7802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

American Fisheries Society (AFS) Members of the Endangered Species Commit- tee of the Bonneville Chapter of the AFS wrote a position paper in 1974 that strongly sup- portcd protcction of natural habitats and na- tive spccies that are threatened, endangered, or of special conccrn in Utah (Holden et al. 1974). Members of the Thrcatened and En- dangered Species Committee of the AFS devel- oped systematic guidelines and policies for introductions of thrcatened and endangered fishes to supplement existing populations or to establish new populations U. E. Williams et al. 1988). These recommended guidelines focus on planning, implementation, and eval- uation of introductions in ways intended to increase the probability of success in recovery efforts. Further communications about endan- gered fishes occur at meetings of the Western Division of the AFS (w. H. Miller et al. 1982C) and at meetings of the Bonneville and Colo- rado-Wyoming chapters of that organization. Interagency Coordinating Committee The 191b. amendments to the ESA declare that "the policy of Congress is that Federal agen- cies shall coordinate wirh State and local agenci~s to resolve water resource issues in concert with rhe conservation of endangered species." This amendment was added to the ESA to address specific conflicts concerning water development and conservation of the endangered species in the upper Colorado and Platte river basins. By 1984 the USFWS had issued nearly a hun- dred biological opinions, concluding that the site-specific cumulative effect of water devel- opments and deplerions was likely to jeopar- dize the continued existence of endangered Colorado River fishes. Also in 1984, the USFWS issued a draft conservation plan thar specified minimum stream flows needed by en- dangered fishes for all major streams in the EI/o[ulio" of a Recover)' Program 13 3 upper basin. This plan drew harsh rcactions from the upper-basin states because strcam- flow recommcndations were based on historic conditions rather than on the spccifically docu- mented biological needs of thc species them- selves (Zallen 1986). The plan was intcrpreted as a threat to future water development and state water-rights systems. In response to this conrroversy and a failurc to weaken the ESA (Tarlock 1984), water-de- velopment interesrs became more actively in- volved in trying to resolve growing concerns over endangered species versus water develop- ment in the upper basin. For example, rite di- rectors of the Colorado Warer Congress estab- lished a Special Project on Threatened and Endangered Species in December 1983 (Pitts 1988). Its goal was to find an administrative solution acceptable to water-development in- terests, the federal governmenr, states, and en- vironmental organizations rhat would allow water dcvelopment to conrinue in the uppcr Colorado and PIa(te river basins while avoid- ing conflicts with the ESA. Also in response to the growing contro- versy, the USfWS began discussions among reptesentatives of the USBR and the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, private water-development interests, and environmen- tal groups. These led to the formation of the Upper Colorado River Coordinating Commit- tee (UCRCC) in March 1984. The committee's primary goal was ro develop a recovery pro- gram for endangered fishes in the upper basin within the framework of the ESA, existing states' water rights, and terms of the Colorado River compacts. The San juan River was excluded from discussions because it had nor been identified as a prioriry recovery area for endangered fishes. One of the first UCRCC activities was the formation of biology and hydrology subcom- mittees to review and synthesizc technical in- formation on the fishes and their stream-flow