riprap - Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

More documents

Recommendations

Info

that favor their survival over that of native fishes. Competition with and predation bynonnative species is widely assumed to have played a role in the decline of theendangered fishes (Tyus and Saunders 1996). However, evidence of direct impacts ofintroduced species on native fishes is difficult to obtain (Schoenherr 1981) and often ismasked by human-caused habitat alterations (Moyle 1976).In studies on the Green River, researchers documented that young Coloradopikeminnow constituted 5% of the diet of northern pike, even though young Coloradopikeminnow made up a much smaller portion of the available food base in the river(Crowl and Lentsch 1996). Researchers estimated that a single northern pike couldconsume 100 or more young Colorado pikeminnow per year. Also, northern pike areknown to prey on large-bodied native fishes (Martinez 2001, Hawkins et al. 2005, Martinand Wright 2010) including adult Colorado pikeminnow, native roundtail chub (Gilarobusta), flannelmouth and bluehead suckers, and may also feed on humpback chubsin the Yampa River. Colorado has revised a fisheries management plan for the YampaRiver basin (CDOW 2010). Smallmouth bass in the Yampa River have rapidlyincreased in abundance and pose a significant predatory and competitive threat tonative and endangered fishes (Bestgen et al. 2008, Johnson et al. 2008).Recovery Program activities related to nonnative fishes initially focused on identifyingimpacts/interactions and developing nonnative fish stocking procedures. Nonnative fishcontrol strategies were developed to identify and prioritize options for controlling orremoving nonnative fishes from river reaches occupied by the endangered fishes aswell as other reaches that serve as production areas for nonnatives that subsequentlydisperse into occupied habitat (Tyus and Saunders 1996; Lentsch et al. 1996; Hawkinsand Nesler 1991). In February 2004, the Recovery Program adopted a nonnative fishmanagement policy that addresses the process of identifying and implementingnonnative fish management actions needed to recover the endangered fishes (UpperColorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program 2004). Through 2009, emphasishas been focused on the control activities identified in these strategies. All nonnativefish control activities are being evaluated for effectiveness and continued asappropriate. Development of a new basinwide strategy for the management ofnonnative aquatic species began in 2009. This strategy will emphasize prevention as amajor component in efforts to control existing invasive impacts and to avoid similarimpacts arising from existing or new species in additional locations within the UpperBasin.The States and the Service also have developed final procedures for stocking ofnonnative fishes in the Upper Basin (USFWS 1996a, 1996b). The procedures aredesigned to reduce the impact on native fishes due to stocking of nonnative fishes inthe Upper Basin and clarify the role of the States, the Service, and others in the reviewof stocking proposals. A cooperative agreement has been signed by the States and theService implementing the Stocking Procedures. The Stocking Procedures were revisedin 2009 (USFWS 2009) and the cooperative agreement was updated.10
2.4 IV. CONSERVE GENETIC INTEGRITY AND AUGMENT OR RESTOREPOPULATIONSSpecies recovery depends on protecting and managing species genetic resources. Thisis a complex activity that includes: determining the genetic diversity of the endangeredfishes; protecting species in refugia; planning, developing, and operating propagationfacilities; propagating fish for augmentation or restoration, research, and informationand education; and planning, implementing, and evaluating augmentation or restorationof species. Stocking is only an interim tool in the Recovery Program because recovery,by definition, implies that the populations will be self-sustaining in the wild. Thesuccess of augmentation and restoration stocking is dependent on prior or concurrentimplementation of other recovery actions such as flow protection, habitat restoration,and management of nonnative fishes. This dependency is reflected in the schedule ofsubbasin-specific actions in Section 4.0.The Recovery Program has recognized the need to increase augmentation andrestoration stocking (primarily for razorback sucker and bonytail), both for recovery ofthe species and to establish fish in the system to be able to