7165 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to supply required numbers and sizes of fish; and 4. Investigations to monitor species populations and species reactions to the management efforts. Some rudimentary aspects of the Conservation Plan have already been informally approved by high-level Interior Department officials. Ultimately, approval from the Secretary of the Interior and/or the U.S. Congress will be required. The plan will ad- dress strategies for the preservation, recovery, and maintenance of the fishes in the Upper Basin. Fund- ing to carry out the plan will come primarily from those water users and/or developers whose projects are responsible for adverse impacts on fish habitats. Assessments against water developers will consider whether their projects will appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival or recovery of the species. Those projects complicating the survival of species, such as impeding migration passages, may not be amenable to a monetary assessment. On the other hand, projects which may reduce the likelihood of species recovery may be assessed for funds to offset harmful effects. The assessment formula is somewhat complex and dynamic. Basically, sponsors are assessed against the amount of water flows their projects will deplete. To date, some monetary assessments have already been made against water project sponsors to provide for Conservation Plan fulfillment. The compensation approach emanated after numerous face-to-face discussions with personnel from BR, FWS, and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD). The NCWCD is a sponsor of the Windy Gap Project which provides municipal water to Longmont, Colorado. The assessment to ensure recovery of the fishes in this case was set at $550,000. Other assessments are pending against the Moon Lake Irrigation Project in Utah ($500,000) and Phase II of the Cheyenne Water Project (not to exceed $180,000). Ongoing projects will receive similar scrutiny for assessments. Again, I should stress that these projects will produce im- pacts serious enough to effect recovery of the fishes but not so severe as to jeopardize their survival. In summary, I believe many of you will recognize that FWS and conservation agencies have serious conflicts in addressing preservation of these fishes. We believe that the Conservation Plan approach has merit in that it provides for payment by those doing the damage. Additionally, implementation of a management program as envisioned in the plan has a much greater chance of ensuring that the four im- periled fishes continue to survive in unison with our nation's energy demands and today's political climate. 11