7857

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7857
• Author: Wigington, R. and D. Pontius.
• Title: Toward Range-Wide Integration Of Recovery Implementation Programs For The Endangered Fishes Of The Colorado River.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

states and water users to be more involved in designing and implementing a
comprehensive program, and in ESA decision making.
All of the management alternatives were assumed to be implemented over a 50
year period. The costs of implementing the more comprehensive recovery
implementation and HCP alternatives for just the listed fishes were assumed to
be less than the Upper Basin programs (if these programs were implemented over
the same 50 year time period) and were very roughly estimated to total $142.5
million; the estimated total for all species was $185 million. These
estimates were not based on any specific habitat or population augmentation
projects, but assumed just for the listed fishes a 5 year research period
costing $5 million per year, a 15 year period for constructing capital
projects costing $10 million per year, and another 35 years of operations
costing $.5 million per year. Another $32.5 million was estimated over the 50
year period for listed species besides the fishes, and another $10 million for
candidate species. The last alternative was termed a "modified HCP" by the
report, combined elements from them all, covered all species, and included an
HCP, a programmatic Section 7 agreement, a recovery implementation program,
funding under Section 6 of the ESA, and some unspecified federal legislation.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). After the Steering Committee formally endorsed
the development of an "ecosystem based multi-species HCP alternative" in June
1995, the three states signed a MOA with the DOI in August 1995 to develop a
long-term "Lower Colorado River Species Conservation Program". The MOA states
that the purpose of this program is to "accommodate current water diversions
and power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
development, while working toward the conservation of habitat and toward the
recovery of included species, and reducing the likelihood of additional
species listings." The MOA does not offer a definition of what will
constitute recovery of the listed fishes or any other species that would be
included, nor explain how the Lower River Program will be integrated with
existing recovery plans. The MOA also does not refer to a description of the
"ecosystem" on which the management of all the included species would be
based.
The planning area for the Lower Colorado River Program is from Glen Canyon Dam
south to the International Border with Mexico and includes the mainstem, the
100 year floodplain and the reservoirs, but excludes any squawfish or
razorback habitat on Gila River tributaries or any other habitat outside the
mainstem corridor regardless of its importance to any included species that
ranges within the corridor. The goal during the initial, three year planning
period is to fund and implement Interim Conservation Measures (ICMs) and to
meet agreed upon "mileposts" for program development. The budget for this
three year development period has been set at $1.5 million per year, which in
concept would be funded equally between state and federal agencies, while the
Lower Basin states have worked out an allocation of their share.
Sufficient Progress Agreement After the MOA was signed, the state parties
and the DOI, along with four DOI agencies (the FWS, BOR, Bureau of Land
Management, and National Park Service), began negotiating a sufficient
Progress Agreement (SPA) for the program development period. The proposed
SPA indicates that the MOA will serve as the reasonable prudent alternative
for any Section 7 consultation on any included species during the three year
program development period as long as sufficient progress is being made and
habitat conditions on the lower Colorado River did not have to be re-
evaluated. The included species list attached to the proposed SPA now numbers
102, although some may be dropped later. As proposed, sufficient progress was
to be measured by timely completion of specific program development and ICM
mileposts. Any dispute between the FWS and the other members of the Steering
Committee about sufficient progress was to be first addressed by a
subcommittee of the Steering Committee and ultimately to be resolved by the
Secretary of the Interior in consultation the Governors of the three Lower
20