Common use of IDENTIFY AND PROTECT INSTREAM FLOWS Clause in Contracts

IDENTIFY AND PROTECT INSTREAM FLOWS. Recovery cannot be accomplished without securing, protecting, and managing sufficient habitat to support self-sustaining populations of the endangered fishes. Identification and protection of instream flows are key elements in this process. The first step in instream-flow protection is to identify flow regimes needed by the fish. In the Recovery Program, determining flow needs is primarily the responsibility of the Service (in cooperation with other participants). Factors considered in determining flow needs include: flow effects on reproduction and recruitment; flow effects on food supplies and nonnative fishes; and interrelationships between flow and other habitat parameters believed to be important for the fish, such as channel structure, sediment transport, substrate characteristics, vegetative encroachment, and water temperature. Flow recommendations often are made in stages, with initial flow recommendations based on the best available scientific information, historic conditions, and extrapolation from similar reaches. Recommendations then are refined following additional field research. The contribution of tributaries to recovery was ranked by ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2001). A strategic plan was completed in 2003 that identified geomorphology research priorities to refine the flow recommendations and address the Recovery Goals (LaGory et al. 2003). Flow recommendations have been approved for reaches of the Colorado (Osmundson and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), Yampa (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1999), ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000), Gunnison (▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) ▇▇▇▇▇▇. Flows in the Little Snake River after estimated future depletions were identified in the Yampa River Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). Interim flow recommendations for the White River were completed in 2004 (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004) and will be reviewed in 2007. Flow recommendations for the Colorado River below the Green River are pending completion of the Aspinall Unit EIS. Flow recommendations for other rivers or river reaches will be developed as deemed necessary to achieve recovery. Flow protection mechanisms are organized according to their initial or dominant attribute. If a change in the ownership of a water right (by purchase, lease, etc.) is central to flow protection, then flow protection is placed under "Acquire." A change in water right ownership to protect flows will usually be accompanied by a legal proceeding to change the nature or use of the water right, but this proceeding is still considered to be part of the "acquisition" of flow protection. Except for acquisition of conditional water rights in Colorado, such water rights acquisition also will result in physical 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 in the first instance, rather than being conveyed to a subsequent owner. In Colorado, the appropriation of an instream water right follows a structured process developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1997. The process begins with a Service flow recommendation, which is reviewed by CWCB and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Then CWCB issues a notice of intent to appropriate, followed by their approval to appropriate. Finally, the Attorney General must make a water court filing to confirm 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 from the water court, depending on the nature of any litigation over the filing. In appropriation, the water right will have a relatively junior priority date (the date CWCB issued the notice of intent to appropriate), and only existing flow conditions can be protected. In most cases, this process has lacked support and thus proven to have limited use in the Recovery Program. Therefore, the Recovery Program adopted a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) approach on the Colorado and Yampa rivers and will apply a similar approach to the Gunnison River. Recovery Program participants anticipate that this process will prove effective in protecting instream flows for the endangered fishes. The Recovery Program and CWCB will reevaluate the need for instream-flow filings 5 years after each PBO is in place. Flows also may be protected through the physical alteration of flow conditions by reoperating a reservoir or other component of an existing or new water project. This kind of flow protection is placed under "Deliver" in the Recovery Action Plans and will usually involve both a change of water right ownership, including the lease of storage water, and a change in the legal nature of the water rights. (A management agreement between 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.) Legal protection of flows in Utah will be achieved differently than in Colorado. Several approaches can be taken under Utah water law to protect instream flows, including: 1) acquiring existing water rights and filing change applications to provide for instream flow purposes; 2) withdrawing unappropriated waters by governor's proclamation;

IDENTIFY AND PROTECT INSTREAM FLOWS. Recovery cannot be accomplished without securing, protecting, and managing sufficient habitat to support self-sustaining populations of the endangered fishes. Identification and protection of instream flows are key elements in this process. The first step in instream-flow protection is to identify flow regimes needed by the fish. In the Recovery Program, determining flow needs is primarily the responsibility of the Service (in cooperation with other participants). Factors considered in determining flow needs include: flow effects on reproduction and recruitment; flow effects on food supplies and nonnative fishes; and interrelationships between flow and other habitat parameters believed to be important for the fish, such as channel structure, sediment transport, substrate characteristics, vegetative encroachment, and water temperature. Flow recommendations (for all or certain seasons) have been or are being developed for most river reaches targeted for recovery in the Upper Basin. Flow recommendations often are made in stages, with initial flow recommendations based on the best available scientific information, historic conditions, and extrapolation from similar reaches. Recommendations then are refined following additional field research. The contribution Downstream of tributaries Flaming Gorge Dam on the Green River and dams of the Aspinall Unit on the Gunnison River, test flows were provided while research was conducted to recovery determine more precise flow recommendations. That research has been completed and final flow recommendations for the Green River downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam have been approved. Flow recommendations also have been completed for the Colorado, Yampa and Duchesne rivers. An initial flow report was ranked by ▇▇▇▇ completed for the White River; however, due to shortcomings in the study design, additional research may be necessary in the future to develop meaningful flow recommendations. In 2004, flow recommendations will be completed for the Little Snake River, the Yampa River below the Little Snake River, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2001)the Colorado River below the Green River. A strategic plan was completed in 2003 that identified geomorphology has been developed to identify geomorphic research priorities needed to refine the flow recommendations and address the Recovery Goals (LaGory et al. 2003). Flow recommendations have been approved for reaches of the Colorado (Osmundson and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), Yampa (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1999), ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000), Gunnison (▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) ▇▇▇▇▇▇. Flows in the Little Snake River after estimated future depletions were identified in the Yampa River Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). Interim flow recommendations for the White River were completed in 2004 (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004) and will be reviewed in 2007. Flow recommendations for the Colorado River below the Green River are pending completion of the Aspinall Unit EIS. Flow recommendations for other rivers or river reaches will be developed as deemed necessary to achieve recovery. Flow protection mechanisms are organized according to their initial or dominant attribute. If a change in the ownership of a water right (by purchase, lease, etcGoals.) is central to flow protection, then flow protection is placed under "Acquire." A change in water right ownership to protect