July 11, 2014 Mr. Mike King Executive Director Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 718 Denver, CO 80203 Subject: Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Water Users Request for Department Support of Adoption of Basin Wide Nonnative Fish Regulations by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission Dear Mike, I represent water users in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah on the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, including a broad range of east and west slope water users in Colorado (see cc list at the end of this letter). I am submitting a request on behalf of those water users for immediate action to reduce the impacts of nonnative fish on endangered fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Fulfillment of this request by Colorado Department of Natural Resources and Colorado Parks and Wildlife is critical to continuing Endangered Species Act compliance provided by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program for more than 2,000 water projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The specific request and the rationale for the request are provided below. We previously wrote to you on September 17, 2013 requesting support for implementation of nonnative fish control measures to achieve recovery and maintain ESA compliance for existing and future water projects. Water Users Request Water users request the following: 1. That you direct Colorado Parks and Wildlife administration to prepare and submit to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission a must kill regulation for smallmouth bass, walleye, northern pike, and burbot that applies throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin within Colorado and submit corresponding regulatory changes that eliminate conflicts between the must kill regulation and the waste of game regulation. We request that these regulations be considered on an emergency basis by the Commission in order to expedite adoption.
Letter to Mike King July 11, 2014 Page 2 2. That you personally appear before the Commission to support the regulations and explain the vital need to the State of Colorado for the regulations. 3. That you meet with Colorado water user representatives at the earliest possible date to discuss this critical matter. Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Program) was initiated in January 1988 by agreement of the Secretary of the Interior; Administrator, Western Area Power Administration; and the governors of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. The purpose of the Program is to recover four endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin while water development and management activities proceed in compliance with all federal and state laws, including the Endangered Species Act. Recovery actions by the Program include research/monitoring, providing water for endangered species consistent with state water law and interstate compacts, habitat development, nonnative fish control, endangered fish stocking, and information/education. Through federal FY 2014, Recovery Program partners will have invested $337 million in the Recovery Program. This includes $23.8 million by the State of Colorado of and $31.4 million by water users. The Program has made significant progress in enhancing the status of the endangered species. Because of the progress towards recovery, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has consistently found that the Program provides ESA compliance for water projects throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin through its annual ESA compliance report (sufficient progress report). This includes every Reclamation project and all nonfederal projects subject to ESA compliance in the Colorado River and Green River sub-basins. As of December 31, 2013, the Program provided ESA compliance for 2,049 water projects in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah that deplete 2.86 million acre-feet per year. This includes 1,190 projects in Colorado depleting 2.1 million acre-feet per year. No lawsuits have been filed on ESA compliance for water projects provided by the Program. Nonnative Fish Control Nonnative fish control always has been a key element of the Program. In recent years, the Program has expended more than $1 million per year on mechanical removal from Upper Basin rivers of certain nonnative fish species that are a threat to recovery of endangered fish species. The nonnative species include smallmouth bass and northern pike, and more recently walleye and burbot. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has reclaimed Paonia Reservoir to eliminate a source of nonnative fish and removed more that 10,000 northern pike from Catamount Reservoir in the upper Yampa basin to re-establish a trout fishery that also benefits endangered fish. Despite these efforts, it is clear that nonnative fish are having a significant negative impact on
