14.2_Tech_Exhibit_2_-_Collaborative_Program_Document.doc

Draft –April 2013

Technical Exhibit 2 – Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program Recovery Implementation Program

Final Draft Program Document

Annotated for contracting purposes January 2014

Final Draft July 18, 2013

Contents

0I.

Statement of Purpose and Goals

1A.

Purpose

1B.

Goals

3II.

History of Program

3A.

Species Listings, Critical Habitat Designations, and Resulting Actions

4B.

History of the Collaborative Program, MRG Water Management ESA Section 7 Consultations, and Related Legislation

5C.

RIP Documents

6III.

Program Scope

6A.

Program Area

7B.

Listed Species and Critical Habitat

8C.

Water Uses and Management Operations

9D.

RIP Activities

10IV.

RIP Organizational Structure and Governance Procedures

10A.

Organizational Structure and Membership

15B.

Governance Procedures

17V.

Implementation of the RIP

17A.

Long Term Plan

17B.

RIP Action Plan

18C.

Annual Work Plan

19VI.

Principles for ESA Compliance

19A.

Regulatory Certainty under the RIP

19B.

Sufficient Progress Determination

21C.

Annual RIP Report

22D.

Association with Prior Biological Opinions

22E.

Reliance on the RIP for ESA Compliance

23F.

ESA Compliance Protocols for Individual Actions

25VII.

Adaptive Management

25A.

Role of Adaptive Management

25B.

Science and Management Coordination Meetings

25C.

AMP-1 and Next Steps in Refining Adaptive Management

27VIII.

Data and Peer Review

27A.

Transparency for Data and Science Used by the RIP

27B.

Peer Review Process

28IX.

Program Modification

28A.

Amendment of the RIP Program Document

29X.

RIP Budget Guiding Principles

30Table 1 – Historical Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program Funding Levels

30Table 2 – RIP Budget Categories with Reclamation’s 2008-2012 Funding Levels

I.

Statement of Purpose and Goals

The Executive Committee (EC) of the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program (Collaborative Program or Program) has decided to advance the Collaborative Program through the structure of a recovery implementation program (RIP) to further the interests of efficiency and increased emphasis on species recovery and Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance. Hereinafter, the Collaborative Program shall perform its functions through implementation of the RIP. This Program Document describes, among other things, the RIP’s purpose and goals, its scope, the organizational structure and governance protocols for RIP implementation, the substantive RIP Action Plan elements, criteria for measuring progress, and principles for compliance under the ESA.

A. Purpose

The general purpose of the RIP is:

To protect and improve the status of species listed pursuant to the ESA within the Middle Rio Grande (MRG) by implementing certain recovery activities to benefit and work toward recovery of those species and their designated critical habitats, with special emphasis on the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus; silvery minnow) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; flycatcher);

and, simultaneously, To protect existing and future water uses while complying with applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and to serve as the ESA coverage vehicle for entities that rely on the RIP as the ESA conservation measure for the effects of water uses and management actions in the Program area (Figure 1).

B. Goals The goals of the RIP are to:

1. Conserve and contribute to recovery of the proposed and listed species.

· Support the development of self-sustaining populations through implementation of the RIP Action Plan and Annual Work Plan.

· Continually identify the critical scientific and management questions and uncertainties that will be addressed through adaptive management.

· Assist in avoiding jeopardy to the species and adverse modification of designated critical habitat within the Program area.

2. Protect existing and future water uses.

· Provide a mechanism for ESA compliance for actions that are the subject of Reclamation’s Biological Assessment (January 16, 2013) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge’s Biological Assessment (February 22, 2013).

· Provide a process for streamlined Section 7 consultation for future water uses needing compliance with the ESA.

· Obtain hydrologically sustainable solutions for the species.

C. Principles

The RIP may not impair state water rights of individuals and entities or federal reserved water rights of individuals and entities; federal or other water rights of Indian nations and Indian individuals, or Indian trust assets; San Juan-Chama Project contractual rights; other contractual or storage rights; or the State of New Mexico’s ability to comply with Rio Grande Compact delivery obligations. Water to be acquired or otherwise made available for endangered species benefits must be from a willing donor, seller, or lessor and be used in compliance with applicable federal law and the laws of the State of New Mexico including, but not limited to, permitting requirements. Consistent with the above principles, the RIP will also conduct its activities in compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations, including those for permitting, regulatory compliance, and contracting.

The RIP will use adaptive management principles and processes pursuant to Section VII.

The RIP will be implemented in a manner that is transparent to stakeholders, the public, and other interested parties.

II. History of Program

A. Species Listings, Critical Habitat Designations, and Resulting Actions

The silvery minnow was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in 1994 and the flycatcher was listed in 1995. Critical habitat was designated for the silvery minnow in 2003 and revised for the flycatcher in 2013; both species have designated critical habitat within the MRG.

