Recovery Agreements in CO and PRRIP

Home Browse Search

; QPQ??,ENT OR Ty?i ? p ? a 9 '9RCH 3 ?aA IN REPLY REFER TO: FWS/R6 FR-ES United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Mountain-Prairie Region MAILING ADDRESS: STREET LOCATION: P.O. Box 25486, DFC 134 Union Boulevard Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 Lakewood, Colorado 80228-1807 &MIJALUM SEErVICE RECEIVED May 3, 2007 MQY 0 ? ???ftindo tA1a4eP ConseFva4ioi Boar? Mr. Don Ament c/o Mr. Ted Kowalski Colorado Water Conservation Board 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denver, Colorado 80203 Mr. Alan Berryman Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 220 Water Avenue Berthoud, Colorado 80513 Mr. Kevin Urie/SPWRAP Denver Water Department 1600 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204 SUBJECT: RECOVERY AGREEMENTS IN COLORADO AND THE PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY IMP MENTATION PROGRAM e??/? Dear Messrs. Ament, ?wa 'r,-Beiryman, and Urie: I am writing to follow-up on my April 20, 2007, phone discussion with Mr. Kowalski, where we discussed the use of Recovery Agreements in Colorado and their relationship to Colorado's Plan for Future Depletions and the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (Program). The purpose of this letter is to document our mutual agreement concerning the use of Recovery Agreements and coordination procedures during Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultations involving Platte River water related activities. Mr. Kowalski represented the views of both the State of Colorado and the South Platte Water Related Activities Program, Inc. (SPWRAP). The Recovery Agreement's primary purpose was to identify any requirements that a water user must complete with the State and/or SPWRAP in order to participate in Colorado's Plan, and if such requirements are not met, then the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) may request reinitiation of consultation on that particular biological opinion which relied on Colorado's Plan as part of their ESA compliance. From our perspective, the ESA and implementing regulations provide that ability to the Service in such circumstances and, therefore, the Recovery Agreement only presents an additional and unneeded procedural step for the Water Users, State, SPWRAP coordinator, and the Service. I am pleased that we have agreed that a signed Recovery Agreement is not required by the State and SPWRAP as part of the streamlined consultation process.