demonstrate that habitatand instream flow activities are having an effect on endangered fish recovery. TheRecovery Program is implementing an integrated stocking plan developed for bonytail,Colorado pikeminnow (stocking on hold), and razorback sucker. The RecoveryProgram continues to evaluate the need for implementing an integrated stocking planfor humpback chub especially for restoring specific stocks thought to be too low foradequate natural recruitment. Humpback chub is not currently being stocked; however,augmentation of existing small populations may become necessary and some fish havebeen brought into captivity.An ad hoc group reviewed the population and known genetics information from all thehumpback populations and concluded that the Recovery Program should: 1) use adecision tree to guide choices in creating a refuge population and potentially stockingfish into the wild; and 2) genetically test, and if appropriate, use Westwater Canyon andBlack Rocks humpback chub to initially provide a refuge for Upper Colorado RiverBasin genetics, because they genetically represent most populations in the upper basin.Studies to confirm genetic diversity have been vital to genetics management of theendangered fishes. Species are being protected in refugia to develop broodstocks andguard against catastrophe. Representatives of species thought to be in immediatedanger of extinction are brought into refugia immediately. Refugia populations ofspecies are developed using paired breeding matrices to maximize genetic variabilityand maintain genetic integrity.Most of this work is included under the General Recovery Program Support Action Planbecause it applies Upper Basin wide. Subbasin-specific activities of augmenting orrestoring species are placed under the subbasin Action Plans. Augmentation orrestoration plans are being implemented, fish produced, and river reaches restored and11
Page 1 and 2: RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMSECT
Page 3 and 4: PART ONE:RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PR
Page 5 and 6: The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Page 7 and 8: The Management Committee will work
Page 10 and 11: 3.2.1 Importance 163.2.2 Recovery A
Page 12 and 13: treated as a “recovery unit”),
Page 14 and 15: success of recovery efforts will be
Page 16 and 17: strategies to resolve imbalances. T
Page 18 and 19: Historically, Upper Colorado River
Page 22 and 23: augmented with those fish. The effe
Page 24 and 25: non-Federal partners’ annual visi
Page 26 and 27: the Green River down to the conflue
Page 28 and 29: Colorado filed for a junior instrea
Page 30 and 31: 2005 update formalized high flow re
Page 32 and 33: Wolford Mountain Reservoir and 5,41
Page 34 and 35: chub (previously captured in Westwa
Page 36 and 37: NWCDPD/PDOTBDUTUDWRUTWRWACWYGFNorth
Page 38 and 39: GENERAL RECOVERY PROGRAM SUPPORT AC
Page 48 and 49: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: MAINSTEM G
Page 50 and 51: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: MAINSTEM G
Page 52 and 53: Green River at JensenPre and Post F
Page 54 and 55: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: YAMPA AND
Page 56 and 57: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: YAMPA AND
Page 58 and 59: Assmt: Yampa Flows Page 119,600 cfs
Page 60 and 61: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: DUCHESNE R
Page 62 and 63: GREEN RIVER ACTION PLAN: WHITE RIVE
Page 64 and 65: Assmt: Yampa Flows Page 12011 peak
Page 66 and 67: ACTIVITY WHO STATUS>* I.A.5.b.(1) P
Page 68 and 69: COLORADO RIVER ACTION PLAN: MAINSTE
Page 70 and 71:
COLORADO RIVER ACTION PLAN: MAINSTE
Page 72 and 73:
ACTIVITY WHO STATUSMONITOR POPULATI
Page 74 and 75:
Assmt: Colorado Flows Tables Page 1
Page 76 and 77:
COLORADO RIVER ACTION PLAN: GUNNISO
Page 78 and 79:
COLORADO RIVER ACTION PLAN: GUNNISO
Page 80 and 81:
COLORADO RIVER ACTION PLAN: DOLORES
Page 82 and 83:
Bestgen, K. R., J. A. Hawkins, G. C
Page 84 and 85:
Burdick, B.D. 1999. Evaluation of f
Page 86 and 87:
Crowl, T.A., and L. Lentsch. 1996.
Page 88 and 89:
Hawkins, J.A., and T.P. Nesler. 199
Page 90 and 91:
Kuhn, G. And C. A. Williams. 2004.
Page 92 and 93:
River Endangered Fish Recovery Prog
Page 94 and 95:
Smith, G.R., and R.G. Green. 1991.
Page 96 and 97:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 200
Page 98 and 99:
Whitledge, G. W., B. M. Johnson, P.
Page 100 and 101:
environment (food supply, predation
show all

riprap - Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?