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

issued.60 day notices of their intent to file a lawsuit challenging the MOA.
After these notices were issued, most of these groups met with the state and
federal parties to explore whether litigation could be avoided. At this
moment, there is some hope that a consensus can be reached on a formal
clarification of the MOA that will address the conservation group concerns.
The SPA might then be brought into line with the clarified MOA. At about the
same time, the BOR decided not to defer the completion of its biological
assessment on the operation of existing water and power projects below the
Grand Canyon, which could quickly lead to a full Section 7 consultation. Even
though it will take much longer, several parties would like to see that
consultation conducted openly and to have an opportunity to comment on a draft
biological opinion and suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives to any
jeopardy opinion. The state and federal parties may now be reluctant to make
significant new commitments to the development of the Lower River Program
until this consultation is completed.
Grand Canyon Populations
The approved recovery plan for the humpback chub identifies the confluence of
the Colorado and Little.Colorado Rivers in'the Grand Canyon as one of the five
primary recovery areas for this fish, and suggests that the humpback might be
re-introduced to another area of the Canyon. The management of these
habitats has been the subject of extensive scientific research and monitoring
under the Grand Canyon Environmental Studies, the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection
Act, and the environmental impact statement and draft biological opinion on
the re-operation of Glen Canyon Dam. These studies and the resulting adaptive
management plan are aptly discussed by Carothers (1996), and may continue to
be the most ambitious experimentation with the re-operation of a major water
and power project on the Colorado River.
The draft biological opinion on Glen Canyon operations also called for a study
on the re-introduction and maintenance of a razorback population in the Grand
Canyon. A workshop on this issue was recently held and it is now up to the
FWS to recommend a course of action.
Major Outstanding Issues
1. How should the Lower Basin habitats needed for recovery of the listed
fishes be defined and integrated into their range-wide recovery plans? Are
there any Lower Basin habitats that should be considered essential to the
recovery of the squawfish? How can the Lower Colorado River Program address
such habitat prescriptions and provide for the down or de-listing of
populations on the lower mainstem independently from populations elsewhere?
Should the scope of this program be broadened to include Lower Basin habitat
restoration and protection for the listed fishes off the mainstem of the lower
Colorado River?
2,. How should the habitats on the upper Salt and Verde rivers designated as
critical to the recovery of the razorback be managed? To what extent can the
Lower Basin habitats needed for razorback recovery be defined in terms of the
managed exclusion of predatory non-native fishes during razorback grow out?
Can the razorback or any of the other listed fishes ever be expected to become
self-sustaining in the Lower Basin without the managed exclusion of non-
natives. To what extent should this kind of habitat prescription also be
applied in the Upper Basin, including the San Juan? Should razorbacks be re=
introduced to Colorado River in the Grand Canyon?
3. Can the re-operation of water and power projects on the lower Colorado
River below the Grand Canyon contribute in any substantial way to recovery of
the listed fishes?
22