flows will usually be accompanied by a legal proceeding to change the nature or use of the water right, but this proceeding is still considered to be part of the "acquisition" of flow protection. Except for acquisition of conditional water rights in Colorado, such water rights acquisition also will result in physical 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 in the first instance, rather than being conveyed to a subsequent owner. In Colorado, the appropriation of an instream water right follows a structured process developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1997. The process begins with a Service flow recommendation, which is reviewed by CWCB and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Then CWCB issues a notice of intent to appropriate, followed by their approval to appropriate. Finally, the Attorney General must make a water court filing to confirm 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 from the water court, depending on the nature of any litigation over the filing. In appropriation, the water right will have a relatively junior priority date (the date CWCB issued the notice of intent to appropriate), and only existing flow conditions can be protected. In most cases, this process has lacked support and thus proven to have limited use in the Recovery Program. Therefore, the Recovery Program adopted a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) approach on the Colorado and Yampa rivers and will apply a similar approach to the Gunnison River. Recovery Program participants anticipate that this process will prove effective in protecting instream flows for the endangered fishes. The Recovery Program and CWCB will reevaluate the need for instream-flow filings 5 years after each PBO is in place. Flows also may be protected through the physical alteration of flow conditions by reoperating a reservoir or other component of an existing or new water project. This kind of flow protection is placed under "Deliver" in the Recovery Action Plans and will usually involve both a change of water right ownership, including the lease of storage water, and a change in the legal nature of the water rights. (A management agreement between 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.) Legal protection of flows in Utah will be achieved differently than in Colorado. Several approaches can be taken under Utah water law to protect instream flows, including: 1) acquiring existing water rights and filing change applications to provide for instream flow purposes; 2) withdrawing unappropriated waters by governor's proclamation;

IDENTIFY AND PROTECT INSTREAM FLOWS. Recovery cannot be accomplished without securing, protecting, and managing sufficient habitat to support self-sustaining populations of the endangered fishes. Identification and protection of instream flows are key elements in this process. The first step in instream-flow protection is to identify flow regimes needed by the fish. In the Recovery Program, determining flow needs is primarily the responsibility of the Service (in cooperation with other participants). Factors considered in determining flow needs include: flow effects on reproduction and recruitment; flow effects on food supplies and nonnative fishes; and interrelationships between flow and other habitat parameters believed to be important for the fish, such as channel structure, sediment transport, substrate characteristics, vegetative encroachment, and water temperature. Flow recommendations often are made in stages, with initial flow recommendations based on the best available scientific information, historic conditions, and extrapolation from similar reaches. Recommendations then are refined following additional field research. The contribution of tributaries to recovery was ranked by ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2001). A strategic plan was completed in 2003 that identified geomorphology research priorities to refine the flow recommendations and address the Recovery Goals (LaGory et al. 2003). Flow recommendations have been approved for reaches of the Colorado (Osmundson and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), Yampa (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1999), ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000), Gunnison (▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) ▇▇▇▇▇▇. Flows in the Little Snake River after estimated future depletions were identified in the Yampa River Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). Interim flow recommendations for the White River were completed in 2004 (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004) and will be reviewed in 20072010. Flow recommendations for the Colorado River below the Green River are pending completion of the Aspinall Unit EIS. Flow recommendations for other rivers or river reaches will be developed as deemed necessary to achieve recovery. Flow protection mechanisms are organized according to their initial or dominant attribute. If a change in the ownership of a water right (by purchase, lease, etc.) is central to flow protection, then flow protection is placed under "Acquire." A change in water right ownership to protect flows will usually be accompanied by a legal proceeding to change the nature or use of the water right, but this proceeding is still considered to be part of the "acquisition" of flow protection. Except for acquisition of conditional water rights in Colorado, such water rights acquisition also will result in physical 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 in the first instance, rather than being conveyed to a subsequent owner. In Colorado, the appropriation of an instream water right follows a structured process developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1997. The process begins with a Service flow recommendation, which is reviewed by CWCB and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Then CWCB issues a notice of intent to appropriate, followed by their approval to appropriate. Finally, the Attorney General must make a water court filing to confirm 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 from the water court, depending on the nature of any litigation over the filing. In appropriation, the water right will have a relatively junior priority date (the date CWCB issued the notice of intent to appropriate), and only existing flow conditions can be protected. In most cases, this process has lacked support and thus proven to have limited use in the Recovery Program. Therefore, the Recovery Program adopted a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) approach on the Colorado and Yampa rivers and will apply a similar approach to the Gunnison River. Recovery Program participants anticipate that this process will prove effective in protecting instream flows for the endangered fishes. The Recovery Program and CWCB will reevaluate the need for instream-flow filings every 5 years after each PBO is in placeyears. Flows also may be protected through the physical alteration of flow conditions by reoperating a reservoir or other component of an existing or new water project. This kind of flow protection is placed under "Deliver" in the Recovery Action Plans and will usually involve both a change of water right ownership, including the lease of storage water, and a change in the legal nature of the water rights. (A management agreement between 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.) Legal protection of flows in Utah will be achieved differently than in Colorado. Several approaches can may be taken under Utah water law to protect instream flows, including: 1) acquiring existing water rights and filing change applications to provide for instream flow purposes; 2) withdrawing unappropriated waters by governor's proclamation;