Drought conditions in 1996 and the realization that the needs of the endangered species could conflict with the needs of MRG water users served as the impetus for increased cooperation among affected entities to develop proactive solutions. Supplemental water management to support ESA compliance and MRG water operations began in 1996.

In 1997, federal agencies joined to outline alternatives to address the water needs of the silvery minnow and accommodate the needs of the MRG water users. The alternatives were presented in a white paper and included water acquisition, water management, and water-use efficiencies. The white paper also recommended the development of a plan of action. In 1998, the Alliance for the Rio Grande Heritage developed a green paper in response. The green paper proposed that all the key players and interested participants be included to assure adequate river flows and shared responsibility, and proposed acquisition and storage of water for conservation purposes. Following exchange of these position papers, interested parties began meeting and exchanging information to evaluate and prioritize potential solutions and define future collaborative actions. Participating organizations included American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, Forest Guardians, Land and Water Fund, National Audubon Society-New Mexico, New Mexico Sportsmen, Rio Grande Restoration, Sierra Club, City of Albuquerque, City of Santa Fe, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD), New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission (NMISC), New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE), the Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). These efforts led to formation of the ESA Workgroup.

Despite these efforts, in 1999 a complaint was filed, on behalf of the silvery minnow, against Reclamation and the Corps for alleged ESA and National Environmental Policy Act violations. However, all parties remained active in the collaborative ESA Workgroup process.

Court-ordered mediation in 2000 led to an Agreed Order that, among other things, provided additional supplemental water for both ESA and irrigation purposes. Subsequent efforts included pumping from the Low Flow Conveyance Channel, the development of the City of Albuquerque’s silvery minnow naturalized refugium, and support for improved metering and water transport efficiency of the MRGCD.

B. History of the Collaborative Program, MRG Water Management ESA Section 7 Consultations, and Related Legislation In 2001, the Collaborative Program first received congressional appropriations for implementing projects beneficial to federally listed species, and Reclamation and the Corps (the action agencies) began ESA Section 7 consultations with the Service over MRG water operations, flood control, and maintenance. The Service issued a three-year BO that provided ESA compliance for continued water management.

In April 2002, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed to recommit the parties and formalize the Collaborative Program’s governance.

In August 2002, Reclamation requested reinitiation of consultation and on September 12, 2002, the Service issued a jeopardy biological opinion with no reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed action. District Court Judge Parker found this biological opinion to be arbitrary and capricious and ordered Reclamation to maintain river flows ordered by the Court and ordered Reclamation and the Service to reinitiate consultation.

In 2003, Reclamation and the Corps again consulted with the Service and the Service issued a 10-year BO in March. This 2003 BO had a significant number of required flow and non-flow activities and offered broad ESA coverage utilizing a broad water depletions-based analysis.

As directed by Congress (P.L. 108-199), the Secretary of the Interior formally established the Executive Committee (EC) in 2004 to increase the efficiency of the Collaborative Program and implemented a 75/25 federal/non-federal cost sharing provision. The EC consists of designated representatives of signatory members of the Collaborative Program and has operated to assist in making priority decisions and meeting specific goals. The Collaborative Program approved Program By-laws in October 2006 and approved a Long Term Plan (LTP) in November 2006.

In 2008, the EC adopted a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that confirmed the Collaborative Program in accordance with the 2006 By-laws. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 determined that the acquisition of water necessary to comply with the 2003 BO or in furtherance of objectives set forth in the Collaborative Program LTP shall be at full federal expense, and established that the non-federal share of activities shall be 25 percent.

The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 authorized the Secretary of the Army to carry out and fund planning studies, watershed surveys and assessments, or technical studies at 100 percent federal expense to accomplish purposes of the 2003 BO, any related subsequent BO, and the Collaborative Program LTP. It also authorized the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation), in collaboration with the EC, to enter into any grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, or other agreements that the Secretary determines to be necessary to comply with the 2003 BO or any related subsequent BO or in furtherance of the objectives set forth in the Collaborative Program LTP. This recognized a 25 percent non-federal cost share in cash or in-kind contributions; specified that the acquisition of water and any administrative costs shall be at full federal expense; and provided that not more than 15 percent of amounts appropriated shall be made available for administrative expenses.

In 2009, the EC directed efforts to pursue implementation of the Collaborative Program through a RIP to enhance the focus on recovery activities, and to serve as an ESA compliance vehicle using a new LTP as a mechanism for advancing the Program based on the framework of the silvery minnow and flycatcher recovery plans.

C. RIP Documents In 2011, the EC directed preparation of additional documents that were needed to describe and implement the RIP. These included a Cooperative Agreement to be executed by participating entities; a Program Document governing the RIP; and an Action Plan identifying activities to be implemented by the RIP over a five-year time frame. An Adaptive Management (AM) guidance document (Adaptive Management Plan Version 1 (AMP-1)) was also produced to assist in implementation of AM throughout the recovery implementation process.

