7165 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FISHES OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM: POLITICAL AND RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS Robert H. Shields ABSTRACT Preservation of rare fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin conflicts with water-development projects. Responsibilities of federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 are discuss- ed and the concept of a Conservation Plan, being prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is offered as a means to resolve conflicts. The plan will be funded by developers whose projects adversely affect fish habitats. (Editors' abstract) This paper summarizes biological and political problems faced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice (FWS) and other agencies in dealing with four imperiled fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Colorado squawfish, Ptychocheilus lucius, and humpback chub, Gila cypha, were formally listed on 11 March 1967 as threatened with extinction. The bonytail chub, Gila elegans, was listed as en- dangered on 23 April 1980. Not currently listed but imperiled is the razorback sucker, Xyrauchen tex- anus. These fishes are considered jeopardized because of man's changes in their environment. The Endangered Species Act of 1966 (ESA) and subsequent Acts and amendments provide for a comprehensive program for the conservation, restoration, and propagation of fish and wildlife species that are threatened with extinction in the United States. Federal agencies shall not take ac- tions that are likely to jeopardize the continued ex- istence of any endangered or threatened species. Virtually all water projects involve federal action, whether they are state-sponsored or private developments. Right-of-ways are required to cross or utilize federal lands, licenses must be obtained from the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commis- sion, and permits obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. "Guidelines To Assist Federal Agencies In Com- plying With Section 7 of The Endangered Species Act of 1973" were issued in April 1976 to pertinent agencies; regulations followed in January 1978. The Upper Colorado River office of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BR) in Salt Lake City, Utah was con- cerned that water projects being developed under the Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSP) would need to be analyzed for impacts under the ESA. Consequently, FWS's Area Office in Salt Lake City was asked to provide input into BR's water- development planning. FWS foresaw numerous con- flicts between preserving the Colorado River en- dangered fishes and the development of planned or potential water projects. A dearth of background knowledge regarding life history, distribution, abun- dance, and other information on the endangered fishes compounded the issue. Of special concern were: (1) what magnitude of water depletion from the drainage would jeopardize the continued ex- istence of the fishes, and (2) what reasonable and prudent alternatives could be offered? In 1977, the Salt Lake City Area Office of FWS became acutely aware of pending bio-political con- flicts. Consequently, Dr. William Miller, a fishery biologist, was hired to give full-time attention to the problem, and a catalog of existing, planned, or potentially-associated water projects in the drainage was compiled. Between 1906 and 1978, more than 226 projects were delineated, and these projects had the potential to deplete up to 2.9 million acre-feet of water annually from the Upper Colorado River drainage. Predevelopment flows were estimated at 12.2 million acre-feet annually. When the headgates of the Tellico Dam were clos- ed in the face of potential extinction of the snail darter, it became apparent that more than the ESA would be required to ensure survival of the Col- orado River endangered fishes. The Tellico project cost approximately $125 million to build. Cost of the Central Utah Project (CUP) alone, part of the CRSP, has been estimated to exceed $1 billion at comple- tion, and total development of all CRSP and other projects in the basin should cost far more than $2 billion. Compounding the Colorado River problem is the water demand for energy development, domestic and industrial needs, and irrigation. Biological conflicts also exist. Outflows from Flaming Gorge Dam have created favorable habitat for Coldwater species at the expense of endemic fishes. Also, a similar potential conflict exists in respect to BR's proposed Dominquez Project. Simp- ly put, FWS and associated federal agencies face a major undertaking to gather biological data and develop acceptable solutions to some difficult biological and political problems. To ignore the issue is to encourage another snail darter solution. The 1978 amendments to the ESA require the pro- vision of reasonable and prudent alternatives if jeopardy opinions are to be issued. Subsequently, BR requested formal consultation under the ESA on the proposed Upalco Unit of the CUP, which would annually deplete the lower Duchesne River by about 10,000 acre-feet. The FWS requested a 2-year exten- sion from BR for providing a biological opinion in order that results of ongoing studies could be utiliz- ed. BR declined; consequently, an opinion provided in June 1979 (with subsequent amendments) ad- 9