Letter to Mike King July11, 2014 Page 3 endangered fish and are overwhelming positive recovery efforts such as stocking, flow augmentation, habitat improvements, and development/expansion of endangered fish habitat. In its 2013 annual sufficient progress report, the Service stated in part: The Recovery Program needs to continue to manage all threats to endangered species recovery, but current densities and distribution of the nonnative predators appears to require even greater attention and more directed efforts. The Service has focused on the threats arising from nonnative predators in the past several Sufficient Progress reviews. We are aware of how complicated invasive species control can be. We are also fully aware of how seriously the Recovery Program has taken this issue as demonstrated through its significant commitment of resources, particularly since 2007. However, despite the Recovery Program s ongoing commitment to control the nonnative threat, the current approach is simply not working. (emphasis added) Participants in the Program agree with the Service s assessment that the current approach is not working and that additional measures are needed. ESA compliance for water projects is fundamentally dependent on improving the status of the endangered fish. Nonnative fish impacts are a direct threat to the Program's ability to provide continued ESA compliance for more than 2,000 water projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Response By Program Participants In 2013, the Recovery Program, with the concurrence of the states of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, adopted the Upper Colorado River Basin Nonnative and Invasive Aquatic Species Prevention and Control Strategy. As requested by the Service in the 2013 sufficient progress report, specific items were added to the Program s Recovery Action Plan to implement the strategy, including adoption of must kill regulations for problematic nonnative species. Utah has adopted in "must kill" regulations for northern pike, walleye, smallmouth bass, and burbot on the Colorado, Green, and San Juan rivers and most tributaries to those rivers in Utah. Wyoming has issued a "must kill" order for burbot and northern pike in the Green River basin. With respect to implementing basin wide must kill regulations, the Recovery Action Plan includes the following language that CPW agreed to:
Letter to Mike King July 11, 2014 Page 4 Continue discussions concerning must kill regulations on smallmouth bass throughout the UCR Basin [Upper Colorado River Basin] to develop a proposal supported by law enforcement for regulatory consideration. Rather than commit to a must kill regulation, CPW agreed to have discussions to develop a proposal supported by [CPW] law enforcement for regulatory consideration. Smallmouth bass have been illegally stocked, directly or indirectly, into Ridgway Reservoir on the Uncompahgre River, tributary to the Gunnison River. Smallmouth bass are a serious threat to endangered fish populations. CPW staff, Southwest Regional Office, Gunnison, recommended an unlimited bag/possession limit for smallmouth bass for the reservoir for consideration by the Commission that, if adopted, may go into effect in the fall, 2014. However, the option of a must kill order for smallmouth bass in this reservoir was eliminated based on concerns of law enforcement personnel in the Southwest Regional Office and not sent forward as a proposal to CPW administration. As a result, we understand that the must kill option will not be presented to the Commission. The 2014 draft sufficient progress report states: The Recovery Program needs to fully implement the comprehensive Upper Colorado River Basin Nonnative and Invasive Aquatic Species Prevention and Control Strategy and continue work with the States to implement the specific, tangible actions added to the RIPRAP in 2013, which in the aggregate have a high likelihood of stopping the expansion of invasive species and of reducing existing concentrations. Clearly, the expectation is that Colorado will implement a basin wide must kill regulation, as Utah and Wyoming have done. Need for Your Assistance and Involvement Given the CPW response at Ridgway, continued discussions within CPW will not result in a basin wide must kill proposal to the CPW Commission. Regardless of the Ridgway situation, dealing with must kill regulations for nonnative fish case by case is ineffective. Narrow decisions within CPW are undermining the State s commitment to recovery of the endangered fish, significant expenditures by the State, water users and other Program partners on the Program, and the ESA compliance for 2,000 water projects provided by the Program. A basin wide must kill regulation is needed to help ensure recovery of endangered fish. Must kill regulations also send a powerful message to the public and anglers that these fish are unacceptable in the basin. Given the significant impacts of nonnative fish on recovery of endangered fish, every tool in the tool box needs to be used to eliminate the threat to the endangered species by nonnative fish.
