8012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to receive non-jeopardy opinions in Section 7 consulta- tions; the conservation community has also declined to participate. Other federal agencies with Section 7 responsibilities can be added to the Coordinating Committee. Largely pursuant to the ALP and NIIP biological opin- ions, the BOR and the u.s. Bureau of Indian Affairs have committed to fund $580,000 per year of the program's research costs through FY 97, while the two regions of the FWS have committed another $200,000 per year, all in year-to-year appropriations. Substantial in-kind con- tributions and non-program but related expenditures are also expected from the other participants. After the seven year research period, program funding should shift to more on the ground recovery actions and capital projects like fish passages, hatcheries, flood plain restora- tion, and contaminants removal. Such capital projects could cost $15 million to build and $600,000 per year to operate. The federal legislation that is being discussed for the Upper Basin Program would include long-term funding for the San Juan Program. TRIBAL CONCERNS The biological opinion for the ALP was recently re- opened again to address whether this project would adversely modify the critical habitat on the San Juan River that was finally designated after the opinion was last revised in 1991. While the reasonable and prudent alternative for the latest opinion is not much different, the Navajo Nation is now strongly objecting that the environmental baseline for this opinion improperly excludes the depletions for the full NIIP and that the commitment of 300,000 acre feet of water in Navajo Reservoir to endangered fish recovery impinges on tribal water rights. The Navajo Nation is also asserting that the ALP opinion breaches the duty of trust that the U.S. owes to the Nation and that the U.S. has failed to deal with the Nation on a government-to-govern- ment basis in formulating this opinion. MAJOR OUTSTANDING ISSUES The major outstanding issues for the San Juan Program are similar to the issues listed above for the program for the rest of the Upper Basin concerning: 1) the more definite prescription of the habitats needed for recov- ery, 2) the independent recovery of San Juan popula- tions of the listed fishes, 3) the permanent change in the operation of federal reclamation projects to benefit the listed fishes, 4) the re-introduction and population augmentation of the listed fishes,S) the programs's long term funding, and 6) the workability and inclu- siveness of the program's organization. The San Juan Program does not face the issue of controlling the con- tinued stocking of non-native fishes, because such stocking has been largely discontinued in this subbasin. The San Juan Program also already covers water quality degradation and seeks to avoid the listing of other native fishes. The additional issues for the San Juan Program are the extent to which the habitat needs of the other natives fishes are coincident with those for the listed fishes, and whether the listing of other native fishes can be avoided without addressing the status of these other natives throughout their geographic ranges. Compliance with tribal rights is also a central issue for the San Juan Program. LOWER BASIN PROGRAMS LOWER BASIN MANAGEMENT PROSPECTUS After decades of extensive research and stocking of the listed fishes in the Lower Basin, Region 2 of the FWS initiated a management plan, now expressed in a docu- ment called the "prospectus" for the listed, big river fishes in that basin, which was circulated for review in 61