Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Reclamation contracted with the Navajo Nation to prepare the plan. The Navajo Nation <br />contracted with SWCA consulting firm to produce the document. A preliminary draft was <br />prepared and Reclamation and the Navajo Nation met to discuss modifications. In the process of <br />transition between Glen Canyon Environmental Studies and the GCMRC this contract expired. <br />The final product did not address certain issues which Reclamation believes are important to <br />accomplishing the protection of the fish, A new cooperative agreement between Reclamation <br />and SWCA is currently being finalized, The final LCR Management Plan will then be transmitted <br />to the Service and other parties with the jurisdiction and authority to implement it. Reclamation is <br />willing to participate in the implementation process in accordance with responsibilities under <br />Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act. <br /> <br />This element is ongoing <br /> <br />3 - Sponsor razorback sucker workshop <br /> <br />Reclamation sponsored a workshop on the endangered razorback sucker on January 11 and 12, <br />1996. Representatives of State and Federal agencies from the seven Basin states, the <br />environmental community, and water and power interests attended. Recognized native fish <br />experts outlined the ecology, genetics, and threats to the razorback in the Colorado River <br />system. The status of the razorback sucker population and a photographic tour of habitat in Glen <br />and Grand Canyons was then presented. With this background, the workshop participants then <br />engaged in an active discussion, attempting to answer the questions 'Should we manage for <br />razorback sucker in this reach of the Colorado River; Can we manage them here; and, What <br />specific actions should be taken in the next three to five years?' Although many differing <br />opinions were express, overall the group believed razorback sucker could, and should be <br />managed in Glen and Grand Canyons, and improved communication/dissemination of data, <br />continued research, and investigating the control of non-native fish were the three major actions <br />identified as needed. The results of the workshop were sent participants, including the Service, <br />on February 12, 1996, <br /> <br />The Service will now recommend a course of action and develop a Memorandum of <br />Understanding to further the process. <br /> <br />Completed <br /> <br />4. Establish a second spawning population of humpback chub <br /> <br />Limited activities have taken place on this element. Some evaluation of the tributaries to <br />determine suitability have been undertaken by the Service through Reclamation funding. Havasu <br />Creek was identified as the location with the greatest likelihood of success. The Supai tribe has <br />indicated they are not amenable to having endangered fish in this area. Further discussion will <br />take place in the future. Considering the preferred location of a second spawning population of <br />humpback chub is in the mainstem Colorado River, and that establishment is largely dependent <br />upon warmer water temperatures, success is dependant on the selective withdrawal structure. <br />Therefore, the available staff and funding resources have been applied to the other items, which <br />are expected to produce tangible benefits for endangered species much more quickly. <br />Reclamation has requested that the service provide a clear definition of what constitutes a <br />secondary population, or, that they define a process by which a site specific definition can be <br />developed, <br />