Letter to Mike King July 11, 2014 Page 5 We are making the request stated above for your direct involvement to ensure that the improved status of the endangered fish justifies the Service continuing to use the Program for ESA compliance for water projects. The Executive Committee looks forward to meeting with you at the earliest possible date to discuss this critical matter. Please contact me regarding scheduling of this meeting. Sincerely, /s/ Tom Tom Pitts Upper Basin Water Users Representative Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program cc: Executive Committee, Colorado Water Congress Colorado River Project: City of Aurora City and County of Broomfield Central Utah Water Conservancy Clifton Water District Colorado Springs Utilities Colorado River Water Conservation District Denver Water Dolores Water Conservancy District City of Grand Junction Grand Valley Water Users Association City of Greeley City of Longmont City of Loveland Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Pueblo Board of Water Works Southeastern Water Conservancy District Southwestern Water Conservation District Tri-County Water Conservancy District Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District Ute Water Conservancy District
Impacts of Non-Native Fish: Significant and Basinwide Excerpts: USFWS 2014 Draft Sufficient Progress Assessment Despite the Recovery Program s extensive removal efforts, nonnative and aquatic invasive species continue to threaten survival and recovery of the endangered fishes in the upper Colorado River basin. The Recovery Program needs to fully implement the comprehensive Upper Colorado River Basin Nonnative and Invasive Aquatic Species Prevention and Control Strategy and continue work with the States to implement the specific, tangible actions added to the RIPRAP in 2013 (Table 2.a), which in the aggregate have a high likelihood of stopping the expansion of invasive species and of reducing existing concentrations. Yampa-Green Rivers In 2012, the Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Team was convened to review new information as it pertains to Recovery Plan revisions. The team s preliminary assessment indicated that persistent low numbers of adult Colorado pikeminnow in the Yampa River may be caused by unacceptable densities of nonnative predators and that more effective management of nonnative fishes must occur before a change in status. The Service concurred and has deferred consideration of downlisting for this species for the time being. (emphasis added) Figure 6. Comparison of Colorado pikeminnow population estimates (CPM) (2000 2008 data from Bestgen et al. 2010) and northern pike (Battige 2012) in the middle Yampa River. The 2011-2013 data points for Colorado pikeminnow are preliminary. Northern pike population estimates were not conducted in 2013. 1
Impacts of Non-Native Fish: Significant and Basinwide Excerpts: USFWS 2014 Draft Sufficient Progress Assessment Despite the Recovery Program s extensive removal efforts, nonnative and aquatic invasive species continue to threaten survival and recovery of the endangered fishes in the upper Colorado River basin. Northern pike are outnumbering pikeminnow at least 3:1. Preliminary results from the most recent rotation (2011-2013) of Colorado pikeminnow population estimates indicate adults and sub-adults are in decline throughout the entire Green River sub-basin. Persistent decline of Colorado pikeminnow in the Yampa River is linked to the persistence of nonnative predators. Large-bodied predatory species of concern also appear to be expanding in other segments of critical habitat; and illegal introductions of nonnative species continues to expand. Declines in the proportion of first year adults (200 220 mm TL) in 2006 2007 support the idea that smallmouth bass predation may be suppressing the smaller Gila in Desolation Canyon. Efforts to reduce densities of smallmouth bass in Little Yampa Canyon and other reaches of the Yampa River appear to be hampered by the immigration of smallmouth bass adults and recruits from adjacent reaches, particularly upstream sources that sustain propagule pressure and the proliferative/invasive capacity of this species. Population estimates for adult bass in Little Yampa Canyon in 2013 were 5 times that of 2012. Subadult density in this reach was also very high. Efforts to reduce densities of northern pike in the Yampa River appear to be hampered by immigration from the buffer zone and upstream sources (Catamount, Elkhead, and the upper river). The Recovery Program and Colorado Parks and Wildlife need to develop a drainage-wide action plan and timeline to address