Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

Transcription

1 Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program History and Progress Angela Kantola Assistant Program Director coloradoriverrecovery.fws.gov

2

3 Colorado pikeminnow Humpback chub Razorback sucker Bonytail

4 Threats Water depletion Fish barriers Large reservoirs Nonnative fish

5 Recovery Program established in 1988 to address conflicts between the Endangered Species Act and water development

6 In the mid to late 1970s, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that any depletion of water would result in jeopardy to endangered fish. Included water depletions anywhere in Upper Colorado River Basin, including those upstream of occupied habitat

7 In 1983, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed: Minimum stream flows for all habitat occupied by endangered fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin (pre-1960 flow levels). Any water project causing water depletions below minimum stream flows would have to replace depletions on a one-forone basis. This requirement could have: stopped water development in the basin; put limits on use of existing water supplies; conflicted with existing federal and state laws that allocate water. Head-on collision would have occurred among states, water users, federal agencies, power users, and environmental groups.

8 Choices Filing lawsuits Enforcing the ESA and creating conflict Amending the Endangered Species Act Seeking exemptions from the ESA Identifying the facts and negotiating a solution The latter course was chosen by all parties because no other choice was feasible or would solve the problem to the everyone s satisfaction.

9 Key Players: Federal agencies States Environmental groups Water users Power users Goal: Develop an acceptable solution to the conflict.

10 Conflicts to be resolved: Water for people vs. water for endangered fish Sport fishing vs. protection of endangered fish Federal vs. local/state control of water Numerous conflicting federal and state laws, authorities, and regulations

11 Complexity: Upper Colorado River Basin covers 108,000 square miles or 69 million acres Hundreds of miles of rivers and streams Four endangered fish species Potential impacts on hundreds of municipalities, irrigators, and industries No agreement on conclusions based on science and data Consensus was required to resolve conflicts. All of the parties had to agree or there was no acceptable resolution of the conflict.

12 Values/interests that could not be compromised Interstate compacts that allocate water to states must be respected. State water rights that allocate water to specific users within each state must be respected. Costs must be equitably distributed. ESA compliance must be achieved. Federal water and hydropower projects must continue to operate, per authorized purposes. States must retain control of non-endangered fish/sport species.

13 March 1984: discussions initiated among federal agencies, states, environmental groups, and water users to resolve the problem. Late 1984: problem re-defined Conflicts are a symptom of the problem. PROBLEM: The fish are endangered. SOLUTION: Recover the fish.

14 In mid-1985, Colorado water users proposed a Recovery Program be initiated to recover and delist the endangered fish species in the Upper Basin, i.e., restore habitat and populations so that the fish no longer require ESA protection. Rationale: Without affirmative action on terms acceptable to all parties, conflicts would continue and worsen. Water development and management activities would be threatened. Recovery provides the ultimate economic and regulatory certainty for water users.

15 The overall framework of the Recovery Program was completed in late In January, 1988, a Cooperative Agreement establishing the Recovery Program was signed by: The Secretary of the Interior Governors of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah The Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration

16 October 1, 1988: First full fiscal year of operation began. 2001: 10-year extension (through 2013) signed. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE: Colorado River and its tributaries in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (excludes San Juan River).

17 Goal: Recover the endangered fish as water development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and state water law.

18 Recovery Program Partnership STATES Utah Colorado Wyoming FEDERAL AGENCIES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Bureau of Reclamation National Park Service Western Area Power Administration INTEREST GROUPS Water users (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming) Environmental organizations Colorado River Energy Distributors Association

19 Stocking endangered fish Research and monitoring Recovery elements Managing nonnative Providing fish instream flows Restoring habitat

20 Flow protection Leases & contracts Improved irrigation efficiency Cooperative reservoir operations Operation of Federal dams/reservoirs Instream flow filings

21

22

23 Screen diversion canals Habitat restoration Restore floodplains Provide fish passage

24 Habitat restoration cont d. Floodplain habitat restoration Green River Colorado & Gunnison rivers

25

26 Grand Valley Irrigation Company Fish Passage and Screen

27

28 Grand Valley Project Fish Passage

29 Price-Stubb Diversion

30 GVIC fish screen

31 Grand Valley Project Fish Screen

32 Nonnative fish management Screening to control nonnative fish at the source (Highline Lake) Experimental translocation of northern pike, smallmouth bass and channel catfish Nonnative fish stocking regulations Research to discover nonnative fish sources

