BOARD00278

• Board Meeting Date: 5/11/1998
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - Endangered Species Issues - Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Sufficient Progress Letter
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

May 11-12, 1998 Board Meeting
Agenda Item 26g,y
Page 2 of2

. completing an agreement for delivery of water from Wolford Mountain Reservoir;
. adjudicating two instream flow water rights (581 cfs and 300 cfs irrigation season
flows) in the IS-Mile Reach of the Colorado River;
. success of the Redlands fish passage;
. completing construction of the GVIC fish passage; and,
. placing additional fish passage construction back on schedule,

Concerns

The Service's June 16, 1997, assessment of "sufficient progress" outlined nine
specific recovery actions judged to be of critical importance in 1997 that were behind
schedule. Critical recovery actions from that list that now are seriously behind schedule
are:

. acquisition of floodplain habitats or easements;
. Colorado instream flow appropriations and completion of a long-term agreement for
water delivery from Ruedi Reservoir; and
. pond reclamation in the Grand Valley and Gunnison River (for normative fish
control).

Conclusion

Based on careful evaluation of the status ofthe fish, adequacy of flows needed for
recovery, magnitude of depletion impacts, and Recovery Program accomplishments and
shortcomings, the Service concludes that until the three issues identified above are
resolved, progress in the Program will only be sufficient for projects that have an annual
depletion of up to 3,000 acre feet. If the above listed items are not resolved by the
September Implementation Committee meeting, the Service may revisit the sufficient
progress threshold.

Recommendation

We should provide the following comments to the Service:

I. While settlement of the filings made December 1995 lag behind schedule, so are
recommendations from the Service for additional stream reaches,
2. Also, it appears that while RIPRAP activities guide the Recovery Program process
and provide a way of measuring progress, the Service has chosen not to apply the
same measures to themselves in evaluating their own progress (as discussed under
"Concerns" in the draft letter with regards to the schedule for broodstock
development, augmentation goals for the razorback sucker and flow
recommendations). This shouldbe addressed by the Recovery Program Management
Committee to ensure that all participants are evaluated in the same manner.

Attachment

.

'.

..

J~
.

~

.