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

met, then such re-stocking and augmentation will not lead to self-sustaining
populations. Without the requisite habitat, some form of intervention will be
needed to sustain fish populations and may only serve to bank the fishes
genetically.
Reform of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) The compartmentalization of the
recovery of the Colorado River's listed fishes is rooted to some extent in the
ESA which does not clearly integrate recovery planning with critical habitat
designation, with consultation by federal agencies, or with habitat
conservation planning by private and state entities, and which does not give
recovery planning enough force. While sound range-wide recovery planning,
customized recovery implementation, and tailored regulatory compliance for the
Colorado's listed fishes could be instituted under the current ESA, this law
could be amended to provide a more forceful and timely path for recovery
planning that is directly tied to specific designations of critical habitat,
that guides cost effective recovery implementation across the geographic range
of any listed species, and that is the basis for consistent and reasonably
certain regulatory compliance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper benefitted greatly from comments on earlier drafts by Marty
Meisler, Barry Saunders, John Shields, W.L. Minckley, Harold Tyus, James
Deacon, Lori Potter, and John Hamill. At the Colorado River Workshop itself,
we appreciated the comments from the panelists -- Dan Luecke, Chris Harris,
and George Arthur, from those who spoke at the break-out sessions, and from
all.the others at the workshop who offered their thoughts about the paper to
US. We also thank the Grand Canyon Trust and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for
sponsoring an outstanding workshop and giving us the opportunity to present
this paper, but remain solely responsible for contents.
GENERAL REFERENCES
Carothers, Steven W., and Dorothy A. House. 1996. The Role of Science in
Colorado River Management. Colorado River Workshop, Grand Canyon Trust.
Flagstaff, Arizona.
Minckley, W.L., Paul C. Marsh, James E. Brooks, James E. Johnson, and Buddy
Lee Jensen. 1991. Management Toward Recovery of the Razorback Sucker. In
Battle Against Extinction, University of Arizona Press, Tucson and London
(eds. W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon).
Stanford, Jack A. 1994. Instream Flows to Assist the Recovery of Endangered
Fish Species of the Upper Colorado River Basin. Biological Report 24.
National Biological Survey, Washington, D.C.
SWCA, Inc. 1994. Final Feasibility Assessment for a Multi-Species Management
Program Lower Colorado River. Submitted to the Six-Agency Committee. Glendale,
California. (Appendices include the entire Endangered Species Act as
currently amended, the final critical habitat designation for the listed
Colorado River fishes, and the "Blue Book" for the Upper Basin Recovery
Implementation Program.)
Tyus, Harold. M. 1991. Ecology and Management of the Colorado Squawfish. In
Battle Against Extinction, University of Arizona Press, Tucson and London
(eds. W.L. Minckley and James E. Deacon).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Final Recovery Implementation Program
for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River.Basin. Denver.
Colorado.
1990. Policy and Guidelines for Planning and
24