7938 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the Squawfish seems to be responding to present changes. Populations on the Green River seem to be expanding and doing better and the population on the Colorado River, although not large, has been able to maintain itself the last few years. The Humpback Chub strategy calling for five self-sustaining populations, of which three are meeting this criteria including the one at the mouth of the Little Colorado River, also has promise. The other species are more problematic - the Razorback Sucker's first need appears to be getting fry past the bottleneck of predation. Mr. Hammill is working on a report dealing with where the recovery program would should be in the Year 2003. The Council considered that it was important that the process of adding more native fish onto the threatened and endangered category as fast as others were being downlisted or removed, needs to receive CRFWC attention. The CRFWC should make more definitive efforts to identify funds for conservation of species of concern, or the Colorado River recovery, effort will be a never-ending project utilizing large amounts of resources. The Wildlife Diversity Initiative is certainly one way to look at possible funding, but there are some other alternatives. This does not only include fish species, but other wildlife; an example being the Sage Grouse, and this could become one of the major problems the CRFWC should address. The group discussed that possibly one of the most valuable uses of CRFWC resources is to work with the water user and , development community to alert them that they must not be shortsighted and only look at money being used to cover the four endangered species; that this will buy them nothing in the long term because more species will be added and they will need to continue recovery efforts and face jeopardy to their developments for a longer period of time in the long run. The group was interested in Mr. Hammill's assessment of the various separate recovery plans being written or implemented in the Upper and Lower Basin in that the Upper Basin recovery goals would be met but the species as a whole would not be held recovered. Mr. Hammill indicated that this definitely should be looked at in an effort to obtain a more Basin-wide focus. Each recovery plan, in a way, seems to have taken on a life of its own and is being prosecuted based within its geographical limits. Mr. Hammill indicated he would be open to all suggestions the CRFWC may wish to pursue in bringing all these plans and activities together into one overall Basin-wide integrated view. There was agreement among attendees that there seemed to be much waste and duplication of effort when each plan was being implemented to meet its own goals - some which may be important to a particular case, but not essential to the overall recovery of the species in the Basin. Perhaps strategies should be looked at and prioritized as d to their overall benefit to the species, and the overall recovery within the River. FWS representatives voiced the feeling that the CRFWC and other agencies and entities should get together and establish integrated efforts. For example, the approximately $150 million retrofitting of Glen Canyon Dam to provide temperature differentials primarily for the Humpback Chub at the Little Colorado River Confluence. There are serious questions how this might be important in a Basin program given their current self-sustaining populations, especially in view of the fact that the $150 million is more than considered necessary to drive the entire recovery in the Upper Basin. At a meeting in 1993, the three FWS regional directors agreed to look at recovery on an integrated Basin approach. Sometimes these efforts are only partly successful based on the authorization of funds. If funds are authorized for one particular 10 4