IDENTIFY AND PROTECT INSTREAM FLOWS. Recovery cannot be accomplished without securing, protecting, and managing sufficient habitat to support self-sustaining populations of the endangered fishes. Identification and protection of instream flows are key elements in this process. The first step in instream-flow protection is to identify flow regimes needed by the fish. In the Recovery Program, determining flow needs is primarily the responsibility of the Service (in cooperation with other participants). Factors considered in determining flow needs include: flow effects on reproduction and recruitment; flow effects on food supplies and nonnative fishes; and interrelationships between flow and other habitat parameters believed to be important for the fish, such as channel structure, sediment transport, substrate characteristics, vegetative encroachment, and water temperature. Flow recommendations often are made in stages, with initial flow recommendations based on the best available scientific information, historic conditions, and extrapolation from similar reaches. Recommendations then are refined following additional field research. The contribution of tributaries to recovery was ranked by ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2001). A strategic plan was completed in 2003 that identified geomorphology research priorities to refine the flow recommendations and address the Recovery Goals (LaGory et al. 2003). Flow recommendations have been approved for reaches of the Colorado (Osmundson and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), Yampa (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1999), ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000), Gunnison (▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) ▇▇▇▇▇▇. Flows in the Little Snake River after estimated future depletions were identified in the Yampa River Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). Interim flow recommendations for the White River were completed in 2004 (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004) and will be reviewed in 20072011. Flow recommendations for the Colorado River below the Green River are pending completion of the Aspinall Unit EIS. Flow recommendations for other rivers or river reaches will be developed as deemed necessary to achieve recovery. Flow protection mechanisms are organized according to their initial or dominant attribute. If a change in the ownership of a water right (by purchase, lease, etc.) is central to flow protection, then flow protection is placed under "Acquire." A change in water right ownership to protect flows will usually be accompanied by a legal proceeding to change the nature or use of the water right, but this proceeding is still considered to be part of the "acquisition" of flow protection. Except for acquisition of conditional water rights in Colorado, such water rights acquisition also will result in physical 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 in the first instance, rather than being conveyed to a subsequent owner. In Colorado, the appropriation of an instream water right follows a structured process developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1997. The process begins with a Service flow recommendation, which is reviewed by CWCB and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Then CWCB issues a notice of intent to appropriate, followed by their approval to appropriate. Finally, the Attorney General must make a water court filing to confirm 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 from the water court, depending on the nature of any litigation over the filing. In appropriation, the water right will have a relatively junior priority date (the date CWCB issued the notice of intent to appropriate), and only existing flow conditions can be protected. In most cases, this process has lacked support and thus proven to have limited use in the Recovery Program. Therefore, the Recovery Program adopted a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) approach on the Colorado Colorado, Yampa and Yampa rivers and will apply a similar approach to the Gunnison Riverrivers. Recovery Program participants anticipate that this process will prove effective in protecting instream flows for the endangered fishes. The Recovery Program and CWCB will reevaluate the need for instream-flow filings every 5 years after each PBO is in placeyears. Flows also may be protected through the physical alteration of flow conditions by reoperating a reservoir or other component of an existing or new water project. This kind of flow protection is placed under "Deliver" in the Recovery Action Plans and will usually involve both a change of water right ownership, including the lease of storage water, and a change in the legal nature of the water rights. (A management agreement between 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.) Legal protection of flows in Utah will be achieved differently than in Colorado. Several approaches can may be taken under Utah water law to protect instream flows, including: 1) acquiring existing water rights and filing change applications to provide for instream flow purposes; 2) withdrawing unappropriated waters by governor's proclamation;

IDENTIFY AND PROTECT INSTREAM FLOWS. ‌ Recovery cannot be accomplished without securing, protecting, and managing sufficient flows to provide habitat to support self-sustaining populations of the endangered fishesfish populations. Identification and protection of instream flows are key elements in this process. The first step in instream-instream flow protection is to identify flow regimes needed by the fish, typically characterized in terms of peak and base flow needs over a range of hydrologic conditions. In the Recovery Program, determining flow needs is primarily the responsibility of the Service (in cooperation with other participants). Factors considered in determining flow needs include: include flow effects on reproduction and recruitment; flow effects on food supplies and nonnative fishes; and interrelationships between flow and other habitat parameters believed to be important for the fish, such as channel structure, sediment transport, substrate characteristics, vegetative encroachment, and water temperature. Flow recommendations often are made in stages, with initial flow recommendations based on the best available scientific information, historic conditions, and extrapolation from similar reaches. Recommendations then are refined following additional field research. The contribution of tributaries to recovery was ranked by ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2001). A strategic plan was completed in 2003 that identified geomorphology research priorities to refine the flow recommendations and address the Recovery Goals (LaGory et al. 2003). Flow recommendations have been approved for reaches of the Colorado (Osmundson and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), Yampa (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1999), ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000), Gunnison (▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) ▇▇▇▇▇▇. Flows in the Little Snake River after estimated future depletions were identified in the Yampa River Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). In addition: ● Interim flow recommendations for the White River were completed in 2004 (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004), and are currently under revision. A White River management plan is expected to be drafted in 2020, which will ultimately serve as the basis for a White River programmatic biological opinion. This management plan will assess the likely impacts of possible future water development on the river flows relative to these flow recommendations. ● Under the Gunnison River Basin Programmatic Biological Opinion and Aspinall Unit Study Plan (2011), the Recovery Program is conducting monitoring to assess how well the operation of the Aspinall Unit contributes to meeting target flows in the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers and to help determine if managed flows from the Gunnison and the Colorado rivers are sufficient for recovery on the Colorado River between the Gunnison River and the Green River confluences. ● Flow and temperature recommendations for the Green River below Flaming Gorge Dam (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000) are being evaluated by a Recovery Program workgroup, with proposed updates to those recommendations anticipated in 2019. In 2012, USGS finalized results of a sediment transport study on three rivers in the upper Colorado River basin. Samples were collected on the Colorado River at Cameo, Stateline, and Cisco; on the Gunnison River at Grand Junction; and on the Green River at ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and the town of Green River (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2013). These results provide a methodology that will help the Recovery Program understand how flow recommendations may be reviewed benefitting recovery of the endangered fishes. A team of experts convened in 20072013 and 2014 to review the findings and to recommend methodologies to determine whether the current peak flow recommendations are achieving objectives. The resulting Peak Flow Technical Supplement (LaGory et al., 2015) offers a range of study approaches and prioritizes river reaches to evaluate the peak flow aspects of the Program’s flow recommendations. A high priority is placed on collecting suspended sediment data within ongoing programs of NPS and USGS. In 2017, the Recovery Program funded USGS to expand the existing network of fine sediment monitoring stations in the Green River subbasin (near ▇▇▇▇▇▇, UT and near Ouray, UT). Studies and monitoring recommended in the Supplement to address high priority information needs have been incorporated into the RIPRAP. In 2011 and 2012, the Service and