9367 ‎(2)‎

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9367
• Author: Colorado Water Workshop.
• Title: Proceedings
• USFW Year: 1992.
• USFW - Doc Type: Colorado Water Workshop July 22-24, 1992.
• Copyright Material: NO

the San Juan River based on the knowledge of those present of the
views of their absent colleagues.
The San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program, a
complementary feature of the reasonable and prudent alternative for
the Animas-La Plata proj ect, has yet to be finalized, despite a
memorandum of understanding, signed by the Secretary of the Interior,
covering the scope of the Program. A budget of $2 million dollars per
year is now proposed for the seven year research program under the
reasonable and prudent alternative for the Animas-La Plata Project on
the endangered fish in the San Juan River.
As another example of arrogant biology and the need to reform the
Endangered Species Act, Region II of the Service is seeking to deny
Animas-La Plata Project sponsors a right to have a biologist on the
Recovery Program's Biology Committee. The biologists have suggested
that only those with specific knowledge of the razorback sucker or the
Colorado squawfish in the San Juan River may serve on the Biology
Committee. This excludes scientists with backgrounds in hydrology,
ecology, and water quality, who could also contribute significantly
to the recovery process. Further, the Service has argued that the
research on the San Juan River should skip over the question of
whether the Colorado Squawfish and Razorback Sucker are recoverable
in that environment, and focus on the flow releases from Navaj 0
Reservoir that best suit the endangered fish.
The San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program is modeled on
the Recovery Implementation Program for the endangered fish species
in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The five elements of that program,
designed to recover Colorado River endangered fish within a f~fteen
year time frame, are: (1) water and habitat management; (2) habitat
development enhancement and maintenance; (3) stocking of endangered
fish species; (4) non-native species and sport fishing management; and
(5) a fifteen year research monitoring and data management program.
The budget for the program includes a $10 million dollar Congressional
appropriation to acquire water flows, an annual operating budget of
about $2.4 million dollars, and a charge for new water projects based
on their estimated average annual depletions.
It was the water users understanding that Upper Colorado River
Basin water projects could go forward based on non-jeopardy Section
7 opinions, if sufficient progress were being made basin-wide in all
five elements of the program, toward the recovery of the endangered
fish. The Service, however, has placed extraordinary emphasis on the
water management component of the Recovery Program within each stream
segment in the Upper Basin, rather than focusing on overall Basin
progress in achieving the five objectives of the program. In
addition, issues have now arisen within the Upper Basin program over
whether historic depletions included in the Program's base-line must
also be reviewed against the sufficient progress standard; and whether.
proj ects that have historically depleted water must go through a
Section 7 process to determine whether they need to pay the Program's
depletion charge.
Other examples of arrogant biology and the need for Section 7
reform include the case of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District fish
screen in the Central Valley of California and the limitation of
diversions in the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District. Although
problems about the fish screen have been known since 1974. The Glenn-

76