target Fish Stocked by Year Colorado pikeminnow San Juan 303,000281,219306,800326,547479,226 Razorback sucker San Juan 11,4002,9881,99618,79316,933 Colorado & Gunnison 9,9306,25811,63311,55910,098 Green19,86025,0269,12120,40419,553 Bonytail Colorado5,3308,2196,0675,5545,570 Green10,66013,0939,0808,31510,813

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

Founding Document for the Recovery Implementation Program Published September 29, 1987 Published September 29, 1987 Provided framework for recovery of CO River Fishes including: 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

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

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

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

Biological Benefit for Flow Protection 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; Gradually declining flows after the peak will provide reproductive cues; Base flows scaled to hydrologic condition favor backwaters and low- velocity shoreline nursery habitats; 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; 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; SUMMER THROUGH WINTER BASE FLOW -- Anticipated Effects of Proper Flows

Biological Benefit for Flow Protection 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. 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 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 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 Provide conditions for gonad maturation and cues for spawning migrations and reproduction by the endangered fishes SPRING PEAK FLOW -- Anticipated Effects of Proper Flows

Timeline 1973 Endangered Species Act formally established 1973 Endangered Species Act formally established 1973 Humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow listed as endangered 1973 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 – final B.O. delayed 1980 USFWS enters into Section 7 consultation with BOR on FGD operations – final B.O. delayed research effects to provide flow recommendations research effects to provide flow recommendations 1987 Recovery Program Established 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 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 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 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 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 1992 to late 1990s additional research 2000 Flow and Temperature Recommendations for Green River d/s of FG Dam 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 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Record of Decision, and Biological Opinion on 2000 Recommendations 2005-Present Formal Implementation of 2000 Recommendations 2005-Present Formal Implementation of 2000 Recommendations