GENERAL RECOVERY PROGRAM SUPPORT ACTION PLAN Gen Table Page 4ACTIVITY WHO STATUSFY 1210/11-9/12FY 1310/12-9/13FY 1410/13-9/14FY 1510/14-9/15FY 1610/15-9/16OUTYEARSAssessment of significant accomplishments (!) and shortcomings (X),(Focused on February 1, 2011 - January 31, 2012)III.A.2.c.(2)III.A.2.c.(3)III.A.2.c.(4)<strong>Program</strong>matic synthesis: assimilate project-level data into a basinwide and population scaleanalyses of effectiveness of nonnative fish management. (YS G-3)Develop one or more standardized nonnative fish datasets to facilitate data analyses andinformation tracking (one dataset will incorporate all tagging data, others may incorporate allmovement, mark-recapture, removal data, etc.) *YS G-1.) Relates to item V.A.1., InteragencyData Management.Evaluate additional techniques to improve data analysis (e.g., advanced software, exploitationmodels, ecosystem response models). (YS M-1,2)PD Ongoing X<strong>Program</strong> Ongoing X X X X X X<strong>Program</strong> Ongoing X X X X X XClose river reaches to angling where and when angling mortality is determined to be significant. (SeeOngoing, as>* III.A.2.d.STATESX X X X X Xspecific river reaches.)neededIII.A.2.e. Increase law enforcement activity to decrease angling mortality. STATES Ongoing X X X X X XCSU's evaluation of the <strong>Program</strong>'s smallmouth bass control is nearcompletion and the post-doc provided preliminary presentations at theNonnative <strong>Fish</strong> Workshop and Researcher meeting. Preliminary resultsthrough 2010 indicate: 1) that this analysis will be helpful in re-directing orintensifying removal efforts; and 2) smallmouth bass populations areaffected by environmental factors (flows and temperature) and removalefforts. Similar synthesis of northern pike data began in 2011.Ongoing. NNF PI's submit their standardized data sets to CRFP-GJct nolater than March 15 each year.The programmatic smallmouth bass synthesis, III.A.2.c.(2) is providingmodels; workshop or similar effort will be needed to train <strong>Program</strong> personnelin model use and application.>* III.A.2.f.Develop control program for removal of small nonnative cyprinids in backwaters and other lowvelocity habitats. (Trammell et al. 2002 and 2005 complete, but development and implementation ofa control program is on hold.)STATES On hold See Green <strong>River</strong>.>* III.A.2.g.Evaluate other methods for controlling nonnative fishes, including manipulation of flow andtemperature, use of fish attractants, pathogens, genetic modification, and chemical piscicides. (YS N-1,2,3,4)<strong>Program</strong> Ongoing X X X X X X! Researchers at LFL continue to investigate relationships betweensmallmouth bass spawning/recruitment and environmental conditions toserve as the basis for a future flow manipulation study (likely targeting theGreen <strong>River</strong> below Flaming Gorge Dam). The <strong>Program</strong> is incorporatinggenetic bicontrol research recommendations in the draft Nonnative <strong>Fish</strong>Strategy. CSU study analyzing otolith/crayfish microchemistry to determinesources of nonnative fish found in the rivers is nearing completion andapplication of technique is ongoing (see also III C. below).III.B.Reduce negative impacts to endangered fishes from sportfish management activities.<strong>Program</strong> is coordinating with State partners on use and need for hazardanalysis and critical control point (HACCP) protocol/training in fisherymanagement for states, other agencies and the private sector to helpprevent inadvertent introductions of problematic species.III.B.1. Implementation Committee approval of Interim Nonnative <strong>Fish</strong> Stocking Procedures. PD CompleteIII.B.2. Implement Interim Nonnative <strong>Fish</strong> Stocking Procedures.III.B.2.a. Develop scope of work for evaluation of Interim Procedures. PD CompleteIII.B.2.b. Evaluate and revise Interim Procedures. PD CompleteIII.B.3.Finalize revised Nonnative <strong>Fish</strong> Stocking Procedures.III.B.3.a. Complete Biological Opinion/NEPA compliance. FWS-ES/FR CompleteIII.B.3.b Implementation Committee approval of revised Nonnative <strong>Fish</strong> Stocking Procedures. PD CompleteIII.B.3.c. State wildlife commissions approval, as necessary. STATES CompleteIII.B.3.d. Execute memoranda of agreement between Service and States. FWS/STATES CompleteIC gave proxy in January 1994; States & Service approved in spring ofFY 95 SOW #62 (FWS, CO, UT, WY)Procedures for Stocking Nonnative <strong>Fish</strong> Species in the <strong>Upper</strong> <strong>Colorado</strong><strong>River</strong> Basin, USFWS 1996.FONSI, USFWS 1996.Implementation Committee approval October 2, 1996.Cooperative agreement for implementation of procedures for stocking ofnonnative fish species in the <strong>Upper</strong> <strong>Colorado</strong> <strong>River</strong> Basin. Agreement in1996 Stocking Procedures.Revised Procedures (2009) recommended use of triploid/hybrid warmwaterfishes for which literature/experience/example supports functional sterilityand utilization in other states/agencies in all proposals for stockingwarmwater fish species in the UCRB. This recommendation will be includedin the Basin-wide Strategy.Last modified: 6/11/2012 9:43:00 AM
GENERAL RECOVERY PROGRAM SUPPORT ACTION PLAN Gen Table Page 5ACTIVITY WHO STATUSFY 1210/11-9/12FY 1310/12-9/13FY 1410/13-9/14FY 1510/14-9/15FY 1610/15-9/16OUTYEARSAssessment of significant accomplishments (!) and shortcomings (X),(Focused on February 1, 2011 - January 31, 2012)III.B.4.Incorporate final Procedures into State aquaculture permitting process.Meetings between CPW and nonnative fish coordinator with <strong>Colorado</strong>'s <strong>Fish</strong>Health Board have described recommended modifications to existing Stateregulations. <strong>Colorado</strong> and <strong>Fish</strong> Health Board have yet to agree on implentingthese recommendations.>* III.B.4.a. <strong>Colorado</strong>. CDA/CDOW CompleteIII.B.4.a.(1) Evaluate effectiveness of <strong>Colorado</strong>'s stocking regulation. CDOW CompleteJanuary 1999.Martinez & Nibbelink 2004.>* III.B.4.b. Utah. UDWR Complete>* III.B.4.c. Wyoming. WYGF CompleteIII.B.5. Explore options for tribal acceptance of Nonnative <strong>Fish</strong> Stocking Procedures. FWS-FR CompleteTribe verbally accepted Procedures (per memo from Dave Irving to BobMuth, 2003).III.B.6.Review, evaluate, and revise as needed, the Nonnative <strong>Fish</strong> Stocking Procedures.PD/FWS/STATESAs neededCPW pursuing 2012 regulation revisions to implement 2009 StockingProcedures for private sector with <strong>Colorado</strong>'s <strong>Fish</strong> Health Board. Utahworking toward shifting all stocking to triploid salmonids. Signatories shouldadhere to Procedures's recommendation regarding use of triploid/hybridwarmwater fishes for which literature/experience/example supportsfunctional sterility and utilization in other states/agencies in all proposals forstocking warmwater fish species in the UCRB.III.B.7.Increase law enforcement activity to prevent illicit stocking.NNF coordinator hosted meeting of CPW, UDWR, WY G&F, and USFWSfishery and law enforcement personnel on October 17, 2011 in GJ, CO toreview and discuss extent and implications of illegal fish stocking in theUCRB and to formulate proactive/consistent/strict/severe practices, policies,regulations and penalties to combat illegal fish movements within andamong UCRB states to protect sport fisheries, native fishes, and prospectsfor endangered fish recovery.III.B.7.a. Develop plan STATES Ongoing X>* III.B.7.b. Implement plan STATES Pending X X X X X XIn 2011, <strong>Recovery</strong> <strong>Program</strong> and FWS (included in 2011 sufficient progressmemo) recommended upper basin states squarely addresses the issue ofillicit stocking by adopting strict and severe penalties for illegal introdution ofnonnative aquatic species and facilitating education, enforcement andincentives to promote compliance and prosecution as needed. Review ofexisting best management practices provides examples for combatting thisproblem; <strong>Recovery</strong> <strong>Program</strong> encourages consistent adoption andapplication of penalties and enforcement strategies. The PDO urgespersonnel from the upper basin states, <strong>Recovery</strong> <strong>Program</strong> and FWS tocontinue to meet on a regular basis to expedite progress in implementingstrategies/policies to address the expanding problem of illegal fishintroductions.X Review of extent of illegal fish introductions demonstrates existing,expanding problem and need for urgent response by States to curb problemin UCRB.Last modified: 6/11/2012 9:43:00 AM
- 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 20 and 21: that favor their survival over that
- 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 42 and 43: GENERAL RECOVERY PROGRAM SUPPORT AC
- Page 44 and 45: GENERAL RECOVERY PROGRAM SUPPORT AC
- Page 46 and 47: 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