|
<br />Colorado River Fishes
<br />
<br />(continued from page 1)
<br />
<br />
<br />habitat due to inundation by reservoirs,
<br />blockage of migration routes, and interac-
<br />tions with introduced, non-native fish spe-
<br />cies (predation and competition) are
<br />primarily responsible for the decline of
<br />these native fish species. Due to their low
<br />numbers and inadequate recruitment,
<br />three of the fishes-the Colorado squaw-
<br />fish, humpback chub, and bonytail chub-
<br />have been federally listed as Endangered,
<br />A fourth, the razorback sucker, is a candi-
<br />date for Federal listing.
<br />Since 1978, the Service has issued
<br />over 100 Biological Opinions (pursuant to
<br />Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act)
<br />on water development projects in the
<br />Upper Colorado River Basin, all of which
<br />concluded that the cumulative effects of
<br />water depletions from the Upper Colorado
<br />River system were likely to jeopardize the
<br />survival of the endangered Colorado
<br />River fishes. In 1984, the Service also
<br />produced a draft conservation plan that
<br />specified minimum flows for the listed
<br />fishes throughout the Upper Basin. Sev-
<br />eral States and water development organ-
<br />izations responded that the Service's
<br />position on water depletions and minimum
<br />streamflows was in direct conflict with
<br />State water rights systems, Interstate
<br />Compacts, and related Supreme Court
<br />decrees. The result was that a major con-
<br />troversy threatened to develop and em-
<br />broil the various State, Federal, and
<br />private interests in a confrontation over
<br />endangered species protection and water
<br />resource development. These parties rec-
<br />ognized that such a confrontation was
<br />unlikely to result in progress toward the
<br />recovery of the listed fishes and could
<br />lend a measure of uncertainty to water
<br />development in the Upper Basin. As a
<br />result, in August 1984 the Service formed
<br />the Upper Colorado River Basin Coordi-
<br />nating Committee to provide a forum for
<br />discussion and negotiation. Members of gram for implementing a broad range of
<br />the Coordinating Committee included the conservation measures was needed,
<br />Service, Bureau of Reclamation, ~nd I After nearly 4 years of intense discus-
<br />States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. I sions, data analysis, and negotiations, the
<br />!n addition,. private w~ter d~velopment lcoordinating Committee produced "The
<br />Interests actively participated In the proc- , Recovery ImPlementati,o n Program for
<br />ess, Endangered Fish Species in the Upper
<br />The Coordinating Committee's formal Colorado River Basin," The Recovery
<br />charge was a narrow one, Recognizing 'Program agreement, which was signed in
<br />that earlier inter-agency consultations :' January 1988, also created a 1 a-member
<br />under Section 7 of the Endangered Spe- Recovery Implementation Committee that
<br />cies Act had found that new water proj- will oversee the program's implementation
<br />ects would be likely to jeopardize the by the Service, The Recovery Program
<br />listed fish species, this committee was to , estqblished five basic recovery elements:
<br />identify reasonable and prudent alterna- --J) Provision of instream flows. In-
<br />tives that would conserve the species stream flow needs for the four rare fishes
<br />while permitting new water development will be identified for all the major rivers in
<br />to proceed, However, during their discus- the Upper Basin, The Recovery Program
<br />sions the parties concluded that both the anticipates that the needs of the fish in
<br />biological requirements of the four spe- major portions of the Colorado and Green
<br />cies and the hydrology and management Rivers can be provided through refine-
<br />of the Upper Colorado River Basin were ment and protection of releases from Fed-
<br />exceedingly complex. As a consequence, eral reservoirs, such as Flaming Gorge
<br />they agreed that a comprehensive pro- and Blue Mesa. In addition, in unregu-
<br />
<br />6
<br />
<br />\
<br />
<br />E
<br />'"
<br />I
<br />c:
<br />.c
<br />o
<br />...,
<br />>-
<br />.0
<br />o
<br />o
<br />.c
<br />Q.
<br />
<br />lated systems like the Yampa ana hite
<br />Rivers, the program calls for water rights
<br />to be acquired, converted into ins ream
<br />flows, and administered pursuant to State
<br />water law. The program further r com-
<br />mends funding of $10 million for ater
<br />! rights acquisition. In Fiscal Year 19 8, $1
<br />'million were appropriated by Congr ss to
<br />initiate the acquisition of water for
<br />ins,tream flows,
<br />2. Habitat development and m inte-
<br />nance. Fish habitat will be develop d or
<br />maintained through potential habitat man-
<br />agement techniques, such as the cr ation
<br />of backwaters for nursery and fe ding
<br />habitat and the construction of jetties to
<br />provide over-wintering habitat.
<br />
<br />. ,j) Native fish stocking. A hat hery
<br />rearing and stocking program will be eval-
<br />uated as a means to augment the e dan-
<br />gered fish populations, althoug the
<br />Recovery Program recognizes tha this
<br />
<br />(continued on next page)
<br />
<br />ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN Vol. XIII No, 3 ( 988)
<br />
|