7165 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

dressed the cumulative impact of the Upalco Unit and other projects and dealt with other issues such as changes in water quality. This opinion, however, identified modifying the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam as an acceptable alternative -to make releases up to the 10,000 acre-foot depletion at such times and in such volumes to meet the needs of the fishes. Thus, the status quo could be maintained. This ap- proach was subsequently used on other projects, but BR cannot continue indefinitely to write "blank checks" on the use of Flaming Gorge water. The 1978 amendments to the ESA require federal agencies to submit biological assessments to FWS for use in determining effects of their proposals on listed and proposed endangered species. The BR began arranging for FWS to conduct detailed in- vestigations on the fishes, with initial concern for the Green and Colorado rivers. Subsequently, a con- tract was negotiated, and studies began in the spring of 1979. Dr. Miller leads the investigation, which is identified as the Colorado River Fishery Project (CRFP). Three teams consisting of four FWS biologists and several temporary personnel were assigned to the mainstem Colorado and Green rivers. An additional team has since been assigned to investigate the humpback chub in the Little Col- orado River in Arizona. During the spring of 1981, four additional fishery crews were assigned to study the Yampa and White rivers in Colorado and Utah and the Dolores and Gunnison rivers in Colorado. Biological assistance has been provided by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Personnel from the National Park Service's Dinosaur National Monument and the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Vernal District have also contributed to the work. To date, BR has invested approximately $1.4 million in the studies. Over $300,000 has been provided by BLM, over $200,000 by FWS, and a lesser amount by the National Park Service. The U.S. Congress ear- marked $100,000 for specific studies on the Yampa River. When the CRFP was initiated, it was fully recognized that a crash program would be necessary to obtain data in time to respond to major bio- political problems. Field investigations began in the spring of 1979 and terminated in July 1981; a final report is due to BR by October 1981. FWS believes that important, needed, and new knowledge on the fishes has been gained. In addition, numerous other major developments are awaiting biological recommendations. For exam- ple, the State of Utah has proposed a dam on the White River which would basically supply water for energy-related projects. FWS must provide a biological opinion by January 1982 to BLM, which is responsible for rights-of-way issuance for the pro- ject. In mid-1980, FWS recognized that other ap- proaches were needed to adequately address so many projects. The idea of a "Conservation Plan" began to emerge, and it was discussed at a Salt Lake City workshop on 7 August 1980. Leading experts from FWS and other federal and state agencies, along with private, academic, and water resource personnel there attempted to resolve conflicts be- tween the fishes and the proposed White River Dam and other projects. At that time, as now, FWS recognized that acceptable solutions must be forth- coming to avoid special legislation proposals, litiga- tions, and appeals for exemption from the ESA. The "Conservation Plan" may, in part, hold the solution. In this case, the Conservation Plan should be con- strued as a document which more precisely defines actions and recommendations found in the Colorado River Fishes Recovery Plans. Additionally, the Con- servation Plan would dwell on actions which are politically realistic and, therefore, more likely to be implemented. Recovery Plans address species throughout their entire range. The Conservation Plan considers only the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River endangered fishes will not recover to occupy their former range by merely stopping further water depletions, since they have been extirpated from extensive areas in the Lower Colorado River Basin. CRFP investigators also recognize that the fishes will not be safeguarded by merely providing needed flow regimes at key areas in their habitats under existing conditions. Addi- tionally, there is a point at which additional flow depletions will cause extinction of the endangered fishes; this may have already occurred for the bonytail chub. Furthermore, habitat improvements and artificial propagation/reintroduction, along with maintenance of adequate water flows, may be necessary to prevent extinction and ultimately to lead to downlisting of the species. The Colorado River Fishes Recovery Team and consultants met in late 1980. At that time, the recovery team was asked to revise the old recovery plans for the Colorado squawfish and humpback chub. They also agreed to provide an initial plan for the bonytail chub. Team members were informed at that time about the need for a Conservation Plan and that information contained in this plan would emanate in large part from their recovery plan in- put. Recovery team members performed admirably; their three draft documents contained up-to-date biological recommendations. Consequently, in July 1981, FWS fishery biologist Don Archer, formally assigned to CRFP, was designated as the lead in- dividual in FWS to develop the Conservation Plan according to these recovery plans. Much effort will be expended to seek comprehensive and workable solutions. The draft Conservation Plan should be completed by mid-1982. The Conservation Plan may include such manage- ment practices as: 1. Habitat manipulation, including construction of streamside nursery areas, instream spawning grounds, and fish ladders; 2. Purchase of water rights to replace depletions; 3. Supplemental stocking programs, including the development of fish-cultural facilities necessary 10