The Nature Conservancy formatted the Recovery Program's flow recommendations and three National Wildlife Refuge water rights for inclusion as non-consumptive water needs in the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin Study) conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation. The study encompasses all seven Colorado River Basin States. It looks at current and future imbalances in water supply and demand in the basin and adjacent areas through 2060 including projected effects associated with climate change, and attempts to develop and analyze options and strategies to resolve imbalances. The final report was published in December 2012 (available at: ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html); updates of this effort are planned every 5 years. As per recommendation from the Basin Study and under the WaterSMART Grants program, a review of alternative decision support platforms and tools for incorporating ecological and recreational flows into water management for the Colorado River below Basin was completed in 2013. (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2013). In 2014, the Service participated in the workgroup for Environmental and Recreational flows of the Colorado Basin Water Supply. The White River from ▇▇▇▇▇ Reservoir to the Green River are pending completion and the Colorado River from the Gunnison River to the confluence of the Aspinall Unit EISGreen River were chosen as two of the four focus reaches. Flow recommendations for other rivers or river reaches The next phase will be developed as deemed necessary to achieve recovery. Flow protection identify scientific uncertainties and opportunities to address those uncertainties, document mechanisms are organized according to their initial or dominant attribute. If programs that have been successful protecting environmental and river-based recreational resources, and explore and document opportunities and potential solutions that might be applied at a change in scale larger than the ownership of a water right (by purchase, lease, etc.) is central to flow protection, then flow protection is placed under "Acquire." A change in water right ownership to protect flows will usually be accompanied by a legal proceeding to change the nature or use of the water right, but this proceeding is still considered to be part of the "acquisition" of flow protection. Except for acquisition of conditional water rights in Colorado, such water rights acquisition also will result in physical 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 in the first instance, rather than being conveyed to a subsequent ownerfocus reaches. In Colorado, the appropriation of an instream water right follows a structured process developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1997. The process begins with a Service flow recommendation, which is reviewed by CWCB and the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CDOWCPW). Then CWCB issues a notice of intent to appropriate, followed by their Board approval to appropriate. Finally, the Attorney General must make a water court filing to confirm the appropriation and to avoid postponement of establish the appropriation's priority date. It may take 3 to 4 years from the notice of intent to appropriate to obtain a decree from the water court, depending on the nature of any litigation over the filing. In appropriation, the water right will have a relatively junior priority date (the date CWCB issued the notice of intent to appropriate), and only existing flow conditions can be protected. In most some cases, this the appropriation process has lacked support and thus proven to have limited use in the Recovery Program. Therefore, the Recovery Program adopted a alternative means of legally providing and protecting flows in some reaches by combining water project re-operations and contracts for the delivery of storage water (e.g., Grand Valley Water Management Plan and deliveries from the Historic Users Pool at Green Mountain Reservoir), and has put programmatic biological opinion opinions (PBOPBOs) approach in place to monitor new depletions of existing flows on the Yampa, Little Snake, Gunnison, and Colorado Rivers. Under these PBOs, the Recovery Program and Yampa rivers and the CWCB will apply a similar approach periodically evaluate the need to the Gunnison Riverappropriate new instream flow water rights in Colorado to legally protect such flows. Recovery Program participants anticipate that this process these methods will prove effective in protecting ensuring instream flows for the endangered fishes. The Recovery Program and CWCB will reevaluate the need for instream-flow filings 5 years after each PBO is in place. Flows also may be protected through the physical alteration of flow conditions by reoperating a reservoir or other component of an existing or new water project. This kind of flow protection is placed under "Deliver" in the Recovery Action Plans and will usually involve both a change of water right ownership, including the lease of storage water, and a change in the legal nature of the water rights. (A management agreement between 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.) Legal protection of flows in Utah will be achieved differently than in Colorado. Several approaches can be taken under Utah water law to protect instream flows, including: 1) acquiring existing water rights and filing change applications to provide for instream flow purposes; 2) withdrawing unappropriated waters by governor's proclamation;

IDENTIFY AND PROTECT INSTREAM FLOWS. ‌ Recovery cannot be accomplished without securing, protecting, and managing sufficient flows to provide habitat to support self-sustaining populations of the endangered fishesfish populations. Identification and protection of instream flows are key elements in this process. The first step in instream-instream flow protection is to identify flow regimes needed by the fish, typically characterized in terms of peak and base flow needs over a range of hydrologic conditions. In the Recovery Program, determining flow needs is primarily the responsibility of the Service (in cooperation with other participants). Factors considered in determining flow needs include: include flow effects on reproduction and recruitment; flow effects on food supplies and nonnative fishes; and interrelationships between flow and other habitat parameters believed to be important for the fish, such as channel structure, sediment transport, substrate characteristics, vegetative encroachment, and water temperature. Flow recommendations often are made in stages, with initial flow recommendations based on the best available scientific information, historic conditions, and extrapolation from similar reaches. Recommendations then are refined following additional field research. The contribution of tributaries to recovery was ranked by ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2001). A strategic plan was completed in 2003 that identified geomorphology research priorities to refine the flow recommendations and address the Recovery Goals (LaGory et al. 2003). Flow recommendations have been approved for reaches of the Colorado (Osmundson and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), Yampa (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1999), ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000), Gunnison (▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) ▇▇▇▇▇▇. Flows in the Little Snake River after estimated future depletions were identified in the Yampa River Management Plan ), and Environmental Assessment (▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). Interim flow recommendations for the White River were completed in 2004 (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 20042019, interim recommendations) rivers. In addition: • Drafting of a White River management plan began in 2020, and will ultimately serve as the basis for a White River programmatic biological opinion. This management plan will assess the likely impacts of possible future water development on meeting these flow recommendations and propose Program actions to offset the impacts of water depletions. • Under the Gunnison River Basin Programmatic Biological Opinion and Aspinall Unit Study Plan (2011), the Recovery Program is conducting monitoring to assess how well the operation of the Aspinall Unit contributes to meeting target flows in the Gunnison and Colorado rivers and to help determine if managed flows from the Gunnison and Colorado rivers are sufficient for recovery on the Colorado River between the Gunnison River and the Green River confluences. • Flow and temperature recommendations for the Green River below Flaming Gorge Dam (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000) were evaluated by a Recovery Program workgroup (the Green River Evaluation and Assessment Team, or