Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ers. In December 1983, water us- <br />ers in Colorado and Utah asked the <br />Colorado Water Congress, a State- <br />wide water users organizarion <br />based in Colorado, to fotm the <br />Colorado Water Congress Special <br />Project on Threatened and Endan- <br />gered Species, <br />The Colorado Water Congress <br />Special Project's objectives were to <br />resolve potential conflicts with the <br />Endangered Species Act in a man- <br />ner that respected state water law, <br />recognized interstate water com- <br />pactS, and equitably distribu[ed <br />the COSt of any solution, Negotia- <br />tions to resolve the potential con- <br />flicts began in 1984 and involved <br />rhe Fish and Wildlife Service; the <br />Bureau of Reclamation; the states <br />of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah; <br />the Colorado Water Congress Spe- <br />cial Project; environmentalists; <br />and, later, the Western Area Power <br />Administration. <br />In May 1985, the Colorado <br />Water Congress Special Project <br />proposed that the endangered fish <br />species be recovered and deliseed. <br />The special projeet also proposed <br />that actions taken to recover the <br />species be used as mitigation to <br />offset the effects of water develop- <br />ment and management activities <br />under the Endangered Species Act. <br />The water users' rationale was that <br />the only way ro solve the ptoblem <br />in the long term was to recover and <br />delist the species. Otherwise, there <br />would be an endless series of "con- <br />sultations" and. eventually. limi- <br />tations would be placed upon <br />depletions in the Upper Colorado <br />River Basin, The special project <br />proposal was fonowed by twO ad- <br />ditional years of intense, but suc- <br />cessful, negotiation. <br />. Recovery program.. In january <br />1988, the secrerary of the Interior, <br />the administrator of the Western <br /> <br />OOiJ874 <br /> <br />Area Power Administration, and <br />the governors of Colorado, Wyo- <br />ming, and Utah signed a coopera- <br />tive agreement establishing the <br />Upper Colorado River Endangered <br />Fish Recovery Program. The ob- <br />jective of this program is ro recover <br />four endangered fish species in the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin while <br />water development proceeds in <br />compliance with the Endangered <br />Species Act, state law, interstate <br />compacts, and Supreme Court de- <br />crees allocating water among the <br />states. <br />A governing committee was es- <br />tablished that includes water us- <br />ers, environmentalists, and repre- <br />sentatives of the Fish and Wildlife <br />Service, the Bureau of Reclama- <br />tion. the Western Area Power Ad- <br />ministration, and the states of <br />Colorado, Urah, and Wyoming, <br />The governing committee operates <br />by unanimous consensus. <br />Technical committees were es- <br />tablished with the same institu- <br />tional representation. The Colo- <br />rado River Energy Distributors <br />Association and the National Park <br />Service were added as voting mem- <br />bers in September 2000. The <br />Colorado River Energy Distribu- <br />tors .Association represents 130 or- <br />ganizations in six states that pur- <br />chase power from federal hydro- <br />electric projects at Bureau of Rec- <br />lamation dams in the Colorado <br />River Basin. <br /> <br />Dearth of Information <br />In 1989, very little was known <br />about the biology and habirat re- <br />quirements of the endangered fish <br />in the Colorado River Basin. Less <br />was known about rhe acrual num- <br />bers of fish present, The informa- <br />tion available at that time indi- <br />cated that the numbers of endan- <br />gered fish had declined sharply <br /> <br />over the decades; the bony tail was <br />virtually extinct in the Upper Ba- <br />sin, and the razorback sucker was <br />continuing to decline and near <br />extinction. The recovery program <br />initiated wide-ranging research <br />and monitoring programs co fill <br />the huge information gaps regard- <br />ing the needs of these species and <br />CO establish the actual numbers <br />present. The intent of the research <br />was to lay the groundwork for <br />management actions to recover the <br />endangered fish. <br />Major recovery program activi- <br />ties have been in the areas of habi- <br />tat restoration and insrream flow <br />protection, nonnative fish manage- <br />men t, stocking) propagation and <br />genetics management, research and <br />monitoring, information and edu- <br />cation, and the associated program <br />management, To date, flooded bot- <br />tomlands habitat has been ac- <br />quired for the endangered species. <br />Propagation facilities have been <br />consuucted. !vfajor stocking pro- <br />grams are underway. Water needed <br />for endangered fish habitat is be- <br />ing acquired in accordance with <br />state law.6 Insrream flows for en- <br />dangered fish are being protected <br />under state law. Reservoir opera~ <br />rions are being modified consistent <br />with state law to benefit endan- <br />gered species downstream. Im- <br />provements in irrigation systems <br />are being constructed, with the <br />conserved water being used in ac- <br />cordance with stare law to enhance <br />flows for endangered fish. <br />From 1989 through 2000, a <br />total of $81,7 million has been <br />expended on the Upper Basin te- <br />covery program, These funds in- <br />clude $49.7 million in congres- <br />sional appropriations to the Bu- <br />reau of Reclamation and the Fish <br />and Wildlife Service; power rev- <br />enues of $22,9 million; $7,2 mil- <br /> <br />Spring 2001 . 49 <br />