8012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

These parties, plus the BOR, formed an Upper Colorado River Coordinating Committee, and sketched out the concepts for such a program. The core con- cepts were that this program would serve as the reason- able and prudent alternative in Section 7 consultations on water projects, allow the development of interstate water compact entitlements in compliance with the ESA, and provide for fish recovery by comprehensively addressing habitat needs and other limiting factors. The identification, protection, or restoration of instream flows was to be only one, major element of the program; it would be complemented by restoration and protection of floodplain and backwater habitats, the construction of fish passages, better control of non- native fishes, genetic conservation and re-stocking of the native fishes, and coordinated monitoring and research. Another basic concept was that the instream flows needed for recovery would be protected and administered under state law. Water users and conservation groups were invited to the table, and after another three years of hard debate, the program was formulated in September 1987 as the "Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin" in what later became know as the "Blue Book". The pro- gram was officially initiated in January 1988 with the execution of a short agreement committing the feder- al and state agencies to cooperate in program funding and implementation as set out in the Blue Book. The San Juan River subbasin was excluded from this pro- gram because this subbasin implicated another state (New Mexico), several Indian tribes, another region of the FWS, somewhat different fish habitat, and the very controversial Animas- La Plata water project. Another recovery program was subsequently devel- oped for the San Juan River subbasin, which will be discussed below. The Blue Book eXplained that one of the primary goals for the Upper Basin Program was to coordinate the implementation of the range-wide recovery plans for the squawfish and two chubs, as these plans applied to the Upper Basin outside of the San Juan River sub- basin, and to manage the razorback sucker to avoid its listing. The Blue Book summarized the range-wide recovery goals from the plans for the three listed fishes at that time as the maintenance and protection of "self- sustaining populations" and their "natural habitat", which may have put more emphasis on the protection of natural habitat as a recovery goal, and suggested the same kind of range-wide recovery goals for the then unlisted razorback sucker. The Blue Book suggests that populations of all four fishes can be delisted just in the Upper Basin (again excluding the San Juan subbasin) independently of the status of other populations of the same fish elsewhere, but does not discuss why any of the Upper Basin populations can be considered "dis- tinct" and therefore eligible to be delisted independent- ly. To date only preliminary, interim management objectives for Upper Basin fish populations have been formulated, while the prescription of the natural habi- tats needed for recovery has remained controversial. UPPER BASIN PROGRAM ELEMENTS Flow quantification and protection Under the new program the FWS was still responsible for quantifying the instream flows needed for recovery that would be legally protected under state law. After the next round of flow recommendations issued by the FWS were again challenged, a senior scientist from out- side the Recovery Program was asked to review them. That scientist, Dr. Jack Stanford, largely endorsed the FWS flow recommendations in 1993 and offered a broader, ecosystem approach for refining them. Stanford recommended experimenting with higher peak flows and more stable base flows in river reaches 51