III. Program Scope

A. Program Area

The RIP geographic area (Figure 1) consists of the headwaters of the Rio Chama watershed and the Rio Grande, including tributaries, from the New Mexico-Colorado state line downstream to the intersection of the Rio Grande with the northernmost boundary of the full pool of Elephant Butte Reservoir. Indian Pueblo and Tribal lands and resources within the RIP area will not be included in the RIP without the expressed written consent of the affected Indian Pueblo or Tribe. This definition does not preclude the Program from funding activities outside of this geographic area pursuant to the RIP Governance Procedures in Section IV.B.

B. Listed Species and Critical Habitat The RIP is currently scoped to address two species listed under the ESA: the silvery minnow and the flycatcher. Consistent with the goals of the RIP, the EC may decide to include other candidate, proposed, or listed species at any time in the future.

Silvery Minnow

On July 20, 1994, the Service published a final rule to list the silvery minnow as an endangered species with proposed critical habitat (59 Fed. Reg. 36988-36995).

The Service initiated a five-year review of the status of the species in 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 15454-15456). A five-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review.

Critical habitat was designated for the silvery minnow in 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 36274-36290), with revisions published on February 19, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 8088-81 35). Designated critical habitat in the Rio Grande extends through Sandoval, Bernalillo, Valencia, and Socorro Counties, New Mexico generally beginning at Cochiti Reservoir downstream to the utility line crossing the Rio Grande at the upstream end of the Elephant Butte Reservoir pool. The utility line marks the northern boundary of Reclamation’s Rio Grande Project. The lateral extent of critical habitat includes those areas bounded by existing levees. In areas without levees, the lateral extent of critical habitat is defined as 300 feet (91.4 meters) of riparian zone adjacent to each side of the river.

The designation also includes a five mile segment of the Jemez River from Jemez Canyon Dam to the upstream boundary of Santa Ana Pueblo, Sandoval County. Pueblo lands in Santo Domingo, Santa Ana, Sandia, and Isleta Pueblos are excluded from critical habitat. The Service considered the Rio Grande around Big Bend National Park in Texas and the Pecos River between Ft. Sumner Dam and Brantley Reservoir in New Mexico as essential to conservation but did not designate as critical habitat.

Flycatcher

A final rule was published in the February 27, 1995 Federal Register to list the southwestern U.S. population of the flycatcher as an endangered species under the ESA with proposed critical habitat.

However, the final rule designating critical habitat for the species range-wide (published on July 22, 1997) did not include the Rio Grande (62 Fed. Reg. 39129-39147) at that time. A proposal to re-designate critical habitat was published October 12, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 60706-60786), with a final designation published October 19, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 60886-61009). The 2005 final designation of critical habitat defines two units located along the Rio Grande: the Upper Rio Grande Management Unit which includes 664 hectares (ha) (1,640 acres), encompassing 66 kilometers (km) (41 miles), and the MRG Management Unit which includes 13,410 ha (33,137 acres) along 135 km (84 miles). The Service released a new proposal for critical habitat on August 15, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 50542-50629) and designated revised critical habitat on January 3, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 344-534). In the upper Rio Grande in New Mexico, the area between the Taos Junction Bridge in Taos County and the southern boundary of the San

Ildefonso Pueblo was included in the proposal, but the tribal lands of the Okhay Owingeh, San

Ildefonso and Santa Clara Pueblos were excluded in the final designation. Within the Middle

Rio Grande Management Unit, critical habitat is designated to include a 180.4-km (112.1-mi) segment of the Rio Grande that extends from below Isleta Pueblo and the Bernalillo and

Valencia County line downstream past Bosque del Apache and Sevilleta NWRs and into the upper part of Elephant Butte Reservoir ending in Socorro County about 3.2 km (2.0 mi) north of the Sierra County line, New Mexico (about 14.4 km, 9.0 mi of the upper part of Elephant Butte

Reservoir, downstream of the power-line crossing, is included within the designation). There is no critical habitat designated along the Rio Grande any further south.

C. Water Uses and Management Operations

Water uses and management operations as proposed for 2013 ESA consultation coverage and for which the RIP is intended to serve as the conservation measure offsetting or minimizing effects, include the following federal and non-federal agency actions:

1. Reclamation proposes the following water management operations:

a. Operation of Heron Dam and Reservoir as part of the SJC Project to store and deliver water to downstream users;

b. Operation of El Vado Dam and Reservoir as part of the MRG Project; and

c. River maintenance.

2. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuges) proposes the following action:

a. Implementation of Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

3. Non-federal entities propose the following actions:

a. The MRGCD proposes the following actions:

i.