GREAT). The GREAT’s revised recommendations (LaGory et al. 2019) were approved by the Recovery Program technical committees in 2019. The Management Committee is awaiting completion of a preliminary hydropower resource impact analysis of the proposed GREAT recommendations being conducted by WAPA before they will approve the report as final. In 2012, USGS finalized results of a sediment transport study on three rivers in the upper Colorado River basin. Samples were collected on the Colorado River at Cameo, Stateline, and Cisco; on the Gunnison River at Grand Junction; and on the Green River at ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and the town of Green River (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2013). These results provide a methodology that will help the Recovery Program understand how flow recommendations may be reviewed benefitting recovery of the endangered fishes. A team of experts convened in 20072013 and 2014 to review the findings and to recommend methodologies to determine whether the current peak flow recommendations are achieving objectives. The resulting Peak Flow Technical Supplement (LaGory et al. 2015) offers a range of study approaches and prioritizes river reaches to evaluate the peak flow aspects of the Program’s flow recommendations. A high priority is placed on collecting suspended sediment data within ongoing programs of NPS and USGS. In 2017, the Recovery Program funded USGS to expand the existing network of fine sediment monitoring stations in the Green River subbasin to include continuous monitoring near ▇▇▇▇▇▇, UT and near Ouray, UT. Studies and monitoring recommended in the Supplement to address high priority information needs have been incorporated into the RIPRAP. In 2011 and 2012, the Service and The Nature Conservancy formatted the Recovery Program's flow recommendations and three National Wildlife Refuge water rights for inclusion as non-consumptive water needs in the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin Study) conducted by Reclamation. The study encompasses all seven Colorado River Basin States. It looks at current and future imbalances in water supply and demand in the basin and adjacent areas through 2060 including projected effects associated with climate change and attempts to develop and analyze options and strategies to resolve imbalances. The final report was published in December 2012 (available at: ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html). As per recommendation from the Basin Study and under the WaterSMART Grants program, a review of alternative decision support platforms and tools for incorporating ecological and recreational flows into water management for the Colorado River below the Green River are pending completion of the Aspinall Unit EISBasin was completed in 2013 (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. Flow recommendations for other rivers or river reaches will be developed as deemed necessary to achieve recovery. Flow protection mechanisms are organized according to their initial or dominant attribute. If a change in the ownership of a water right (by purchase, lease, etc2013).) is central to flow protection, then flow protection is placed under "Acquire." A change in water right ownership to protect flows will usually be accompanied by a legal proceeding to change the nature or use of the water right, but this proceeding is still considered to be part of the "acquisition" of flow protection. Except for acquisition of conditional water rights in Colorado, such water rights acquisition also will result in physical 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 in the first instance, rather than being conveyed to a subsequent owner. In Colorado, the appropriation of an instream water right follows a structured process developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1997. The process begins with a Service flow recommendation, which is reviewed by CWCB and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Then CWCB issues a notice of intent to appropriate, followed by their approval to appropriate. Finally, the Attorney General must make a water court filing to confirm 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 from the water court, depending on the nature of any litigation over the filing. In appropriation, the water right will have a relatively junior priority date (the date CWCB issued the notice of intent to appropriate), and only existing flow conditions can be protected. In most cases, this process has lacked support and thus proven to have limited use in the Recovery Program. Therefore, the Recovery Program adopted a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) approach on the Colorado and Yampa rivers and will apply a similar approach to the Gunnison River. Recovery Program participants anticipate that this process will prove effective in protecting instream flows for the endangered fishes. The Recovery Program and CWCB will reevaluate the need for instream-flow filings 5 years after each PBO is in place. Flows also may be protected through the physical alteration of flow conditions by reoperating a reservoir or other component of an existing or new water project. This kind of flow protection is placed under "Deliver" in the Recovery Action Plans and will usually involve both a change of water right ownership, including the lease of storage water, and a change in the legal nature of the water rights. (A management agreement between 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.) Legal protection of flows in Utah will be achieved differently than in Colorado. Several approaches can be taken under Utah water law to protect instream flows, including: 1) acquiring existing water rights and filing change applications to provide for instream flow purposes; 2) withdrawing unappropriated waters by governor's proclamation;

IDENTIFY AND PROTECT INSTREAM FLOWS. Recovery cannot be accomplished without securing, protecting, and managing sufficient habitat to support self-sustaining populations of the endangered fishes. Identification and protection of instream flows are key elements in this process. The first step in instream-flow protection is to identify flow regimes needed by the fish. In the Recovery Program, determining flow needs is primarily the responsibility of the Service (in cooperation with other participants). Factors considered in determining flow needs include: flow effects on reproduction and recruitment; flow effects on food supplies and nonnative fishes; and interrelationships between flow and other habitat parameters believed to be important for the fish, such as channel structure, sediment transport, substrate characteristics, vegetative encroachment, and water temperature. Flow recommendations often are made in stages, with initial flow recommendations based on the best available scientific information, historic conditions, and extrapolation from similar reaches. Recommendations then are refined following additional field research. The contribution of tributaries to recovery was ranked by ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2001). A strategic plan was completed in 2003 that identified geomorphology research priorities to refine the flow recommendations and address the Recovery Goals (LaGory et al. 2003). Flow recommendations have been approved for reaches of the Colorado (Osmundson and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), Yampa (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1999), ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000), Gunnison (▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) ▇▇▇▇▇▇. Flows in the Little Snake River and Yampa rivers after estimated future depletions were identified in the Yampa River Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). Interim flow recommendations for the White River were completed in 2004 (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004) ), and are currently under revision. A White River management plan will be reviewed drafted in 20072013-14, which will ultimately serve as the basis for a White River programmatic biological opinion. Flow recommendations This management plan will include flow recommendations. Under the Gunnison River Basin Programmatic Biological Opinion and Aspinall Unit Study Plan, the Recovery Program is conducting monitoring to assess how well the operation of the Aspinall Unit contributes to meeting target flows in the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers and to help determine if managed flows from the Gunnison and the Colorado rivers are sufficient for recovery on the Colorado River from the Gunnison River to the confluence of the Green and Colorado rivers. After this monitoring is conducted, the Service will assess if the resulting flows on the Colorado River below its confluence with the Green River are pending completion of the