Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Bureau of Reclamation's

3determining the degree of agency discretion in the operations of Federal water projects in othersubbasins that are subject to review for compliance with the Act or for the combination ofrecovery actions needed to achieve such compliance.The Service received three requests for initiation of section 7 consultation on the subject actionfrom the following offices: 1) Bureau of Reclamation, Eastern Colorado Area Office (September24, 1999), 2) Bureau of Reclamation, Western Colorado Area Office (September 27, 1999), and3) Western Area Power Administration (October 15, 1999). The Service concludes that theimplementation of the recovery actions identified herein and all existing and some new depletionsof water from the Upper Colorado River Basin above the confluence of the Gunnison River "mayaffect" the endangered Colorado squawfish 1 (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha),bonytail (Gila elegans), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and their critical habitat. TheService concludes that the subject action is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus).In recent years, the number of wintering and nesting bald eagles have increased in the ColoradoRiver within the action area, with historic water depletions in place. It is not likely that any of theproposed actions will adversely affect bald eagles. The Service does not believe that historicwater depletions on the Colorado River have adversely affected the southwestern willowflycatcher because in many areas there is more habitat (riparian vegetation - willow, tamarisk,cottonwood) now than there was historically. Graf (1978) used photographic evidence, mapanalysis, and field surveys to show the spread of tamarisk throughout the Colorado River systemand described its effects of enlarging and stabilizing islands, bars, and restricting channel width.Many islands and shoreline habitats were not historically vegetated when spring flows were higherand prior to the establishment of tamarisk along the Colorado River.Consultation HistoryImplementation of the Endangered Species Act in the Colorado River Basin started with section 7consultation on Reclamation projects in the late 1970's. At this time, the Service determined thata jeopardy situation existed for the subject endangered fishes. Subsequently, the Act wasamended to direct Federal Agencies to work with State and local agencies to resolve waterresource issues in concert with conservation of endangered species.In 1984, the Department of the Interior, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, water users, andenvironmental groups formed a coordinating committee to discuss a process to recover theendangered fishes while new and existing water development proceeds in the Upper ColoradoRiver Basin in compliance with Federal and State law and interstate compacts. After 4 years ofnegotiations, the Recovery Implementation Program for the Endangered Fish Species in theUpper Colorado River Basin was developed.1 The American Fisheries Society has changed the common name of this species to Coloradopikeminnow (Nelson et al. 1998), therefore, it will be referred to as the Colorado pikeminnow inthis document.