8012

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8012
• Author: Grand Canyon Trust.
• Title: Colorado River Workshop, issues, ideas, and directions ‎(February 26-28, 1996 Phoenix, Arizona)‎ An open forum for discussion of management issues between managers, water users, and stakeholders of the Colorado River basin.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: 1996.
• Copyright Material: NO

enhanced or created habitats and that such manage-
ment did not require the re-operation of water and
power projects. The report's evaluation of nine alter-
natives favors an HCP approach because it would be
the most proactive and would allow the states and
water users to be more involved in designing and
implementing a comprehensive program, and in ESA
decision making.

All of the management alternatives were assumed to be
implemented over a 50 year period. The costs of
implementing the more comprehensive recovery
implementation and HCP alternatives for just the listed
fishes were assumed to be less than the Upper Basin
programs (if these programs were implemented over
the same 50 year time period) and were very roughly
estimated to total $142.5 million; the estimated total
for all species was $185 million. These estimates were
not based on any specific habitat or population aug-
mentation projects, but assumed just for the listed fish-
es a 5 year research period costing $5 million per year,
a 10 year period for constructing capital projects cost-
ing $10 million per year, and another 35 years of oper-
ations costing $.5 million per year. Another $32.5
million was estimated over the 50 year period for listed
species besides the fishes, and another $10 million for
candidate species. The last alternative was termed a
"modified HCP" by the report, combined elements
from them all, covered all species, and included an
HCP, a programmatic Section 7 agreement, a recovery
implementation program, funding under Section 6 of
the ESA, and some unspecified federal legislation.

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
After the Steering Committee formally endorsed the
development of an "ecosystem based multi-species
HCP alternative" in June 1995, the three states signed a
MOA with the DOl in August 1995 to develop a long-

64

,.

term "Lower Colorado River Species Conservation
Program". The MOA states that the purpose of this
program is to "accommodate current water diversions
and power production and optimize opportunities for
future water and power development, while working
toward the conservation of habitat and toward the
recovery of included species, and reducing the likeli-
hood of additional species listings." The MOA does
not offer a definition of what will constitute recovery
of the listed fishes or any other species that would be
included, nor explain how the Lower River Program
will be integrated with existing recovery plans. The
MOA also does not refer to a description of the
"ecosystem" on which the management of all the
included species would be based.

The planning area for the Lower Colorado River
Program is from Glen Canyon Dam south to the
International Border with Mexico and includes the
mainstem, the 100 year floodplain and the reservoirs,
but excludes any squawfish or razorback habitat on Gila
River tributaries or any other habitat outside the main-
stem corridor regardless of its importance to any includ-
ed species that ranges within the corridor. The goal
during the initial, three year planning period is to fund
and implement Interim Conservation Measures (ICMs)
and to meet agreed upon "mileposts" for program devel-
opment. The budget for this three year development
period has been set at $1.5 million per year, which in
concept would be funded equally between state and fed-
eral agencies, while the Lower Basin states have worked
out an allocation of their share.

Sufficient Progress Agreement
After the MOA was signed, the state parties and the
DOl, along with four DOl agencies (the FWS, BOR,
Bureau of Land Management, and National Park
Service), began negotiating a Sufficient Progress