Aspinall Unit EISadequate for recovery. Flow recommendations for other rivers or river reaches will be developed as deemed necessary to achieve recovery. Flow protection mechanisms are organized according A strategic plan was completed in 2003 that identified geomorphology research priorities to their initial or dominant attributerefine the flow recommendations and address the Recovery Goals (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. If 2003). In 2012, USGS finalized results of a change sediment transport study on three rivers in the ownership upper Colorado River basin. Samples were collected on the Colorado River at Cameo, Stateline and Cisco; on the Gunnison River at Grand Junction; and on the Green River at ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and the town of Green River (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2013). These results provide a methodology that will help the Recovery Program understand how flow recommendations may be benefitting recovery of the endangered fishes. A team of experts will convene in 2013 to review the findings and determine whether the current flow recommendations are achieving objectives or need to be adjusted and whether additional data are needed to make this determination. In 2011 and 2012, the Service and The Nature Conservancy formatted the Recovery Program's flow recommendations and three National Wildlife Refuge water right (rights for inclusion as non-consumptive water needs in the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study conducted by purchase, lease, etc.) is central to flow protection, then flow protection is placed under "Acquire." A change the Bureau of Reclamation. The study encompasses all seven Colorado River Basin States. It looks at current and future imbalances in water right ownership to protect flows will usually be accompanied by a legal proceeding to change the nature or use of the water right, but this proceeding is still considered to be part of the "acquisition" of flow protection. Except for acquisition of conditional water rights in Colorado, such water rights acquisition also will result in physical alteration of flow conditions supply 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 demand in the first instance, rather than being conveyed basin and adjacent areas through 2060 including projected effects associated with climate change and attempts to a subsequent ownerdevelop and analyze options and strategies to resolve imbalances. The final report was published in December 2012 (available at: ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html); updates of this effort are planned every 5 years. In Colorado, the appropriation of an instream water right follows a structured process developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1997. The process begins with a Service flow recommendation, which is reviewed by CWCB and the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CDOWCPW). Then CWCB issues a notice of intent to appropriate, followed by their Board approval to appropriate. Finally, the Attorney General must make a water court filing to confirm the appropriation and to avoid postponement of establish the appropriation's priority date. It may take 3 to 4 years from the notice of intent to appropriate to obtain a decree from the water court, depending on the nature of any litigation over the filing. In appropriation, the water right will have a relatively junior priority date (the date CWCB issued the notice of intent to appropriate), and only existing flow conditions as of that date can be protected. In most some cases, this the appropriation process has lacked support and thus proven to have limited use in the Recovery Program. Therefore, the Recovery Program adopted a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) approach on the Colorado alternative means of legally providing and Yampa rivers protecting flows in some reaches by combining water project re-operations and will apply a similar approach to the Gunnison River. Recovery Program participants anticipate that this process will prove effective in protecting instream flows contracts for the endangered fishes. The Recovery Program and CWCB will reevaluate the need for instream-flow filings 5 years after each PBO is in place. Flows also may be protected through the physical alteration of flow conditions by reoperating a reservoir or other component of an existing or new water project. This kind of flow protection is placed under "Deliver" in the Recovery Action Plans and will usually involve both a change of water right ownership, including the lease delivery of storage waterwater (e.g., Grand Valley Water Management Plan and a change in deliveries from the legal nature of the water rights. (A management agreement between 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.) Legal protection of flows in Utah will be achieved differently than in Colorado. Several approaches can be taken under Utah water law to protect instream flows, including: 1) acquiring existing water rights and filing change applications to provide for instream flow purposes; 2) withdrawing unappropriated waters by governor's proclamation;Historic Users

IDENTIFY AND PROTECT INSTREAM FLOWS. ‌ Recovery cannot be accomplished without securing, protecting, and managing sufficient flows to provide habitat to support self-sustaining populations of the endangered fishesfish populations. Identification and protection of instream flows are key elements in this process. The first step in instream-instream flow protection is to identify flow regimes needed by the fish, typically characterized in terms of peak and base flow needs over a range of hydrologic conditions. In the Recovery Program, determining flow needs is primarily the responsibility of the Service (in cooperation with other participants). Factors considered in determining flow needs include: include flow effects on reproduction and recruitment; flow effects on food supplies and nonnative fishes; and interrelationships between flow and other habitat parameters believed to be important for the fish, such as channel structure, sediment transport, substrate characteristics, vegetative encroachment, and water temperature. Flow recommendations often are made in stages, with initial flow recommendations based on the best available scientific information, historic conditions, and extrapolation from similar reaches. Recommendations then are refined following additional field research. The contribution of tributaries to recovery was ranked by ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2001). A strategic plan was completed in 2003 that identified geomorphology research priorities to refine the flow recommendations and address the Recovery Goals (LaGory et al. 2003). Flow recommendations have been approved for reaches of the Colorado (Osmundson and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), Yampa (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1999), ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000), Gunnison (▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) ▇▇▇▇▇▇. Flows in the Little Snake River after estimated future depletions were identified in the Yampa River Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). In addition: ● Interim flow recommendations for the White River were completed in 2004 (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004) ), and are currently under revision. A White River management plan will be reviewed drafted in 20072018, which will ultimately serve as the basis for a White River programmatic biological opinion. This management plan will assess the likely impacts of possible future water development on the river flows relative to these flow recommendations. ● Under the Gunnison River Basin Programmatic Biological Opinion and Aspinall Unit Study Plan (2011), the Recovery Program is conducting monitoring to assess how well the operation of the Aspinall Unit contributes to meeting target flows in the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers and to help determine if managed flows from the Gunnison and the Colorado rivers are sufficient for recovery on the Colorado River between the Gunnison River and the Green River confluences. ● Flow and temperature recommendations for the Green River below Flaming Gorge Dam (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000) are being evaluated by a Recovery Program workgroup, with proposed updates to those recommendations anticipated in 2018. In 2012, USGS finalized results of a sediment transport study on three rivers in the upper Colorado River basin. Samples were collected on the Colorado River at Cameo, Stateline, and Cisco; on the Gunnison River at Grand Junction; and on the Green River at ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and the town of Green River (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2013). These