Laserfiche WebLink
extended to the Upper Colorado Region of the BOR, Regions 2 & 6 of the FWS, <br />the four affected tribes, the states of New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, and to <br />the water user and conservation communities. The Navajo Nation declined to <br />sign the cooperative agreement and formally participate in the program because <br />it was still not willing to protect releases from Navajo Reservoir; Utah <br />declined to sign the cooperative agreement because 10,000 acre feet of water <br />development in Utah was not guaranteed to receive non-jeopardy opinions in <br />Section 7 consultation; the conservation community has also declined to <br />participate. Other federal agencies with Section 7 responsibilities can be <br />added to the Coordinating Committee. <br />Largely pursuant to the ALP and NIIP biological opinions, the BOR and the U.S. <br />Bureau of Indian Affairs have committed to fund $580,000 per year of the <br />program's research costs through FY 97, while the two regions of the FWS have <br />committed another $200,000 per year, all in year-to-year appropriations. <br />Substantial in-kind contributions and non-program but related expenditures are <br />also expected from the other participants. After the seven year research <br />period, program funding should shift to more on the ground recovery actions <br />and capital projects like fish passages, hatcheries, flood plain restoration, <br />and contaminants removal. Such capital projects could cost $15 million to <br />build and $600,000 per year to operate. The federal legislation that is being <br />discussed for the Upper Basin Program would include long-term funding for the <br />San Juan Program. <br />Tribal Concerns <br />The biological opinion for the ALP was recently re-opened to address whether <br />this project would adversely modify the critical habitat on the San Juan River <br />that was finally designated after the opinion was last revised in 1991. While <br />the reasonable and prudent alternative for the latest opinion is not much <br />different, the Navajo Nation is now strongly objecting that the environmental <br />baseline for this opinion improperly excludes the depletions for the full NIIP <br />and that the commitment of 300,000 acre feet of water in Navajo Reservoir to <br />endangered fish recovery impinges on tribal water rights. The Navajo Nation <br />is also asserting that the ALP opinion breaches the duty of trust that the <br />U.S. owes to the Nation and that the U.S. has failed to deal with the Nation <br />on a government-to-government basis in formulating this opinion. <br />Major Outstanding Issues <br />The major outstanding issues for the San Juan Program are similar to issues <br />listed above for the program for the rest of the Upper Basin concerning: 1) <br />the more definite prescription of the habitats needed for recovery, 2) the <br />independent recovery of San Juan populations of the listed fishes, 3) the <br />permanent change in the operation of federal reclamation projects to benefit <br />the listed fishes, 4) the re-introduction and population augmentation of the <br />listed fishes, 5) the programs's long term funding, and 6) the workability and <br />inclusiveness of the program's organization. The San Juan Program does not <br />face the issue of controlling the continued stocking of non-native fishes, <br />since such stocking has been largely discontinued in this subbasin. The San <br />Juan Program also already covers water quality degradation and seeks to avoid <br />the listing of other native fishes. The additional issues for the San Juan <br />Program are the extent to which the habitat needs of the other natives fishes <br />are coincident with those for the listed fishes, and whether the listing of <br />other native-fishes can be avoided without addressing the status of these <br />other natives throughout their geographic ranges. Compliance with tribal <br />rights is also a central issue for the San Juan Program. <br />17