Operation of the MRG Project Diversion Dams for the purpose of delivering water to district lands to meet agricultural demand of lands with appurtenant water rights, including the lands of the Six

MRG Pueblos; and

ii. Operation of irrigation drains and wasteways to return water to the river.

b. The State of New Mexico proposes that the following actions receive coverage, as described more specifically in Reclamation’s January 16, 2013 Biological Assessment:

i. Discretionary actions related to administration of the Rio Grande Compact and surface and groundwater resources in the upper and middle Rio Grande;

ii. Non-discretionary actions to administer surface and groundwater resources in the upper and middle Rio Grande;

iii. River maintenance actions; and

iv. Other legal existing non-federal non-Pueblo water related actions up to an additional 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) of impact on the Rio Grande modeled as if the effects occur at the Albuquerque reach.

D. RIP Activities

The RIP activities are intended to minimize the effects of the actions in Section III.C above for purposes of ESA coverage for those actions and will contribute to the recovery of the species. The RIP may also function as an ESA conservation measure for other existing and future BOs of Program participants, as recognized in Section VI.F.

The RIP activities will address key aspects of species recovery (referred to in the Action Plan as “elements”) such as species reproduction and survival, minnow captive propagation and augmentation, and research and monitoring, as described in Section V of this document and detailed in the RIP Action Plan. As described in the Action Plan, these activities will be implemented by entities with actions covered in Section III.C above as well as by other entities participating in the RIP that may or may not have undergone separate ESA consultation on their actions.

IV. RIP Organizational Structure and Governance Procedures

A. Organizational Structure and Membership

The following describes the establishment, roles and responsibilities of committees, members, teams, and staff associated with the RIP, and the membership composition of each group.

1. Executive Committee

The EC, as the governing committee of the RIP, is responsible for all decision-making related to the RIP and for ensuring that the goals of the RIP are achieved in a timely manner. The EC sets policy and directs the work of the RIP including the activities of the Executive Director, Program staff, and advisory teams and committees, and makes assignments to the Independent Science Panel. Primary responsibilities for the EC are detailed in the By-laws [containing proposed revisions]. The EC, through the Executive Director, serves as the primary point of contact for all requests to the RIP. The EC may coordinate with local or regional conservation initiatives and other interests, consistent with the goals of the RIP. The EC will work to resolve any conflicts within the RIP on a timely basis.

The initial EC for the RIP is comprised of all members serving on the EC for the Collaborative Program who have executed the RIP Cooperative Agreement with the Service. If an EC member chooses to withdraw from the RIP, a letter shall be submitted to the EC in accordance with the By-laws. If an EC member’s participation in the RIP is essential to implementing a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA), a Reasonable and Prudent Measure (RPM), or maintaining BO coverage, the withdrawal of such an entity may result in reinitiation of consultation under the ESA related to the applicable concerns.

An entity may apply to become a member of the EC provided there are membership openings available on the EC and such entity submits a letter of interest and signs the Cooperative Agreement.

The EC may consider the following criteria in determining whether to accept an application from another entity to become a member of the EC. An applicant need not meet all criteria, and meeting the criteria does not guarantee an applicant’s acceptance as a member of the EC. These criteria shall apply to any entity that reapplies to the EC following a cessation of membership on the RIP. These criteria include, but are not limited to:

a. Representation of a sizable constituency, for example through public outreach or membership;

b. Contribution to the non-federal cost share, reported annually including in-kind services;

c. Ownership of an interest affected by the Program, such as land, water, or other property rights;

d. Jurisdictional or regulatory responsibility, including sovereignty; and

e. Commitment to participation.

Decisions whether to accept an application for EC membership shall be made by the EC pursuant to the voting procedures described in the By-laws. Within one week following EC action on an application, the co-chairs will notify the applicant in writing of the EC’s decision. EC members shall designate one primary and one alternate member to the EC; this shall be provided in writing to the Executive Director upon an entity’s approved membership on the EC. Primary and alternate members of the EC and applicable staff are allowed attendance during closed sessions. All meetings shall allow for public comments and be open to the public with the exception of closed sessions.

2. Non-EC RIP Participants Other entities may become participants in the RIP even though they are not members of the EC. To become a RIP participant, entities must apply, be accepted in accordance with the By-laws, and sign the Cooperative Agreement. The execution of the Cooperative Agreement commits an entity to participate in the RIP as described in the Program Document.

Participation in the RIP is voluntary, and in no way alters the Secretary of the Interior’s ultimate responsibility for administering the ESA, nor shall it affect the authorities and responsibilities of the Federal agencies, Tribes, State of New Mexico, and districts to manage and administer their water and fish and wildlife resources. Entities must make independent judgments to determine whether to be a RIP participant and regarding their ability to perform RIP activities.

If a RIP participant chooses to withdraw from the RIP, a letter shall be submitted to the EC which describes its reason(s). If a RIP participant’s activities in the RIP are essential to implementing an RPA or RPM, or maintaining BO coverage, the withdrawal of such entity may result in reinitiation of consultation under the ESA related to the applicable concerns.