results provide a methodology that will help the Recovery Program understand how flow recommendations may be benefitting recovery of the endangered fishes. A team of experts convened in 2013 and 2014 to review the findings and to recommend methodologies to determine whether the current peak flow recommendations are achieving objectives. The resulting Peak Flow Technical Supplement (LaGory et al., 2015) offers a range of study approaches and prioritizes river reaches to evaluate the peak flow aspects of the Program’s flow recommendations. A high priority is placed on collecting suspended sediment data within ongoing programs of NPS and USGS. In 2017, the Recovery Program funded USGS to expand the existing network of fine sediment monitoring stations in the Green River subbasin (near ▇▇▇▇▇▇, UT and near Ouray, UT). Studies and monitoring recommended in the Supplement to address high priority information needs have been incorporated into the RIPRAP. In 2011 and 2012, the Service and The Nature Conservancy formatted the Recovery Program's flow recommendations and three National Wildlife Refuge water rights for inclusion as non-consumptive water needs in the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin Study) conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation. The study encompasses all seven Colorado River Basin States. It looks at current and future imbalances in water supply and demand in the basin and adjacent areas through 2060 including projected effects associated with climate change, and attempts to develop and analyze options and strategies to resolve imbalances. The final report was published in December 2012 (available at: ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html); updates of this effort are planned every 5 years. As per recommendation from the Basin Study and under the WaterSMART Grants program, a review of alternative decision support platforms and tools for incorporating ecological and recreational flows into water management for the Colorado River below Basin was completed in 2013. (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2013). In 2014, the Service participated in the workgroup for Environmental and Recreational flows of the Colorado Basin Water Supply. The White River from ▇▇▇▇▇ Reservoir to the Green River are pending completion and the Colorado River from the Gunnison River to the confluence of the Aspinall Unit EISGreen River were chosen as two of the four focus reaches. Flow recommendations for other rivers or river reaches The next phase will be developed as deemed necessary to achieve recovery. Flow protection identify scientific uncertainties and opportunities to address those uncertainties, document mechanisms are organized according to their initial or dominant attribute. If programs that have been successful protecting environmental and river-based recreational resources, and explore and document opportunities and potential solutions that might be applied at a change in scale larger that the ownership of a water right (by purchase, lease, etc.) is central to flow protection, then flow protection is placed under "Acquire." A change in water right ownership to protect flows will usually be accompanied by a legal proceeding to change the nature or use of the water right, but this proceeding is still considered to be part of the "acquisition" of flow protection. Except for acquisition of conditional water rights in Colorado, such water rights acquisition also will result in physical 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 in the first instance, rather than being conveyed to a subsequent ownerfocus reaches. In Colorado, the appropriation of an instream water right follows a structured process developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1997. The process begins with a Service flow recommendation, which is reviewed by CWCB and the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CDOWCPW). Then CWCB issues a notice of intent to appropriate, followed by their Board approval to appropriate. Finally, the Attorney General must make a water court filing to confirm the appropriation and to avoid postponement of establish the appropriation's priority date. It may take 3 to 4 years from the notice of intent to appropriate to obtain a decree from the water court, depending on the nature of any litigation over the filing. In appropriation, the water right will have a relatively junior priority date (the date CWCB issued the notice of intent to appropriate), and only existing flow conditions can be protected. In most some cases, this the appropriation process has lacked support and thus proven to have limited use in the Recovery Program. Therefore, the Recovery Program adopted a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) approach on the Colorado and Yampa rivers and will apply a similar approach to the Gunnison River. Recovery Program participants anticipate that this process will prove effective in protecting instream flows for the endangered fishes. The Recovery Program and CWCB will reevaluate the need for instream-flow filings 5 years after each PBO is in place. Flows also may be protected through the physical alteration of flow conditions by reoperating a reservoir or other component of an existing or new water project. This kind of flow protection is placed under "Deliver" in the Recovery Action Plans and will usually involve both a change of water right ownership, including the lease of storage water, and a change in the legal nature of the water rights. (A management agreement between 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.) Legal protection of flows in Utah will be achieved differently than in Colorado. Several approaches can be taken under Utah water law to protect instream flows, including: 1) acquiring existing water rights and filing change applications to provide for instream flow purposes; 2) withdrawing unappropriated waters by governor's proclamation;

IDENTIFY AND PROTECT INSTREAM FLOWS. Recovery cannot be accomplished without securing, protecting, and managing sufficient habitat to support self-sustaining populations of the endangered fishes. Identification and protection of instream flows are key elements in this process. The first step in instream-flow protection is to identify flow regimes needed by the fish. In the Recovery Program, determining flow needs is primarily the responsibility of the Service (in cooperation with other participants). Factors considered in determining flow needs include: flow effects on reproduction and recruitment; flow effects on food supplies and nonnative fishes; and interrelationships between flow and other habitat parameters believed to be important for the fish, such as channel structure, sediment transport, substrate characteristics, vegetative encroachment, and water temperature. Flow recommendations often are made in stages, with initial flow recommendations based on the best available scientific information, historic conditions, and extrapolation from similar reaches. Recommendations then are refined following additional field research. The contribution of tributaries to recovery was ranked by ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2001). A strategic plan was completed in 2003 that identified geomorphology research priorities to refine the flow recommendations and address the Recovery Goals (LaGory et al. 2003). In 2012, USGS will publish results of a sediment transport study on three locations in the upper Colorado River basin (Colorado River at Cameo, Gunnison River at Grand Junction, and Green River at ▇▇▇▇▇▇). These results will help the Recovery Program understand how flow recommendations may be benefitting recovery of the endangered fishes. A team of experts is being assembled to review the findings and determine whether the current flow recommendations need to be adjusted or additional data are needed. Flow recommendations have been approved for reaches of the Colorado (Osmundson and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), Yampa (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1999), ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000), Gunnison (▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) ▇▇▇▇▇▇. Flows in the Little Snake River after estimated future depletions were identified in the Yampa River Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). Interim flow recommendations for the White River were completed in 2004 (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004) ), were reviewed in 2011, and will be reviewed revised in 20072012. Flow recommendations for the Colorado River below the Green River are pending completion of the Aspinall Unit EIS. Flow recommendations for other rivers or river reaches will be developed as deemed necessary to achieve recovery. In 2011, the Service and The Nature Conservancy