8012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Utah, Dallas and Dolores, and Seedskadee projects) were treated differently. These projects were exempted from the depletion charge because the BOR had agreed to fund at least $1.5 million each year of the program's annual cost (it's now up to almost $2 million each year) and had committed to re-operate federal reclamation projects to provide instream flows for the listed fishes. Soon after the Muddy Creek opinion was finalized, the FWS questioned whether non-federal, historic water projects (already depleting as of 1988) should be exempted from both the depletion charge and any suf- ficient progress determinations. Two years of negotia- tions over that issue culminated in the consolidation and reform of FWS consultation policy for the Upper Basin in the Section 7 Agreement. This Agreement was conditioned on the development and approval of a more detailed and definite plan for flow protection and all other recovery actions - the Recovery Implementation Program Recovery Action Plan or RIPRAP. The initial RIPRAP was put in effect about 6 months after the Section 7 Agreement was reached. Under this agreement, the FWS will judge whether the progress towards recovery as measured by the RIPRAP is keeping pace with the depletion impacts of water projects. The larger the depletion or the longer it takes to quantify and legally protect the instream flows need- ed for recovery, the bigger the risk that those flows can- not be protected or replaced under even the RIP RAP, and that the Upper Basin Program will not be able to serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative in con- sultations on upstream, non-federal water projects. The agreement addresses this risk by allowing the FWS to condition biological opinions for larger depletions on the timely completion of flow protection or other recovery actions specified in the RIP RAP. For smaller depletions, once the flows needed for recovery have been legally protected, or once sufficient other progress 56 towards recovery has been made, the FWS will issue unconditional opinions under the agreement. Program Organization and Funding The Upper Basin Program is organized around several large committees, starting with the Implementation Committee composed of the regional directors for Region 6 of the FWS, the Upper Colorado Region of BOR, and the Western Area Power Administration; the directors of natural resource or water management agencies for Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; and con- servation group, water user, and (nonvoting) hydropower representatives. Each member of the Implementation Committee has appointed a represen- tative to the Management Committee and three techni- cal committees support the Management Committee - the Biology, Water Acquisition, and Information and Education committees. The objective is to reach as much consensus as possible at every level. This struc- ture is cumbersome and expensive, but has given a broad spectrum of interests a meaningful forum, has institutionalized extensive and open review of all pro- gram policies and actions, and been central to building a supportive coalition within the Upper Basin. The program's annual work plan and budget are approved at the fall meeting of the Implementation Committee. The total FY 96 budget approved last fall was about $11 million, which is broken down into about a $6.4 million appropriation to the BOR for cap- ital projects, about $2 million for annual projects that is charged as an operation and maintenance expense of the Upper Basin hydropower fund, and about $1.1 mil- lion in appropriations to the FWS for annual projects. The balance is funded by the payment of water deple- tion charges, contributions from the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah and from water users, and some carryover from an earlier appropriation to