3. Executive Director and Staff The RIP will have an Executive Director, a Science Coordinator, and such other staff as required.

a. Executive Director

The Executive Director shall be selected with input from the EC. The Executive Director is expected to be a senior level professional with supervisory and program management experience. He or she shall carry out the directions of the EC. The Executive Director will prepare a staffing plan that is consistent with needs under the 5-year RIP Action Plan and includes descriptions of positions, number of positions, and personnel budget, for presentation to and approval by the EC annually. Staff employees or contractors may include scientists, engineers, contract specialists, public affairs specialists, etc. as necessary and provided for by the EC. The Executive Director will only fill positions approved by the EC. The Executive Director will supervise those Program staff and oversee contractors as determined by the EC and as consistent with any federal contracting regulations applicable to those contractors.

In addition to the reporting requirements described in Sections V and VI below, the Executive Director will prepare quarterly expenditure, budget, and progress reports, briefing papers for a variety of audiences, and maintain the records of the RIP. The Executive Director will coordinate updates to the Long Term Plan, Action Plan, and Annual Work Plan as directed by the EC. The Executive Director will coordinate the EC meetings, prepare meeting documents and briefing papers for the EC, and be responsible for distribution of information packets and preparation of the agenda with the approval of the EC Co-Chairs. The Executive Director shall be responsible for contract management, cost-share oversight, and implementation of EC directives and policies, including managing and tracking implementation of the Annual Work Plan, as well as preparation of the Annual RIP Report. Fundamental to the Executive Director position is the coordination of activities of the RIP teams; communication with local governments, Pueblos, the public, media, and federal and state agencies; and provision of administrative support for the Independent Science Panel. The Executive Director and staff will also prepare solicitation packages for EC approval, execute contracts and agreements with successful bidders, review and approve invoices for payment, and perform other duties as assigned by the EC.

b. Science Coordinator The Executive Director will hire a Science Coordinator in consultation with the EC. The Science Coordinator is expected to be a senior level scientist with program management skills. The Science Coordinator shall:

a. Oversee all contracts related to science and adaptive management to ensure sound scientific principles are followed and information is being evaluated and assimilated into RIP decision making as appropriate. This will entail interaction with contractors and others on projects to assure those are being completed in accordance with their specified scopes, deliverables, schedules, and budgets.

b. Be the non-voting chairperson of the Adaptive Management Committee. The Science Coordinator shall provide the directions of the EC to the Committee, support and coordinate its activities, and assign tasks as directed by the EC. The Science Coordinator shall make recommendations to the Executive Director to present to the EC regarding the formation of technical and science-related implementation teams under the Adaptive Management Committee to accomplish specific tasks in the Action Plan.

c. Report to the Executive Director on an ongoing basis, and to the EC if requested by the EC through the ED. The Science Coordinator shall coordinate with the ED to ensure that products are prepared on a timely basis each year, including the RIP Annual Progress Report, the RIP Action Plan updates, and the Annual Work Plan. All products produced by or under the direction of the Science Coordinator are subject to approval by the Executive Director or EC, as determined by the EC.

4. EC Committees and Implementation Teams The RIP will seek to conduct its tasks through a minimum number of committees and teams to meet the goals of the RIP. The EC will approve membership of all committees and implementation teams according to expertise in line with the needs of the group. The EC shall provide clear direction on the goals, objectives, and activities of the committees and teams, including expectations, responsibilities, processes, and reporting requirements. The Executive Director will develop charters addressing membership, meeting procedures, and decision-making protocols, for approval by the EC. Membership may consist of EC members, Program staff, staff from EC members/RIP participants, individual(s) obtained though contracts or financial assistance agreements, and others, consistent with the charters. All committee and team meetings chartered by the EC are open to the public, and input is encouraged.

a. Adaptive Management Committee and Implementation Teams The Adaptive Management Committee will implement the technical/scientific work under the RIP. This committee does not have a decision-making role except as delegated by the EC.

The Adaptive Management Committee will serve as the science coordination team, whose work shall be guided by the Action Plan. The Science Coordinator shall be the non-voting chairperson of this committee. The Adaptive Management Committee shall be responsible for compiling and analyzing available science, prioritizing science needs, identifying uncertainties, developing hypotheses, and making recommendations for acquiring additional data and information. This team will ensure an appropriate balance of assessments by designing proposed adaptive management tests, studies and long-term monitoring, implementing such assessments as directed, monitoring studies to determine effectiveness, reporting results to the Science Coordinator, and making management activity recommendations to the Science Coordinator and Executive Director, for approval by the EC.

