WSPC183 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002472 The USFWS flow recommendations are based on biological reports that are subject to the Program's current biological report review process (http://www.r6.fws.gov/crrip/doc.htm). The Biology Committee seeks consensus about the biological reports and the biological sufficiency of the USFWS flow recommendations, but now can make such decisions by majority vote (Minutes of Joint Management and Biology Committee Meeting, November 14, 1994). Those in the biological minority may file dissenting opinions about such decisions and seek Management Committee review. Because the Management Committee is not responsible for evaluating the biological merits of the flow recommendations, its primary management decision in this process is whether the minority positions could be resolved by directing the Biology Committee to continue deliberating. The judgment of one management committee member should not simply be substituted for the majority judgement of the Biology Committee, through consensus decision making by the Management Committee, Nor can any Program committee adopt flow recommendations for the USFWS, Ifthere is consensus at the Biology Committee or consensus is reached at the Management Committee not to direct further biological deliberations by the Biology Committee, then the biological report and any flow recommendations incorporated in the report is approved by the Program and the implementation of the flow recommendations will enjoy greater, consensus Program support. If consensus is not reached at the Management Committee, the biological report cannot be approved by the Program, but the USFWS can still proceed to adopt flow recommendations based on that report and the minority opinions, and other Program participants can still assess, and seek consensus on, how to implement those recommendations. If Program consensus on the implementation of the flow recommendations cannot be reached and they cannot be fully implemented, then USFWS is responsible for evaluating whether recovery is still possible and whether water depletions dependent on federal action can continue, or whether federal water and power proj ects can be operated, without jeopardizing the listed fishes. These implications of the process emerged in the Program review and implementation of the flow recommendations for the 15 Mile Reach of the Colorado River, the Yampa River, and the Green River below Flaming Gorge Dam, On the flow recommendations for the 15 Mile Reach and the Yampa River, we were unable to reach consensus at both the Biology and Management Committees, but the water user representative was willing to explore the implementation ofthese recommendations through instream flow water rights appropriated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board under state law. The instream flow water rights that the CWCB determined to appropriate were a compromise that was worked out over several years of discussions in the Program committees and that did not fully implement the USFWS flow recommendations. In the end, these instream flow filings did not prove acceptable to either the water users or the USFWS, and the USFWS was asked to determine whether a different package of flow and non- flow recovery actions would be sufficient for a specific level of depletions above the 15 Mile Reach. The flow measures in this package still do not fully implement the USFWS flow recommendations, but the USFWS has nevertheless determined in a programmatic biological opinion that these flow measures, along with other non-flow recovery actions, are sufficient for the 15 Mile Reach, as long as the population responses by the listed fishes meet certain criteria, 2