7857 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and (nonvoting) hydropower representatives. Each member of the Implementation Committee has appointed a representative to the Management Committee and three technical committees support the Management Committee --.the Biology, Water Acquisition, and Information and Education committees. The objective is to reach as much consensus as possible at every level. This structure is cumbersome and expensive, but has given a broad spectrum of interests a meaningful forum, has institutionalized extensive and open review of all program policies and actions, and been central to building a supportive coalition within the Upper Basin. The program's annual work plan and budget are approved at the fall meeting of the Implementation Committee. The total FY 96 budget approved last fall was about $11 million, which is broken down into about a $6.4 million appropriation to the BOR for capital projects, about $2 million for annual projects that is charged as an operation and maintenance expense of the Upper Basin hydropower fund, and about $1.1 million in appropriations to the FWS for annual projects. The balance is funded by the payment of water depletion charges, contributions from the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah and from water users, and some carryover from an earlier appropriation to the BOR for the purchase of water rights. Starting in 1993, the BOR began charging its nearly $2 million per year funding of annual program projects as a non- reimbursable expense of the power fund, which means that this expense is no longer borne by the power rate payers and is indirectly taken out of the federal Treasury. The FY 96-budget is a high mark for the Upper Basin Program, but it may not be possible to continue year-to-year appropriations to the FWS and the BOR at this level, and the BOR's authorization for capital projects and its decision to charge annual program funding as a non-reimbursable expense have been questioned. The annual program costs are expected to inflate modestly, while the costs for capital projects like floodplain restoration, hatcheries and grow-out ponds, fish passages, and water purchase are uncertain and have been projected to be between $60 and $100 million over the life of the program. Another working group of program participants has therefore been meeting for the last year to develop federal legislation to stabilize the long-term funding base for the Upper Basin Program. The two main concepts under consideration are to re-direct hydropower revenues by taking out the "lumpiness" of the current Congressional formula that apportions such revenues for the development of reclamation projects in each of the Upper Basin states, or to authorize the charging of both annual and capital costs as non- reimbursable expenses of the Upper Basin power fund. The long-term funding of the San Juan recovery program would also be covered. Major Outstanding Issues 1. Can the Upper Basin habitats including instream flows needed for recovery be more definitely prescribed? At what scale should the habitats be prescribed? If the habitat needed for recovery can only be prescribed adaptively, what level of regulatory certainty under Section 7 of the ESA is appropriate? What stream reaches or systems in the Upper Basin are the most important habitats for recovery? 2. Can Upper Basin populations of the listed fishes be considered "distinct", and down or de-listed independently from populations elsewhere in the Colorado River Basin? 3. To what extent should the operation of reclamation projects in the Upper Basin be permanently changed to benefit the listed fishes? 4. Should the stocking of non-native fishes that compete with or prey on the listed fishes be continued? If so, how should such stocking be managed? Can the existing populations of such non.native fishes be effectively reduced? 13