8012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

as a condition of the intra- FWS biological opinion on its stocking of non-native rainbow trout along the lower Colorado River below Hoover Dam. The ICMs will increase the stocking of Lake Havasu with bonytail and expand the grow out and hatchery facilities for this fish. CONSERVATION GROUP CONCERNS Three conservation organizations - American Rivers, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Defenders of Wildlife, sent letters to the FWS in October 1995 objecting to the MOA. These organizations were all concerned that the MOA did not give first priority to species recovery. They criticized the adequacy of the mileposts for measuring sufficient progress and the lack of federal accountability and oversight by particu- larly the FWS. They asserted that there had not been meaningful public involvement in the development of the MOA and the interim program. They were espe- cially concerned that the MOA authorized incidental takings without approval of an HCP, and had already "short circuited" the Section 7 consultation on the operation of water and power projects on the lower Colorado River. Two conservation groups - Defenders of Wildlife and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, issued 60 day notices of their intent to file a lawsuit challenging the MOA. After these notices were issued, most of these groups met with the state and federal parties to explore whether litigation could be avoided. At this moment, there is some hope that a consensus can be reached on a formal clarification of the MOA that will address the conservation group concerns. The SPA might then be brought into line with the clarified MOA. At about the same time, the BOR decided not to defer the com- pletion of its biological assessment on the operation of existing water and power projects below the Grand Canyon, which could quickly lead to a full Section 7 66 ., consultation. Even though it will take much longer, several parties would like to see that consultation con- ducted openly and to have an opportunity to comment on a draft biological opinion and suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives to any jeopardy opinion. The state and federal parties may now be reluctant to make significant new commitments to the development of the Lower River Program until this consultation is completed. GRAND CANYON POPULATIONS The approved recovery plan for the humpback chub identifies the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers in the Grand Canyon as one of the five primary recovery areas for this fish, and suggests that the humpback might be re-introduced to another area of the Canyon. The management of these habi- tats has been the subject of extensive scientific research and monitoring under the Grand Canyon Environmental Studies, the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act, and the environmental impact state- ment and draft biological opinion on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. These studies and the resulting adaptive management plan are aptly discussed by Carothers (1996), and may continue to be the most ambitious experimentation with the re-operation of a major water and power project on the Colorado River. The draft biological opinion on Glen Canyon operations also called for a study on the re-introduction and main- tenance of a razorback population in the Grand Canyon. A workshop on this issue was recently held and it is now up to the FWS to recommend a course of action. MAJOR OUTSTANDING ISSUES 1. How should the Lower Basin habitats needed for recovery of the listed fishes be defined and integrated into their range-wide recovery plans? Are there any