My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03664
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03664
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:51:31 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:53:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8065
Description
Section D General Statewide Issues - Endangered Species Act - Fisheries
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
8/1/1993
Author
American Bar Associa
Title
Natural Resources and Environment - Number 8-Volume 1 - Summer 1993 - Endangered Species Protection
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Evans is deputy <br />director lor the <br />Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board <br />in Denver. <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />002~37 <br /> <br />A "Recovery" <br />Partnership for the <br />Upper Colorado <br />River to Meet <br />ESA ~ 7 Needs <br /> <br />Peter Evans <br /> <br />Since 1988, three states, three federal agen- <br />cies, and representatives from the water devel- <br />opment and environmental communities have <br />been pursuing a cooperative, nonregulatory so- <br />lution to endangered species concerns within the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin. Recognizing the in- <br />creasing likelihood of a major conflict with en. <br />vironmental interests and federal agencies in the <br />early 1980s, water development intetests in Col- <br />orado, Utah, and Wyoming invited the states and <br />federal agencics to explore alternatives for sat. <br />isfying Endangered Species Act (ESA) require. <br />ments which might be more productive than the <br />traditional regulation/litigation model. The tra- <br />ditional regulatory approach ro section 7 con- <br />sultation focuses upon identification of adverse <br />impacts and site-specific conservation measures <br />to offset those impactS. This approach has af- <br />forded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) <br />with readily defendable biological opinions that <br />document the agency's basis for concluding rhat <br />conservation measures will offset the impactS and <br />avoid additional risk to the endangered species. <br />In 1988 the Department of the Interior <br />helped establish a partnership with the states of <br />Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, and the water <br />development and environmental communities <br />in those states to restore and protect cri tical <br />habitat by establishing the Recovery Implemen. <br />tation Program for Endangered Fish Species in <br />the Upper Colorado River Basin (recovery pro- <br />gram). For approximately five years, the recov- <br />ery program has pursued full recovery of the <br />listed species-rather than merely offsetting <br />additional impacts, and FWS has been able to <br />allow water resource development to proceed <br />by relying upon the accomplishmenrs of the reo <br />covery program as a "reasonable and prudenr <br />alternative" that avoids jeopardy to the endan- <br />gered species. For water dependent species in <br />the western United States, where water re- <br /> <br />NR&E/SUMMER 1993 <br /> <br />sources cross many jurisdictional boundaries and <br />are allocated among the states pursuanr to con. <br />gressionally ratified compacts, and where the <br />species' well-being may be linked to existing <br />uses of land and water resources, this cooper- <br />ative recovery approach may be the most effec- <br />tive way to achieve the goals of the ESA. <br /> <br />Program Background <br /> <br />The Colorado squawfish, bonytail chub, <br />humpback chub, and razorback sucker were <br />once abundanr in the Colorado River. FWS and <br />many recovery program biologists attribute the <br />decline of these native fish species to changes <br />in the Colorado River ecosystem. The dams and <br />reservoirs that regulate flows within the river <br />system have altered historic 110w patterns, ob- <br />structed migration routes, affected water qual- <br />iry, and created l1at water and cold water <br />habitats, thereby reducing the carrying capaciry <br />of the system for the endangered fish. In addi- <br />tion, many fishery biologists believe the inrro- <br />duction of nonnative "game" species (e.g., trout <br />and catfish), which compete with and prey upon <br />endangered fish, further reduced endangered <br />fish populations. <br />Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming have signif- <br />icant quantities of Colorado River water allo- <br />cated for conrinued developmenr under <br />interstate compacts ratified in 1922 and 1948. <br />In the early 1980s, endangered species con- <br />cerns and section 7 consultation requirements <br />threatened many efforts to obtain federal per- <br />mits or financing for water development pro- <br />jects throughout the Upper Colorado River <br />Basin. In the late summer of 1984, a memoran- <br />dum of understanding between FWS, the Bureau <br />of Reclamation (Bureau), Colorado, Utah, and <br />Wyoming established the Upper Colorado River <br />Basin Coordinating Committee to identify "rea- <br />sonable and prudent alternatives" that would <br />preserve the species while permitting Upper <br />Basin water development to proceed. Recogniz- <br />ing that both the biological requirements of the <br />four species and the hydrology and manage- <br />menr of the Upper Colorado River Basin are ex- <br />ceedingly complex, the committee concluded <br />that its objective could best be achieved through <br />a concened and cooperative effon to recover <br />all four species over a period of fifteen years. <br /> <br />Recovery Program Framework <br /> <br />The recovery program is directed by an im- <br />plementation committee comprised of voting <br />represenratives of three federal agencies, three <br />states, and the water development and environ-lmental protection interests. <br />A fundamental aspect of the recovery pro- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.