Laserfiche WebLink
a <br />some problems with the DNA research because of problems with some of the samples and that <br />aspect of the program is running behind. Dr. Starns, the principal investigator, is currently <br />writing up the other two aspects of the study. One of the important things coming out of the <br />study will probably be some new information on the taxonomy of the Bonytail Chub and how <br />it fits into previously identified systematics between it and the other Gila, especially the <br />Roundtail Chub. <br />The USBR has recently indicated that they will not be able to fund their previous levels of <br />recovery support. Principals in the recovery effort have been discussing ways to identify other <br />sources of funding through the Year 2003. During six meetings of the members of this group <br />since last October, the group has generally identified three sources of funding - power funds <br />that have previously been mentioned, direct Congressional funding, and appropriation support <br />from the four states involved, which includes New Mexico and the San Juan River Program. The <br />power companies have thought they could provide up to about $6 million per year from power <br />revenues. The group is thinking of a process whereby the states give up an allocation under <br />CRSP of power revenues dedicated to natural resource developments. USBR has indicated they <br />are willing to provide up to 50% and to ask for Congressional support for up to 50% of the <br />yearly costs. The USBR is currently requesting $7 million annually in their budget. The overall <br />effort is to try to produce about $12 million per year for the near future. Besides funding, a very <br />large current problem is now the cross-fire between forces discussing reauthorization of the <br />ESA; especially as it concerns this Council, whether the program should deal with other non- <br />listed or candidate native fish species. As long as the recovery program deals only with the four <br />threatened and endangered fishes while allowing additional native species to decline and become <br />listed, nothing has really been gained overall. There is currently under discussion the idea of <br />taking some of this approximately $12 million annually and providing it to the states that they <br />may manage and conserve the non-listed native fishes. Mr. Hammill has been discussing with <br />Washington whether this will be necessary or if other funding sources, perhaps the Wildlife <br />Diversity Initiative, could provide. He gets the sense that there's a lot of support behind the <br />Wildlife Initiative and that it will get some level of funding, not knowing when or how much. <br />It is his thinking that something may get introduced into Congress this Fall, depending on what <br />happens in the meantime with the ESA. The opportunity is available for the states to enter into <br />and shape some of these funding sources and avenues during the present Congress. <br />Mr. Hammill indicated that current funds available for capital expenditures were divided up into <br />programs of fish ladders and restoration of the flood plain. These two items are programmed <br />in total for about $7 million and $15 million respectively. Those monies go into acquiring land, <br />reconstructing water control facilities, reconstruction of flood plain, hatchery construction and <br />developing ponds and rearing facilities as refuge and habitat. The bulk of, the expenditures. are <br />for the acquisition of water. The recovery effort has matured in general to a point where FWS <br />is moving from the data acquisition-research phase to actually putting money on the ground <br />implementing the strategies. <br />When asked if there was any indication that the recovery would be complete by 2003, Mr. <br />Hammill indicated that there would be good possibilities for the Squawfish, based on the fact <br />9 <br />a