33

34 Propagation, genetics, and stocking

35 Annual stocking goals (Integrated Stocking Plan) Bonytail (T=15,990, age 2+, ~8 ) 5,330 in Colorado (Yampa & Colorado rivers) 10,660 in Utah (Green & Colorado rivers) Razorback sucker (T=29,700, age 2, ~12 ) 9,900 in Colorado (Yampa, Colorado & Gunnison rivers) 19,800 in Utah (Green River)

36 Fish stocking update Stocked razorback suckers observed on Green River spawning bar Razorback sucker larvae captured in the Gunnison River demonstrating stocked fish are reproducing Stocked bonytail recaptured (Cataract Canyon population estimate = 70) Evaluation of stocked fish (data review) ongoing

37 Research and monitoring

38 Getting to Recovery Recovery goals developed in collaboration with partners. Amend & supplement recovery plans Provide objective, measurable criteria for downlisting and delisting (as required by ESA) Identify site-specific management actions required to minimize or remove threats Identify numbers of fish required to achieve selfsustaining populations

39 Species Status in Upper Basin Colorado pikeminnow Two self-sustaining populations (largest is in Green River subbasin) (operate as metapopulation) Humpback chub Five self-sustaining populations (largest are in mainstem Colorado and Green rivers) Razorback sucker Evidence that stocked fish are surviving and reproducing Bonytail Evidence that stocked fish are surviving

40 Drought Impacts Reduced flows/habitat Apparent increases in nonnative fish populations Apparent declines in some native and endangered fish populations

41 Resolving ESA and water development conflicts Program arose out of conflict between water development and endangered species protection in the 1980 s Designed to serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative to jeopardy for water depletions Goes beyond offsetting jeopardy with the goal of fully recovering the fish in the Upper Basin.

42 ESA Compliance and Water Projects Consultations Depletions (acre-feet) 803 1,728,754 (1,507,202 historic)

43 The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program is working for both water users and endangered fish WHY? Cooperation and collaboration are better than confrontation.

44

45 Key principles for success: Program focuses on recovery Recovery proceeds on all fronts Partners remain committed to and involved in the Program Listen to all sides Recognize we can t have everything we want Respect others values while not necessarily sharing them

46 Program operates in an adaptive management style Sufficient progress measured by accomplishment of recovery actions and by population status Good science builds trust Litigation avoided Fund on-the-ground recovery efforts Strong Congressional support Costs are shared

47 Consensus-based collaboration takes: Time, patience, tenacity Creativity Tolerance & respect Listening to others High level of commitment Integrity & leadership Letting go of "us vs. them" mentality Accepting that no one gets complete certainty

48 We knew there was an effort taking place to restore this species, but we didn t think we d live long enough to ever see them again. It was a thrill to see them. We hope that someday people will have as much fun fishing for them as Dale and I have. Max Stewart

49 Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program 303/ , ext. 221 coloradoriverrecovery.fws.gov

50

51 Program Funding $150.3M spent over 17 years (FY ) $54.1M in capital funds; remainder from power revenues ($55.2M), USFWS ($19M), States ($16.6M), water users ($2.2M), capital costs of water from Ruedi Reservoir ($2.2M) and congressional appropriation ($1M). P.L (October 2000) $82M capital funds for Colorado River through 2008 $18M capital funds for San Juan through 2007 Capital costs shared among Congressional appropriations ($46M) Power revenues ($17M) States ($17M) (CO $9.146M; UT $3.422M; NM $2.744M; WY $1.688M) Water & power costs ($20M) Annual base funding from hydropower revenues ($4.32M for Colorado River in FY 05)

52 IMPLEMENTING THE SOLUTION Resolutions supporting the Program have been passed by: Water Users (Colorado Water Congress, Utah Water Users Association, Wyoming Water Development Association) Environmental Organizations (The Nature Conservancy, Western Resource Advocates, National Audubon Society, Colorado Wildlife Federation, Wyoming Wildlife Federation) Power Users (Colorado River Energy Distributors Association) First full fiscal year began October 1, Program has operated for over 15 years.

53 Program structure Implementation Committee Program Director Management Committee Biology Committee Water Acquisition Committee Information and Education Committee