The EC may approve the formation of technical and science-related implementation teams under the Adaptive Management Committee to accomplish specific tasks in the Action Plan. These teams may involve multiple areas of expertise as appropriate to identified issue(s), such as those concerning habitat, propagation and augmentation, species management in the river, or PVA. Such teams may be directed to develop project plans, budgets, and scopes of work, and to complete specific on-the-ground projects and deliverables. These teams will report to the Science Coordinator and to the Adaptive Management Committee as needed. Quarterly adaptive management meetings attended by the Executive Director, Science Coordinator, Adaptive Management Committee, and implementation team members are intended to assist in further integration and coordination of work efforts by these groups.

One of the teams envisioned is the Action Team. The Action Team will have a multi-agency, interdisciplinary focus and will evaluate species needs, evaluate available resources, and develop proposed annual plans and other recommendations on water and species management pursuant to the tasks in the Action plan, including modifications as needed to meet actual conditions. It is anticipated that the Action Team will conduct evaluations and develop recommendations in advance of spring runoff each year, and will evaluate results at the end of each year in consideration of long-term results and trends. The Science Coordinator will serve in an oversight role to the Action Team.

b. Other Committees The EC may also establish other stakeholder or policy committees as needed to provide recommendations on issues consistent with the goals of the RIP.

5. Independent Science Panel The Independent Science Panel (ISP) will, in coordination with the EC and ED, annually provide the EC with independent feedback on technical/scientific issues, input to adaptive management, data synthesis, peer reviews, and priority recommendations. As directed by the EC, the ISP may perform other review-based duties on selected aspects of the RIP that warrant independent evaluation. For example, there may be ISP reviews of habitat restoration projects, species management, adaptive management assessments, and flow augmentation, and comprehensive programmatic reviews as needed. Procedures and specifics for the selection and composition of the panel and the conduct of its reviews will be drafted by the Executive Director and approved by the EC.

B. Governance Procedures

1. Decision Making The EC makes decisions regarding Program policy and management, including budgets, annual work plans, procedures, organizational structure, and membership. Decisions may be made only when a quorum of EC members is present, meaning that 50 percent or greater of all EC members are present. EC meeting agendas will specify decision items, and EC members and their alternates will be provided with appropriate background material related to each voting decision identified on the agenda. Meeting procedures applicable to the EC are set forth in the By-laws.

All designated members of the EC are allowed a single vote during decision-making procedures. The EC shall seek consensus in reaching decisions. In lieu of consensus, a decision may be deferred to the next scheduled EC meeting. At such meeting the decision may be approved by a super majority of the EC (75 percent) pursuant to the By-laws. If a non-consensus decision is made, the minority may submit a report to the EC for its administrative record. Certain decisions require unanimous consent, as noted in Section IX of the Program Document.

2. Budget Subcommittee The federal action agencies reserve the right to ensure appropriate use of federal funds consistent with applicable laws and regulations. The other EC members reserve the right to ensure appropriate use of their respective funding contributions consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and authorities. In order to permit those government agencies with regulatory, procurement or property interests in the Action Plan, Annual Work Plan and associated budgets to identify and resolve potential conflicts to avoid delay in the budget process, there shall be a subcommittee of the EC called the Budget Subcommittee. The Executive Director shall be the non-voting chairperson of the Budget Subcommittee, and its membership shall consist of the EC members or alternates for Reclamation, the Corps, the Service, NMISC, and MRGCD. The EC may adjust the membership as appropriate. The members of the Budget Subcommittee shall review draft updates to the Action Plan, Annual Work Plan and associated budgets and make a consensus recommendation for approval by the EC. If any part or subpart of the Action Plan or Annual Work Plan and associated budgets does not receive unanimous consensus, that part or subpart shall be temporarily removed from the Action Plan and the remaining parts shall be recommended for approval by the EC. The members of the Budget Subcommittee shall endeavor in good faith to resolve any objections to any part or subpart of the Action Plan or Annual Work Plan and associated budgets that have been temporarily removed. If such objections are successfully resolved and consensus is reached, the Budget Subcommittee may subsequently recommend that part or subpart for approval by the EC. A quorum of the Budget Subcommittee shall consist of two federal agency members and two non-federal agency members.

V. Implementation of the RIP The RIP activities will be implemented by drawing on information provided in the plans described below.

A. Long Term Plan

The LTP is a guidance document providing an inventory of possible beneficial activities that may be implemented by the RIP to meet its purposes and goals.

An LTP was approved by the EC in November 2006. The LTP is being revised based on the framework of the silvery minnow and flycatcher recovery plans issued by the Service in 2010 and 2002, respectively. Addition of future activities into the LTP will incorporate new information on the hydrology of the MRG and on the life history of the species and will consider any revised recovery plan actions. The LTP will also incorporate adaptive management pursuant to Section VII.

