riprap - Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

More documents

Recommendations

Info

strategies to resolve imbalances. The final report will be available in the summer of2012; updates of this effort are planned every 5 years.ColoradoFlow protection mechanisms are organized according to their initial or dominantattribute. If a change in the ownership of a water right (by purchase, lease, etc.) iscentral to flow protection, then flow protection is placed under "Acquire." A change inwater right ownership to protect flows will usually be accompanied by a legalproceeding to change the nature or use of the water right, but this proceeding is stillconsidered to be part of the "acquisition" of flow protection. Except for acquisition ofconditional water rights in Colorado, such water rights acquisition also will result inphysical alteration of flow conditions and will not just protect existing conditions.Where flow protection involves filing for a new water right, it is placed under"Appropriate." With this mechanism, the ownership of the water right is established inthe first instance, rather than being conveyed to a subsequent owner. In Colorado, theappropriation of an instream water right follows a structured process developed by theColorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1997. The process begins with aService flow recommendation, which is reviewed by CWCB and Colorado Parks andWildlife (CPW). Then CWCB issues a notice of intent to appropriate, followed by theirapproval to appropriate. Finally, the Attorney General must make a water court filing toconfirm the appropriation and to avoid postponement of the appropriation's priority date.It may take 3 to 4 years from the notice of intent to appropriate to obtain a decree fromthe water court, depending on the nature of any litigation over the filing. Inappropriation, the water right will have a relatively junior priority date (the date CWCBissued the notice of intent to appropriate), and only existing flow conditions can beprotected. In most cases, this process has lacked support and thus proven to havelimited use in the Recovery Program. Therefore, the Recovery Program adopted aprogrammatic biological opinion (PBO) approach on the Colorado, Yampa andGunnison rivers and is planning a similar approach on the White River. RecoveryProgram participants anticipate that this process will prove effective in protectinginstream flows for the endangered fishes. The Recovery Program and CWCBreevaluate the need for instream-flow filings or other protective mechanisms at leastevery 5 years and document their findings.Flows also may be protected through the physical alteration of flow conditions byreoperating a reservoir or other component of an existing or new water project. Thiskind of flow protection is placed under "Deliver" in the Recovery Action Plans and willusually involve both a change of water right ownership, including the lease of storagewater, and a change in the legal nature of the water rights. (A management agreementbetween Federal agencies also may be involved, as in the case of the Aspinall Unit,and compensation will be required where storage water is already under contract.)6
UtahLegal protection of flows in Utah will be achieved differently than in Colorado. Severalapproaches may be taken under Utah water law to protect instream flows, including:1) acquiring existing water rights and filing change applications to provide for instreamflow purposes; 2) withdrawing unappropriated waters by governor's proclamation;3) approving presently filed and future applications subject to minimum flow levels; and4) with proper compensation, preparing and executing contracts and subordinatingdiversions associated with approved and perfected rights. Although current Utah waterlaw may not fully provide for all aspects of instream-flow protection, Utah does believethey can provide an adequate level of protection.Utah examined available flow protection approaches in the 1990’s and determined thatthe strategy they would use most commonly will be to condition the approval ofpresently filed and new applications, making them subject to predetermined streamflowlevels. To accomplish this, the State Engineer adds a condition of approval to waterrightapplications (within the area) filed after the policy is adopted. The condition statesthat whenever the flow of the Green River (or other streams) drops below thepredetermined streamflow level, then diversions associated with water