5larger workgroup <strong>of</strong> interested parties in August <strong>of</strong> 1997. The workgroup included water users,environmental groups, and State and Federal agencies. This programmatic biological opinionrepresents the Service’s consideration <strong>of</strong> the Federal action described on page 1.Scope <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Biological</strong> <strong>Opinion</strong>The Federal action described on page 1 is addressed in this biological opinion. This biologicalopinion addresses impacts related to water depletions that occur above the confluence with theGunnison River and impact critical habitat from Rifle to Lake Powell and recovery actionsdesigned to <strong>of</strong>fset these impacts. There<strong>for</strong>e, the subject recovery actions affect the ColoradoRiver between Rifle and Lake Powell. Impacts related to water depletions and recovery actions inthe Green River are addressed in the consultations <strong>for</strong> Flaming Gorge Dam and the DuchesneRiver. <strong>Programmatic</strong> consultations <strong>for</strong> the Gunnison and Yampa Rivers are planned to addresssimilar issues. Issuance <strong>of</strong> this programmatic biological opinion does not create an administrativepriority concerning Upper Colorado River Basin depletions. The opinion neither prejudices nordetermines the amount <strong>of</strong> depletions allowable under the Colorado River Compact or under theEndangered Species Act in other subbasins <strong>of</strong> the Upper Colorado River Basin.The Recovery Program does not cover direct physical impacts <strong>of</strong> new actions (projectsconstructed after January 22, 1988); effects <strong>of</strong> transbasin diversions on Platte River endangeredspecies; introduction <strong>of</strong> nonnative fish species; or discharges <strong>of</strong> pollutants and there<strong>for</strong>e, thisbiological opinion does not address such impacts. This biological opinion does not addressimpacts <strong>of</strong> future actions authorized by the participating Federal Agencies that are not associatedwith water depletions or operation <strong>of</strong> Reclamation facilities to carry out recovery actions.BIOLOGICAL OPINIONDESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONThe proposed action is described on page 1. The Reclamation projects included in thisconsultation are the past, existing, and continued operation <strong>of</strong> the Colorado-Big ThompsonProject, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Collbran Project, Grand Valley Project, and Silt Project,including all existing, historic, and authorized depletions associated with these projects. Theseprojects are operated in accordance with various laws and policies such as the authorizinglegislation <strong>for</strong> each project, operating policies, criteria, and principles, and various court decrees.For detailed descriptions <strong>of</strong> the physical features <strong>of</strong> each projects, see Appendix A.Non-Reclamation projects associated with the continuation <strong>of</strong> existing depletions and 120,000acre-feet/year <strong>of</strong> new depletions above the confluence with the Gunnison River which have or arelikely to have a Federal nexus are anticipated to choose to rely on the implementation <strong>of</strong> theRecovery Action Plan, which is the responsibility <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong> the Program participants, to avoid thelikelihood <strong>of</strong> jeopardy and adverse modification <strong>of</strong> critical habitat. There<strong>for</strong>e, this biologicalopinion is treating these projects as interrelated. The participating Federal Agencies contributeapproximately $3.3 million annually <strong>for</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> recovery actions under the base
funding component <strong>of</strong> the Recovery Program. Additionally, Reclamation contributesapproximately $7 million annually <strong>for</strong> Capital Projects. However, to complete the actionsdescribed in this project description it will require the cost sharing by non-Federal partners.Capital Projects consist <strong>of</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> facilities and acquisition <strong>of</strong> land and water interestsrequired to recover the endangered fish. These recovery actions are described below and in themost recent Recovery Action Plan (April 1,1999). The purpose <strong>of</strong> the Recovery Program and itsRecovery Action Plan is to recover the four listed fish species and provide a means to avoid thelikelihood <strong>of</strong> jeopardy and adverse modification <strong>of</strong> critical habitat <strong>for</strong> new and existing waterprojects. Recovery actions within the Recovery Program fall under five elements: 1) habitatprotection; 2) habitat development and maintenance; 3) native fish stocking; 4) nonnative fishcontrol; and 5) research, monitoring, and data management. Recovery (downlisting and delistingunder ESA) <strong>of</strong> the fish species is dependent upon