Laserfiche WebLink
<br />May 11-12.1998 Board Meeting <br />Agenda Item 26g.v <br />Page 2 of2 <br /> <br />. completing an agreement for delivery of water from Wolford Mountain Reservoir; <br />. adjudicating two instream flow water rights (581 cfs and 300 cfs irrigation season <br />flows) in the IS-Mile Reach of the Colorado River; <br />. success of the Redlands fish passage; <br />. completing construction of the GVIC fish passage; and, <br />. placing additional fish passage construction back on schedule. <br /> <br />Concerns <br /> <br />The Service's June 16, 1997, assessment of "sufficient progress" outlined nine <br />specific recovery actions judged to be of critical importance in 1997 that were behind <br />schedule, Critical recovery actions from that list that now are seriously behind schedule <br />are: <br /> <br />. acquisition of floodplain habitats or easements; <br />. Colorado instream flow appropriations and completion of a long-term agreement for <br />water delivery from Ruedi Reservoir; and <br />. pond reclamation in the Grand Valley and Gunnison River (for normative fish <br />control). <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />Based on careful evaluation of the status of the fish, adequacy of flows needed for <br />recovery, magnitude of depletion impacts, and Recovery Program accomplishments and <br />shortcomings, the Service concludes that until the three issues identified above are <br />resolved, progress in the Program will only be sufficient for projects that have an annual <br />depletion of up to 3,000 acre feet. If the above lisied items are not resolved by the <br />September Implementation Committee meeting, the Service may revisit the sufficient <br />progress threshold. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />We should provide the following comments to the Service: <br /> <br />I. While settlement of the filings made December 1995 lag behind schedule, so are <br />recommendations from the Service for additional stream reaches. <br />2. Also, it appears that while RIPRAP activities guide the Recovery Program process <br />and provide a way of measuring progress, the Service has chosen not to apply the <br />same measures to themselves in evaluating their own progress (as discussed under <br />"Concerns" in the draft letter with regards to the schedule for broodstock <br />development, augmentation goals for the razorback sucker and flow <br />recommendations). This should be addressed by the Recovery Program Management <br />Committee to ensure that all participants are evaluated in the same manner. <br /> <br />Attachment <br />