The LTP will consist of categories of RIP activities including: physical habitat restoration and management; water management; predator/non-native control; population augmentation/ propagation (silvery minnow only); water quality management (silvery minnow only); research, monitoring, and adaptive management; policies and laws; public information and outreach; and Program management. Goals, activities, and tasks will be identified under each of the categories. The LTP will present a long-term schedule that will provide general guidance as a roadmap for the sequence and approximate timing of activities over an extended period of time. The LTP does not contain specific commitments by the RIP participants, as those will be identified in the RIP Action Plan approved by the EC, discussed below. While some RIP participants do not currently agree upon the criteria in the Service’s current species recovery plans nor upon all activities and tasks in the LTP, the participants will seek to come to agreement on these activities and tasks to ensure that implemented activities advance the accomplishment of the RIP’s goals.

B. RIP Action Plan

The RIP Action Plan will identify the specific activities and tasks approved by the EC for implementation by the RIP over a five-year planning horizon. The Action Plan will draw its activities and tasks from the inventory of beneficial activities in the LTP and information developed through the adaptive management process.

The RIP Action Plan will be updated on an annual basis for the next five-year planning horizon in a manner consistent with the RIP’s purposes and goals. The annual update shall be completed by March 1 of each year so as to assist in annual work plan development, budget decisions, and activity implementation. The annual update of the RIP Action Plan shall consider implementation of additional activities from the LTP, new information from the adaptive management process, input from the Service regarding adjustments to the RIP Action Plan activities or metrics, and input from other RIP evaluations concerning improvements to or modification of the management activities. All updates or revisions to the RIP Action Plan shall be approved by the EC.

C. Annual Work Plan

The Executive Director, in coordination with the Science Coordinator, will develop an Annual Work Plan for EC approval that tiers from the RIP Action Plan and that reflects the specific projects, activities and tasks to be implemented by the RIP during the upcoming federal fiscal year. The Annual Work Plan will include detailed budgets, schedules, and required deliverables, and will be prepared for approval by the EC in advance of the fiscal year’s contracting deadlines. The Executive Director shall consider recommendations from the Independent Science Panel, the RIP Adaptive Management Committee and implementation teams, and members of the EC (including input from the Service regarding necessary components in the Annual Work Plan to help ensure ongoing ESA compliance) in formulating a proposed Annual Work Plan that best meets the goals and objectives of the RIP for the upcoming year.

The EC and its Budget Subcommittee will have up to a three-month review and approval process for the Annual Work Plan, to be commenced no later than January 30 and completed by April 30 of each year. To facilitate this, the Executive Director will include a draft update to the RIP Action Plan and a draft Annual Work Plan as part of the RIP Annual Progress Report that is prepared each November pursuant to Section VI.C. Upon approval of the Annual Work Plan by the EC, the Executive Director will initiate contracting, administration and implementation of projects under the Plan. If the Annual Work Plan is not approved by the EC through the governance procedures of the RIP and a compromise cannot be reached, the questionable project or projects will be tabled for the year or, if possible, funded through a separate mechanism.

Thus, the RIP will implement activities identified in an Annual Work Plan that tiers from the RIP Action Plan. Those documents will draw from the LTP, which is based on the framework of the species recovery plans. The EC will update RIP documents in a manner consistent with the RIP’s purposes and goals and in consideration of new information from the adaptive management process, input from the Service, and other RIP evaluations. These linkages are designed to assure that the RIP provides meaningful benefits to the species, functions as an ESA conservation measure, as relevant, and continues to serve as the ESA compliance vehicle under the Service’s 2014 BO(s) for the actions identified in Section III.C.

VI. Principles for ESA Compliance A. Regulatory Certainty under the RIP

The signatories to the Cooperative Agreement intend that the inclusion of the RIP in the consultations for actions referenced in Section III.C. will provide a mechanism for ESA compliance and provide regulatory certainty under the ESA for those actions. The RIP may also function as an ESA conservation measure if proposed by Program participants for existing and future BOs, as referenced in Section VI.F.2.

Nothing herein shall limit any entity in fulfilling its independent statutory obligations under the ESA. Nor shall anything herein change the legal standards or regulatory requirements under Section 7 of the ESA applicable to any entity’s proposed actions.

B. Sufficient Progress Determination

The Service will make an annual determination by January 15 of each year of whether the RIP is making sufficient progress towards recovery of listed species. A determination of sufficient progress ensures continued ESA compliance for covered actions. The assessment will consider factors that address the reduction of threats to the species and the status of the species and their habitats. These factors are broad categories that will be identified in the BOs, and are intended to remain consistent as long as the BOs remain in effect. Within the first nine months of RIP implementation, the EC will develop metrics by which the Service will assess these factors. The metrics will address:

· implementation of tasks under the RIP designed to reduce threats to the species and improve their status;

· measurements of the status of the species, including the status of designated critical habitat (ability to maintain the PCEs);

· indications of positive population response and improvement in habitat for the species, or reduction in the threat of immediate extinction; and

· implementation of the Action Team’s annual recommendation as approved by the EC.

These metrics will be used by the Service as its criteria for an annual sufficient progress determination. These metrics may change from year to year, though they remain supportive of the broad sufficient progress factors stated in relevant BOs.