Yampa River northern pike management. Downward trends in some humpback chub populations (particularly Yampa Canyon and in Desolation Canyon of the Green River) have been attributed to increased nonnative fish abundance and habitat changes associated with dry weather and low river flows. White River Smallmouth abundance has increased in the White River. Sampling in 2012 indicated that bass densities are highest in the uppermost section below Taylor Draw Dam and tapered off to relatively low densities approximately 20 miles downstream. Sampling in 2013 shows that fish spawned in 2012 were captured further downstream into Utah, resulting in a large increase in fish captured in that reach during 2013.There was no evidence of depletion in any of the reaches sampled more than once and spawning adult bass and evidence of recruitment were more 2
Impacts of Non-Native Fish: Significant and Basinwide Excerpts: USFWS 2014 Draft Sufficient Progress Assessment Despite the Recovery Program s extensive removal efforts, nonnative and aquatic invasive species continue to threaten survival and recovery of the endangered fishes in the upper Colorado River basin. concentrated in the uppermost sections (above Douglass Creek). Efforts to reduce the abundance of smallmouth bass through electrofishing were as high as possible in 2013. Colorado River Catch of [Colorado pikeminnow] sub-adults and adults in the Colorado River in 2013 were also near lowest observed in the history of this project. Walleye captures in the Colorado River went from being rare during 2003-2009 to common in 2010, and then increased dramatically by 2013. Distribution within the lower reach in 2010 appeared to be restricted below RM 80; however, by 2013, captures extended upstream to RM 112, indicating an upstream range expansion. Unlike smallmouth and largemouth bass, whose primary distribution is in the upper reach, walleye directly overlap in habitat with small size classes of both Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. Upstream of Grand Valley Project dam: Determine and implement an adequate level of mechanical removal in the main channel. More importantly, use all techniques available to eradicate northern pike (and other nonnative species of concern) from floodplain habitats. Develop a measure(s) of successful suppressions of northern pike (and other nonnative species of concern). Direct new (or shift existing) nonnative fish removal efforts to address increasing numbers of walleye in the lower river. Gunnison River The high density northern pike source population in Crawford Reservoir remains of extreme concern due to its invasive potential in the Gunnison River. Illegal introduction of smallmouth bass in Ridgway Reservoir was confirmed in 2013. Sampling demonstrated multiple size classes, but low densities of adult fish, indicating the population may be expanding from initial introduction. Densities of smallmouth bass near the spillway were high, indicating a high risk of escarpment from reservoir spilling. 3
Table 1 Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Summary of Section 7 Consultations by State 1/1988 through 6/30/2014 HISTORICAL DEPLETIONS NEW DEPLETIONS TOTALS State Number of Projects Acre-Feet/Yr Acre-Feet/Yr Acre-Feet/Yr Depletion Fees Colorado 1,2 1201 1,915,682 206,616 2,122,297 $925,750 Utah 235 517,670 97,115 614,785 $919,539 Wyoming 2 395 83,498 35,676 119,174 $273,437 Regional 3,4 238 (Regional) (Regional) 0 $0 TOTALS 2,069 2,516,850 339,406 2,856,256 $2,118,726 Table 2 Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Summary of Section 7 Consultations by River Basin 1/1988 through 6/30/2014 HISTORICAL NEW DEPLETIONS DEPLETIONS TOTALS Number of Depletion River Projects Acre-Feet/Yr Acre-Feet/Yr Acre-Feet/Yr Fees 6 Colorado/Eagle 465 1,013,351 124,709 1,138,060 $746,846 White 26 3,587 5,919 9,506 $112,624 Yampa/Little Snake 80 167,854 54,263 222,117 $176,825 Green 156 126,244 64,941 191,185 $843,989 Gunnison/Uncompahgre 353 503,500 37,900 541,400 $16,122 Dolores 70 280,614 2,969 283,583 $17,174 Duchesne 6 421,700 31,331 453,031 $113,260 Price 2 0 6,447 6,447 $91,885 Regional 4,5 911 10,927 10,927 TOTALS 2,069 2,516,850 339,406 2,856,256 $2,118,726 Page 1 of 1 Revised 8/8/2014
August 11, 2014 Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Non-native Fish Control Expenditures FY 2005 through F72014 FY05 1,248,966 FY06 2,123,860 Incl $769K on temporary Elkhead fish screen FY07 1,411,604 FY08 1,519,605 FY09 1,648,426 FY10 1,841,395 FY11 1,790,608 FY12 1,887,743 FY13 1,583,597 FY14 1,652,444 16,708,248 Source: Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, August 11, 2014.