<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 />
|