7999

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7999
• Author: Colorado River Wildlife Council.
• Title: Minutes, Colorado River Fish & Wildlife Council.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: April 23-24, 1996.
• Copyright Material: NO

t
t
7

1

water users to make changes or, more likely, provide money
for improvements to critical habitat. This has been the
major component that has driven the recovery program to
date. From the FWS point of view, this has been beneficial
because it allows work on the most important and critical
impacts and habitat and does not put effort into
developmental areas where that area may not be critical.
FWS has an action measurement plan upon which progress
of the recovery program is graded. If one part of the plan
slows or stops, it usually affects progress on all other
measurable undefined aspects of the plan. FWS is determined
that as long as the plan goes forward, biological opinions
will be favorable because recovery of the species is
proceeding as planned. However, if some impasse were to be
reached, for example, in the control of non-native fish in
the flood plains or stocking of non-native fish, this would
be considered to have a measurable drag on the other
objectives of the recovery plan. Biological opinions may
then turn against development and water use.
The group discussed with Mr. Hamill the background and
positions of upper basin states with regard to the priority
of money spent vs. real accomplishments for endangered
species. Stocking of 50 to 100 year flood plains has got to
be one of the most expensive portions of the program for one
of the absolute lowest benefits in terms of recovery of the
species and perhaps FWS could look elsewhere for programs to
place emphasis wherein the ratio of benefits to dollars
would be tremendously enhanced.
Mr. Hamill stated the recovery program is in need of
long term stable funding which can provide resources to meet
all the objectives in the upper basin and provide the high
amounts of funding (greater than now available under that
obtained from impacts from development projects) to drive
the program. All participants and stakeholders from both
the Upper Basin Recovery Plan and the San Juan Recovery Plan
have been meeting since the Council's 1995 meeting to come
up with and develop legislation that could be supported in
congress. Mr. Hamill distributed a copy of the draft of
legislation as it now stands (Appendix "G"). The planned
legislative progress is to have directors and governors of
the four upper basin states (including New Mexico because of
the San Juan River) have an Act they and their congressional
delegations could support. The plan is to reach this level
of support by July of this year. It appears now that
Senator Bennett (UT) and Senator McInnis (CO) will sponsor
legislation that remains basically the same as the draft.
The draft bill provides specific authority for both the
upper and San Juan River Basin Recovery Plans to be
specifically authorized. It contains funding authorization
7
1