Laserfiche WebLink
<br />assist in the protection of the water released from <br />Navajo Reservoir for the listed fishes and several mea- <br />sures were included in the alternative for monitoring <br />and controlling the selenium loading by the NIIP. <br /> <br />PROGRAM GOALS, ELEMENTS, <br />ORGANIZATION, AND FUNDING <br /> <br />The "San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation <br />Program" was adopted on schedule by the signing of <br />cooperative agreement about a year after the MOU was <br />signed. The cooperative agreement was effective in <br />November 1992 and will remain in force for 15 years. <br />Like the Upper Basin Program had assumed for the <br />razorback, which was unlisted at the time that program <br />was adopted, the San Juan Program assumes that its <br />implementation will benefit seven other native fish <br />species and avoid their listing. Also like the Upper <br />Basin Program, it has two basic goals: to help recover <br />the Colorado squawfish and razorback sucker, and to <br />allow water development to proceed in compliance <br />with the ESA. The water development goal for the San <br />Juan subbasin is amplified by the federal trust respon- <br />sibilities to the four affected tribes. The fish recovery <br />goal for the San Juan Program was expressed in terms <br />of implementing the existing recovery plan for the <br />squawfish and the recovery plan for the razorback once <br />it was approved by the FWS. <br /> <br />The existing recovery goal for the squawfish was sum- <br />marized as "establishing and protecting self-sustaining <br />populations in their natural habitat throughout their <br />current range", legally protecting that habitat, and <br />removing the threat of significant fragmentation. The <br />San Juan Program postulates that the goals of the <br />razorback recovery plan will include the genetic bank- <br />ing of presumptive stocks, the maintenance of wild <br />populations in their natural habitat, and some aug- <br />mentation of existing populations. Specific goals for <br /> <br />60 <br /> <br />the San Juan populations are to be established by the <br />respective recovery teams and approved by the FWS to <br />reflect the contribution of these populations to range- <br />wide recovery. The coordination of the San Juan <br />Program with recovery planning and implementation <br />elsewhere in the Colorado River Basin is left without <br />elaboration to the FWS. <br /> <br />The main elements of the San Juan Program are simi- <br />lar to the Upper Basin Program and are presented as a <br />problem statement and course of action for 1) develop- <br />ing subbasin specific recovery goals and a long range <br />action plan, 2) for genetic banking and augmentation <br />of the subbasin's existing squawfish and razorback <br />populations, 3) for restoring, managing, and protect- <br />ing flow dependent and other habitat, 4) for protecting <br />and enhancing water quality,S) for controlling the <br />stocking of non-native fishes, and 6) for biological <br />monitoring and data management. The water quality <br />element is an important difference from the Upper <br />Basin Program; contaminants and other water quality <br />limits on the recovery of the listed fishes elsewhere in <br />the Upper Basin are addressed outside of that program. <br /> <br />Participation in the San Juan Program is organized <br />around its Coordination, Biology, and Navajo <br />Reservoir Operating committees. Membership on the <br />Coordinating Committee, which can make decisions by <br />a two-thirds majority, was extended to the Upper <br />Colorado Region of the BOR, Regions 2 & 6 of the <br />FWS, the four affected tribes, the states of New Mexico, <br />Colorado, and Utah, and to the water user and conser- <br />vation communities. The Navajo Nation declined to <br />sign the cooperative agreement and formally partici- <br />pate in the program because it was still not willing to <br />protect releases from Navajo Reservoir; Utah declined <br />to sign the cooperative agreement because 10,000 acre <br />feet of water development in Utah was not guaranteed <br />