implementation <strong>of</strong> Recovery Program elementsin the various river basins (USFWS 1987). Recovery in a single river would not achieve fullrecovery <strong>of</strong> the species, rather full recovery is dependent on self-sustaining populations in variouslocations as described in the Recovery Plans <strong>for</strong> each species (USFWS 1990a, 1990b, 1991,1998). The Recovery Program “ . . . is intended to go considerably beyond <strong>of</strong>fsetting waterdepletion impacts by providing <strong>for</strong> the full recovery <strong>of</strong> the four endangered fishes in the UpperColorado River Basin, excluding the San Juan River Basin” (USFWS 1993).Under the Recovery Program, the Recovery Program Director’s <strong>of</strong>fice annually sends a request toall participants <strong>for</strong> recommended changes to the Recovery Program’s Recovery Action Plan.These changes include revised due dates, additions and deletions <strong>of</strong> recovery actions, additionalsteps to complete a recovery action, or a change in the lead agency responsible <strong>for</strong> ensuringcompletion <strong>of</strong> a recovery action item. Once the recommended changes are received, they areconsolidated and sent to the technical committees <strong>for</strong> review and recommendations. Justifications<strong>for</strong> making the change are also provided. The Recovery Program’s Management Committee thenprepares a recommendation <strong>for</strong> the Implementation Committee, based on input from the ProgramDirector’s <strong>of</strong>fice and the technical committees. <strong>Final</strong> changes to the Recovery Action Plan requireconsensus by all Implementation Committee members. If consensus is not reached on a proposedchange, the subject item in the Recovery Action Plan remains unchanged. The ImplementationCommittee routinely makes changes to the schedule <strong>for</strong> completing recovery actions when thedelay is due to uncontrollable circumstances.As described in the Federal action on page 1, this biological opinion addresses certainReclamation operations and new and existing depletions, and treats as interrelated certain otherdepletions.Existing depletions, as <strong>of</strong> September 30, 1995, have been estimated by modeling. Model resultsshow existing depletions to be approximately 1-million acre-feet/year. This estimate is theapproximate average annual depletion value modeled <strong>for</strong> water years 1975 to 1991. Theminimum depletion value was approximately 877,000 acre-feet/year <strong>for</strong> 1983 and the maximumwas approximately 1,172,000 acre-feet/year <strong>for</strong> 1978.6
- Page 1 and 2: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 3 and 4: INCIDENTAL TAKE ...................
- Page 5 and 6: 2" Reclamation’s portion of 120,0
- Page 7: On January 21-22, 1988, the Secreta
- Page 11 and 12: 81. Habitat Protection ElementGener
- Page 13 and 14: Also, the Service and the Colorado
- Page 15 and 16: Table 1. The estimated benefits in
- Page 17 and 18: through recovery efforts that will
- Page 19 and 20: native fishes. Also, some species o
- Page 21 and 22: “new” depletions. This would in
- Page 23 and 24: Based on early fish collection reco
- Page 25 and 26: infrequent pulsed recruitment make
- Page 27 and 28: Area, in the Loma to Black Rocks re
- Page 29 and 30: 26Figure 1. Distribution of adult C
- Page 31 and 32: during high flows. Some of the pike
- Page 33 and 34: In the Upper Basin, above Glen Cany
- Page 35 and 36: 32Populations DynamicsThere are no
- Page 37 and 38: in low velocity shorelines and back
- Page 39 and 40: 36IMPORTANCE OF THE 15-MILE REACHTh
- Page 41 and 42: occur in the 15-Mile Reach). Provid
- Page 43 and 44: Applying the above regulations, the
- Page 45 and 46: in a river basin. While the model i
- Page 47 and 48: 44Factors Affecting Species Environ
- Page 49 and 50: 46To determine conditions with wate
- Page 51 and 52: 48140001200010000CFS800060004000200
- Page 53 and 54: 50CFS240002200020000180001600014000
- Page 55 and 56: 52CFS280002600024000220002000018000
- Page 57 and 58: Release and protection of surplus H
- Page 59 and 60:
56CFS500045004000350030002500200015
- Page 61 and 62:
The formation of a variety of chann
- Page 63 and 64:
options will be determined through
- Page 65 and 66:
Passage at the Price-Stubb Diversio
- Page 67 and 68:
species. Recent population estimate
- Page 69 and 70:
the endangered fishes. Ongoing Reco
- Page 71 and 72:
68the Colorado pikeminnow, razorbac
- Page 73 and 74:
70There are no current population e
- Page 75 and 76:
additional reasonable and prudent m
- Page 77 and 78:
The Recovery Action Plan is an adap
- Page 79 and 80:
76actions have all been completed a
- Page 81 and 82:
78LITERATURE CITEDAbbott, C. C. 186
- Page 83 and 84:
80the Upper Colorado River Basin, P
- Page 85 and 86:
Kaeding, L. R., and D. B. Osmundson
- Page 87 and 88:
Minckley, W. L. 1983. Status of the
- Page 89 and 90:
Pitlick, J., and M. Van Steeter. 19
- Page 91 and 92:
Tyus, H. M., B. D. Burdick, R. A. V
- Page 93:
Wick, E. J. 1997. Physical processe