formatted the Recovery Program's flow recommendations and three National Wildlife Refuge water rights for inclusion as non-consumptive water needs in the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation. The study encompasses all seven Colorado River Basin States. It looks at current and future imbalances in water supply and demand in the basin and adjacent areas through 2060 including projected effects associated with climate change and attempts to develop and analyze options and strategies to resolve imbalances. The final report will be available in the summer of 2012; updates of this effort are planned every 5 years. Flow protection mechanisms are organized according to their initial or dominant attribute. If a change in the ownership of a water right (by purchase, lease, etc.) is central to flow protection, then flow protection is placed under "Acquire." A change in water right ownership to protect flows will usually be accompanied by a legal proceeding to change the nature or use of the water right, but this proceeding is still considered to be part of the "acquisition" of flow protection. Except for acquisition of conditional water rights in Colorado, such water rights acquisition also will result in physical 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 in the first instance, rather than being conveyed to a subsequent owner. In Colorado, the appropriation of an instream water right follows a structured process developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1997. The process begins with a Service flow recommendation, which is reviewed by CWCB and the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CDOWCPW). Then CWCB issues a notice of intent to appropriate, followed by their approval to appropriate. Finally, the Attorney General must make a water court filing to confirm 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 from the water court, depending on the nature of any litigation over the filing. In appropriation, the water right will have a relatively junior priority date (the date CWCB issued the notice of intent to appropriate), and only existing flow conditions can be protected. In most cases, this process has lacked support and thus proven to have limited use in the Recovery Program. Therefore, the Recovery Program adopted a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) approach on the Colorado Colorado, Yampa and Yampa Gunnison rivers and will apply is planning a similar approach to on the Gunnison White River. Recovery Program participants anticipate that this process will prove effective in protecting instream flows for the endangered fishes. The Recovery Program and CWCB will reevaluate the need for instream-flow filings or other protective mechanisms at least every 5 years after each PBO is in placeand document their findings. Flows also may be protected through the physical alteration of flow conditions by reoperating a reservoir or other component of an existing or new water project. This kind of flow protection is placed under "Deliver" in the Recovery Action Plans and will usually involve both a change of water right ownership, including the lease of storage water, and a change in the legal nature of the water rights. (A management agreement between 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.) Legal protection of flows in Utah will be achieved differently than in Colorado. Several approaches can may be taken under Utah water law to protect instream flows, including: 1) acquiring existing water rights and filing change applications to provide for instream flow purposes; 2) withdrawing unappropriated waters by governor's proclamation;

IDENTIFY AND PROTECT INSTREAM FLOWS. Recovery cannot be accomplished without securing, protecting, and managing sufficient habitat to support self-sustaining populations of the endangered fishes. Identification and protection of instream flows are key elements in this process. The first step in instream-flow protection is to identify flow regimes needed by the fish. In the Recovery Program, determining flow needs is primarily the responsibility of the Service (in cooperation with other participants). Factors considered in determining flow needs include: flow effects on reproduction and recruitment; flow effects on food supplies and nonnative fishes; and interrelationships between flow and other habitat parameters believed to be important for the fish, such as channel structure, sediment transport, substrate characteristics, vegetative encroachment, and water temperature. Flow recommendations often are made in stages, with initial flow recommendations based on the best available scientific information, historic conditions, and extrapolation from similar reaches. Recommendations then are refined following additional field research. The contribution of tributaries to recovery was ranked by ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2001). A strategic plan was completed in 2003 that identified geomorphology research priorities to refine the flow recommendations and address the Recovery Goals (LaGory et al. 2003). Flow recommendations have been approved for reaches of the Colorado (Osmundson and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), Yampa (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1999), ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000), Gunnison (▇▇▇▇▇ 2003), and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) ▇▇▇▇▇▇. Flows in the Little Snake River after estimated future depletions were identified in the Yampa River Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). Interim flow recommendations for the White River were completed in 2004 (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004) and will be reviewed in 20072009. Flow recommendations for the Colorado River below the Green River are pending completion of the Aspinall Unit EIS. Flow recommendations for other rivers or river reaches will be developed as deemed necessary to achieve recovery. Flow protection mechanisms are organized according to their initial or dominant attribute. If a change in the ownership of a water right (by purchase, lease, etc.) is central to flow protection, then flow protection is placed under "Acquire." A change in water right ownership to protect flows will usually be accompanied by a legal proceeding to change the nature or use of the water right, but this proceeding is still considered to be part of the "acquisition" of flow protection. Except for acquisition of conditional water rights in Colorado, such water rights acquisition also will result in physical 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 in the first instance, rather than being conveyed to a subsequent owner. In Colorado, the appropriation of an instream water right follows a structured process developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 1997. The process begins with a Service flow recommendation, which is reviewed by CWCB and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Then CWCB issues a notice of intent to appropriate, followed by their approval to appropriate. Finally, the Attorney General must make a water court filing to confirm 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 from the water court, depending on the nature of any litigation over the filing. In appropriation, the water right will have a relatively junior priority date (the date CWCB issued the notice of intent to appropriate), and only existing flow conditions can be protected. In most cases, this process has lacked support and thus proven to have limited use in the Recovery Program. Therefore, the Recovery Program adopted a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) approach on the Colorado and Yampa rivers and will apply a similar approach to the Gunnison River. Recovery Program participants anticipate that this process will prove effective in protecting instream flows for the endangered fishes. The Recovery Program and CWCB will reevaluate the need for instream-flow filings every 5 years after each PBO is in placeyears. Flows also may be protected through the physical alteration of flow conditions by reoperating a reservoir or other component of an existing or new water project. This kind of flow protection is placed under "Deliver" in the Recovery Action Plans and will usually involve both a change of water right ownership, including the lease of storage water, and a change in the legal nature of the water rights. (A management agreement between 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.) Legal protection of flows in Utah will be achieved differently than in Colorado. Several approaches can be taken under Utah water law to protect instream flows, including: 1) acquiring existing water rights and filing change applications to provide for instream flow purposes; 2) withdrawing unappropriated waters by governor's proclamation;