WSP08681

• File Number: 8240.200.48.D.3
• Description: Wolford Mountain
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 7/18/1997
• Title: Wolford Mountain Reservoir Project Biological Assessments
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Biological Opinion

EXHIBIT 1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND
THE COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

I. Background:

The primary purpose of the MOU is to implement the Reasonable and
Prudent Alternative for Wolford Mountain Reservoir enlargement to
offset the likelihood of jeopardy and adverse modification of
critical habitat. In January 1988, the secretary of the Department
of the Interior; the Governors of colorado, wyoming, and utah; and
the AdlIIi.nistrator of the western Area power Administration entered
into a cooperative Agreement to implement the Recovery
Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the upper
colorado River Basin. The cooperative Agreement also established
an Implementation committee to oversee the Recovery Program. The
overall goal of the Recovery Program, as stated in the cooperative
Agreement, is to recover and delist four endangered species (the
Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, bonytail, and the razorback
sucker) while allowing new water development to occur in the Upper
Colorado River Basin. Those four fish are referred to as the
"endangered Colorado River fishes" in this Memorandum of
Understanding.

Two of the principal elements of the Recovery Program are: (a) a
process for conducting section 7 consultations in accordance with
the Endangered species Act on the impacts of water depletions to
the endangered COlorado squa~ish, razorback sucker, lPnqpbAck chub,
and banytail and their critical habitat; and (b) acquiring water
and/or water rights to provide instream flows in accordance with
state la_ fO!; the endangered colorado River fishes. under the
Recovery PrOgram, the depletion impacts of _ter development
projects are offset by: (a) recovery activities partially fUnded by
water projects proponents I financial contribution to the Recovery
Program; (b) leqal ~ion of instrealll flowS under state laW;
and (c) progress in all other RecOV&rY Program elements.

Accordingly, the U. S. Fish and wildlife service has decided that
it must determine that progress under the Recovery Program is
sufficient to offset iJIIpacts of a depletion project before it will
issue a favorable Biolaqical Opinion. In cases where pJ:~e.s is
not sufficient the service identifies actions in the Recovery
Dap~ementation ~ograJll Recovery Action Plan to -... va u the
reasonable and prudent alternative. In a Biological Opinion on the
Muddy creek Project of the colorado River Water conservation
District issued in FebrUarY 1.990, the service concluded that
progress under the RecOV8%'Y Program had not been suf~1cient and
that an additional conservation measure -- necessary to offset the
depletion ilIIpacts of the Muddy creek PrOject. The additional
conservation measure was included in the Biological Opinion as the
reasonab~e and prudent al ternati ve and was implemented in a
Memorandum of tnlderStandinC) betWeen the parties executed by the
service on FebrUarY 7, 1.990 (herein referred to as the "Oriqinal