WSP11342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo - Endangered Species Issues DecemberS, 1996 Page 3 critical task, The bottom line for water usen is that the RC<<Ivcry Program must facilitate federal permits. I do not believe the SWe of Colorado can continue to actively pursue the subject of instream flow applications until the Service has addressed the adequacy of the Program to serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative. In a recent meeting with water users and the states, USFWS Regional Director Ralph Morgenweclt bluntly Slated that the Service has very serious concerns about the large potential carve out (up to 400,000 Lf. of additional depletions) included within the CWCB application for the mainstem. My guess is that it will be mid to late 1997 before the Service finalizes its IS-mile reach biological opinion. Further, the draft biological opinion willlikcly raise many issues that will need to be resolved. Scott's letter also suggests that the Service and CWCS have thus far failed to address the exotic: or nonnative fish competition question. The elCotic fish question has been very,frustrating. The Colorado Division of Wildlife, not the ewCB or the Fish and Wildlife Service. is responsible for fisheries management OR state streams. Although they have a long way to go. at its September 1996 meeting the Wildlife Commission adopted a nonnative control strategy. In fairness to the CDOW. nOMative control involves significant private property issues associated with ponds intercoMccted with the river channel. The approach needs to be a cooperative effort with the '} landownen and sponsmen. Scott's letter rC<<lmmelKls that the River District retain a biologist. At our October 1996 meeting the Board approved entering into conuact. with the Colorado University Limnology Center and Harvey &: Mussetter, Inc. The Umnology Center win examine the biological issues associated with and the overall importance of the IS-mile reach. HaIVey & Mussetter will examine the physical habitat upect. (geomorphology). Since the October Board meeting three, possibly four. other members of the Colorado Water Congress Special Project have agreed to contribute to the effort whieb will expand tbe scope. Beeause of the importance of the IS-mile reach Section 7 consultation, the effort will be focused toward the overall importance of Ihe I S- mile reach to basin-wide species recovery but will be relevant 10 the instream flow filings. Based on our understanding orthe issues and discussions with the consultants, we should not expect to "blow a bole" in the Service flow recommendations. Scott's letter requests that the River District "vigorously oppose" the filings. The Board should consider what policy goal this would accomplish. The River District's previous and current policy has been to support the recovery ofthe endangered fish so that existing and future water projects are not blocked or constrained by the Endangered Species Act. Defeating the proposed filings without a major change or repeal of the ESA could leave water users, including many current water users, facing the need for a Section 7 consultation under the ESA without a Recovery Program, Many West Slope projects such as Wolford Mountain, Rucdi and Green Mountain water sales, the Ute Water Conservancy District Pipeline Expansion, Stagecoach