7938 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 purpose, that usually gets done irrespective of its otherwise priority or integration. Also, with the completion of separate species recovery plans, the original Basin-wide recovery team formed by the FWS, has been more and more ignored in favor of the implementation of particular plans, and so the original team that was identified and did think on Basin terms has been used less and less by the FWS. The CRFWC concluded that it's very critical to look at recovery of the four big river fishes goals, strategy and implementation in the context of what it will do to the other native fish species. Fish ladders, for example, should not be built to pass just the four listed species, but all the native diversity. This seems to be the most critical issue for the CRFWC to come to grips with in terms of its own process of Basin-wide agreement, and also in concert with organizations such as the Colorado River Water Users and others. Mr. Hammill indicated that the . Congressional legislative committee involved with recommendations for the ESA, would be meeting in Salt Lake City on May 8, 1995, and he feels that they will agree upon a number of legislative proposals. It may be appropriate for the CRFWC to obtain the proposals and make specific comments along the lines of the CRFWC's concerns and questions. This committee is focused primarily upon the Upper Basin and San Juan Recovery Programs chaired by Mr. Ralph Morganwick, Regional Director, FWS Denver, but another purpose of the committee is to try to find support in Congress for a bill that would deal with the Colorado River Basin. How the process would develop after it became a bill to include the Lower Basin or what would happen to it, Mr. Hammill could not speculate. The committee's focus was to be complementary to an effort Congressman Miller (CA) made in the last days of the 1994 Legislature to introduce a bill dealing with a trust fund method for fmancing activities in the Upper Basin. The committee will certainly be continuing along lines of :financing efforts. What additional scopes they may include, or what scopes the Council might get them to include, are unknown. How such proposed legislation would be dealt with vis-a-vis, the ESA in timing and inclusion, Mr. Hammill was also unable to speculate. Mr. Hammill again indicated that he thought it would be appropriate and very beneficial for the CRFWC to respond to this legislative proposal as soon as practical after it has been drafted and perhaps this could be accomplished through Mr. Morganwick. Specifically targeting Mr. Morganwick's committee initiatives it would also be reasonable and prudent to: 1) attempt acquisition of funds to prevent other candidate native species from becoming listed, 2) providing sideboards under which funding is acceptable, 3) Laying out whatever caveats the Council may have, which show the group what interests are important at the grassroots level. LOWER BASIN FISH CRITICAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Mr. Fred Worthley (CA) and Mr. Jon Sjoberg (NV) coordinated in the presentation and gave a brief history of the events since initiation from California in 1993. This was an initiative for an overall management plan for the Lower Basin dealing with the listed critical habitat of native fishes in the Lower Basin. During 1994, working groups were put together to talk about agreements, the agencies involved being the FWS, Arizona Department of Water Resources, California Colorado River Board, California Water Commission, and the NV, AZ, and CA 11 0