The majority of RIP activities tier from species recovery plans. Because the RIP will implement recovery activities identified in an annual work plan designed to reduce threats to species and their habitat, the RIP expects to achieve sufficient progress towards recovery.

If there are circumstances that undermine the EC’s ability to implement priority RIP activities on schedule, it may not be possible to fully meet all sufficient progress factors and metrics considered. A deficiency that is temporary or is limited to a single or few metrics may not result in a lack of overall progress toward recovery. If it appears to the Service that the metrics are not being met, the Service will work in collaboration with the RIP Adaptive Management Committee and Action Team, as appropriate, to identify solutions. If, after pursuing such efforts, the Service makes an initial determination that the RIP is not making sufficient progress, the Service will notify the EC and request its assistance in resolving the situation. If such attempts at resolution are unsuccessful, the Service may document the situation regarding the lack of sufficient progress and make a written request of the EC to take corrective action. It is fully intended that it will be feasible for the EC to take whatever corrective actions are needed to achieve sufficient progress and that resolution will occur. If the potential deficiency towards achieving progress to recovery is not resolved by the EC, it is recognized that the Service may conclude that sufficient progress toward recovery has not been maintained. Lack of sufficient progress may or may not trigger re-initiation of ESA consultation. Failure of the RIP to continue to minimize the effects of the covered actions may trigger reinitiation of consultation related to the applicable covered action(s). The Service and federal action agencies agree to work expeditiously on any such re-initiation. The Service further agrees to consider the benefits from the potential continuation of contributions by RIP entities during any reinitiated consultations, including in the development of new reasonable and prudent alternatives or other measures in new or revised BO(s).

1. Reduction of Threats

The Service has identified threats to the species in its species listing rules and in the recovery plan for each species. Each recovery plan includes recovery actions that are intended to reduce or eliminate the threats. The RIP Action Plan draws from the LTP inventory which is based on the framework of the Service’s silvery minnow and flycatcher recovery plans. The RIP Action Plan activities are designed, in part, to reduce the threats to the species identified in those documents. The Action Plan activities and associated metrics will be approved by the EC, and will be updated on an annual basis pursuant to the procedures in Section VI.D below. It is anticipated that reduction of threats will be accomplished based upon timely implementation of the recovery activities in the RIP Action Plan as validated by monitoring and modified through adaptive management.

2. Status of Species

A priority activity under the RIP Action Plan is to develop a silvery minnow monitoring program for the RIP by the end of the second year of the RIP that builds upon existing population and genetics monitoring efforts. This priority activity recognizes that the current monitoring protocols are not sufficiently precise and sensitive to be endorsed by some members of the EC for purposes of measuring species response to specific management activities and progress toward recovery on a seasonal or annual basis.

Based upon the RIP’s silvery minnow monitoring program, the EC will work to develop demographic and/or other metric(s) to assess species status trends and progress toward recovery under the RIP. During the first two years of RIP implementation, the EC will consider the results of ongoing monitoring in its implementation of activities and annual update of the RIP Action Plan, but the Service will not use CPUE demographic data in its sufficient progress evaluation.

3. Set of Metrics

The EC will work together during the first nine months of RIP implementation to determine appropriate and scientifically supportable metric(s) that the Service will use to assess annual sufficient progress (see Section V.I.A above) including status of the species. In doing so, the EC will seek to refine and further quantify the factors identified in the Service’s proposal and consider potential use of one or more of those as sufficient progress metrics.

It is recognized that the effects of implementing certain activities under the RIP’s Action Plan may not be evidenced in the near-term; that the EC is unable to control all variables related to the hydrology of the MRG or the biology of the species; and that circumstances beyond the control of the EC will not be considered to the detriment of the RIP in the Service’s sufficient progress evaluation.

C. Annual RIP Report The Executive Director will prepare a RIP Annual Progress Report by November 1 of each year summarizing the status of the metrics and implementation efforts under the RIP Action Plan, for approval by the EC. The Annual Progress Report should be accompanied by draft updates to the RIP Action Plan and a draft Annual Work Plan in order to provide sufficient lead time for EC review and approval of those documents pursuant to Section V. The Service will consider the Annual Progress Report in its annual evaluation of sufficient progress towards recovery and will, as a member of the EC, identify changes, if any, it believes necessary as part of the annual updating process.

D. Association with Prior Biological Opinions Federal water management action agencies historically have implemented measures to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification of critical habitat for two listed species. Measures included in prior BOs, and the concerns they were designed to address (related to the species, habitat, and reduction of threats), were considered in development of the initial Action Plan activities and tasks for the RIP. These considerations will also factor into future updates of the Action Plan and into the Action Team’s annual process to develop recommendations for addressing the species needs for a given year based on the status of the species, available resources, hydrologic forecasts, and advances in scientific knowledge that inform decision making.