My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Hot Topic: Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper CO River Basin
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
Hot Topic: Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper CO River Basin
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2010 1:23:17 PM
Creation date
7/12/2010 2:05:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
State
CO
UT
WY
Basin
Yampa/White/Green
Water Division
6
Date
4/29/1998
Author
Robert Wigington, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Title
Hot Topic: Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper CO River Basin
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
the form of a small charge per acre foot of new depletions. All existing depletions were <br />exempted from the charge. While the charge on new depletions has only been escalated for <br />inflation, the Upper Basin states and power users have recently committed to increase <br />significantly their cost sharing in the Recovery Program. The Colorado River Water <br />Conservation District should also be recognized as one water user that has increased it cost <br />burden beyond the payment of the per foot depletion charge by committing 5,200 acre feet <br />of average yield from its Wolford Mountain Reservoir to support instream flows in the 15 Mile <br />Reach. <br />Ten years later, the allegation is that Recovery Program overemphasizes the legal protection of <br />instream flows, that other habitat degradations are more limiting than flow depletion and <br />alteration, and that we must fail in addressing these other habitat degradations before we know <br />whether flow protection is needed. My view is that our big river, native fish are in trouble for a <br />host of interdependent reasons that must be addressed concurrently and adaptively. I think that is <br />the core premise of the Recovery Program. Along the way, we need some checkpoints about <br />flow depletions so that we can consider whether the fish can tolerate going beyond these <br />checkpoints, given concurrent efforts to address the other limiting factors. I don't see that as an <br />overemphasis on flow protection. <br />It is also hard to see such an overemphasis on legal protection of instream flows under state law, <br />while depletions have proceeded apace. Over the last ten years, almost 700,000 acre of <br />depletions in the Upper Basin (excluding the San Juan) have gone through biological review <br />under the Endangered Species Act unabated. The biggest blocks of depletion so far have been in <br />Utah, but the Programmatic Opinion for the 15 Mile Reach will cover over 1,000,000 acre feet of <br />historic depletions and at least 40,000 acre feet of new depletions. On the other hand, the legal <br />protection of instream flows under state law has been resisted and sketchy. The most significant <br />flow protection may be the federal commitments to regulate flows physically for fish recovery <br />through the operation of the Flaming Gorge and Aspinall Units of the Colorado River Storage <br />Project, to deliver surplus water from Ruedi and Green Mountain Reservoirs, and to conserve <br />diversions for the Government Highline Canal. After a decade of seeking to apply state water <br />laws, the lowlights could outweigh highlights: <br />The deliveries of up to 10,000 acre feet of water from Ruedi Reservoir and now 5,200 acre <br />feet from the Wolford Mountain Reservoir to support instream flows in the 15 Mile Reach <br />have been legally protected under state law through agreements with the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board. That works out to no more than an average of 85 cubic feet per second <br />per month of reservoir releases from August through October. The flows in that reach have <br />recently averaged about 1,000 cubic feet per second during those months. The flow <br />recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for those months average about <br />1,350 cubic feet per second. <br />• The Utah State Engineer has made an administrative commitment not to approve permits for <br />new diversions on the Green River (down to its confluence with the Duchesne River) that <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.