rights approvedafter the condition is imposed are prohibited. Based on past legal challenges to theState's authority to impose conditions associated with new approvals, it was determinedthat this is within the authority of the State Engineer. This approach does notspecifically recognize an instream-flow right; however, it does protect the flows frombeing diverted and used by subsequently approved water rights. This approach wasadopted as policy by the State Engineer. The policy requires that presently filed andnew applications to be approved are subject to the summer and fall flowrecommendations. As flow recommendations are finalized and accepted, Utah willreview options for protecting the recommended flows. In 2009, Utah determined thatthe aforementioned “subordination” method of flow protection may not be feasible. TheRecovery Program’s Water Acquisition Committee formed a task force to develop otheroptions for protecting fish flows on the Green River. This task force has joined withReclamation to conduct modeling that will incorporate hydrology and future water rightclaims to use as a planning and policy tool. In 2010, Utah identified the legal andtechnical process and schedule to protect recommended year-round flows for theendangered fishes in Utah (Utah Department of Natural Resources 2010). To date,Utah has completed their water rights model based on historical data and additionalmodel runs based on operational data are pending from Reclamation.2.2 II. RESTORE AND PROTECT HABITATImportant elements of habitat protection include restoring and managing in-channelhabitat and historically flooded bottomland areas, restoring passage to historicallyoccupied river reaches, preventing fish entrainment at diversion structures (ifwarranted), enhancing water temperatures, and reducing or eliminating the impacts ofcontaminants.7
Page 1 and 2: RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMSECT
Page 3 and 4: PART ONE:RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PR
Page 5 and 6: The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Page 7 and 8: The Management Committee will work
Page 10 and 11: 3.2.1 Importance 163.2.2 Recovery A
Page 12 and 13: treated as a “recovery unit”),
Page 14 and 15: success of recovery efforts will be
Page 18 and 19: Historically, Upper Colorado River
Page 20 and 21: that favor their survival over that
Page 22 and 23: augmented with those fish. The effe
Page 24 and 25: non-Federal partners’ annual visi
Page 26 and 27: the Green River down to the conflue
Page 28 and 29: Colorado filed for a junior instrea
Page 30 and 31: 2005 update formalized high flow re
Page 32 and 33: Wolford Mountain Reservoir and 5,41
Page 34 and 35: chub (previously captured in Westwa
Page 36 and 37: NWCDPD/PDOTBDUTUDWRUTWRWACWYGFNorth
Page 38 and 39: GENERAL RECOVERY PROGRAM SUPPORT AC
Page 48 and 49: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: MAINSTEM G
Page 50 and 51: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: MAINSTEM G
Page 52 and 53: Green River at JensenPre and Post F
Page 54 and 55: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: YAMPA AND
Page 56 and 57: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: YAMPA AND
Page 58 and 59: Assmt: Yampa Flows Page 119,600 cfs
Page 60 and 61: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: DUCHESNE R
Page 62 and 63: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: WHITE RIVE
Page 64 and 65: Assmt: Yampa Flows Page 12011 peak
Page 66 and 67:
ACTIVITY WHO STATUS>* I.A.5.b.(1) P
Page 68 and 69:
COLORADO RIVER ACTION PLAN: MAINSTE
Page 70 and 71:
COLORADO RIVER ACTION PLAN: MAINSTE
Page 72 and 73:
ACTIVITY WHO STATUSMONITOR POPULATI
Page 74 and 75:
Assmt: Colorado Flows Tables Page 1
Page 76 and 77:
COLORADO RIVER ACTION PLAN: GUNNISO
Page 78 and 79:
COLORADO RIVER ACTION PLAN: GUNNISO
Page 80 and 81:
COLORADO RIVER ACTION PLAN: DOLORES
Page 82 and 83:
Bestgen, K. R., J. A. Hawkins, G. C
Page 84 and 85:
Burdick, B.D. 1999. Evaluation of f
Page 86 and 87:
Crowl, T.A., and L. Lentsch. 1996.
Page 88 and 89:
Hawkins, J.A., and T.P. Nesler. 199
Page 90 and 91:
Kuhn, G. And C. A. Williams. 2004.
Page 92 and 93:
River Endangered Fish Recovery Prog
Page 94 and 95:
Smith, G.R., and R.G. Green. 1991.
Page 96 and 97:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 200
Page 98 and 99:
Whitledge, G. W., B. M. Johnson, P.
Page 100 and 101:
environment (food supply, predation
show all

riprap - Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?