7982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

j"' I '.,........'......... I ;~ , , J" j, .;..t..i.. ,1 , , , if I,!, 392 Recovery of Long-lived Species touted by "environmentalists," preservation of a species in the strictest sense can be ac- complished by a zoo, aquarium, or other such facility. In contrast, conservation may only be accomplished within an ecosystem context. It is critical that ecological insights prevail in en- dangered species management, and an under- standing of biotic and abiotic factors limiting the target organisms must be incorporated into any management scheme. The preceding discussion has dealt with the life cycle and ecology of Colorado squawfish as a background for management. What fol- lows summarizes my interpretations of impor- tant management activities to date and pro- vides recommendations for future initiatives. I incorporated the terminology and order of the five recovery elements presented by the upper Colorado River Recovery Implementa- tion Program (RIP) for rare and endangered fishes (USFWS 1987a) for consistency, and to aid the reader in making comparisons between this chapter and the RIP. The five elements are: (I) habitat management, (2) habitat de- velopment and maintenance, (3) stocking of native species, (4) non-native species and sport fishing management, and (5) research, monitoring, and data management. Further information on these elements, including de- velopment and assessments of the RIP, may be found in USFWS (1987a), Rose and Hamill (1988), and Wydoski and Hamill (this vol- ume, chap. 8). Habitat Management Effective management implies protection of the native riverine habitat necessary to main- tain viable populations of Colorado squaw- fish and prevent further jeopardy to its con- tinued existence. Recovery can proceed only when existing populations are secure. Of first consideration is provision and maintenance of in-stream flows of proper quality, timing, dur- ation, and magnitude at the proper location for each life stage. The attainment of sufficient quantities of water requires detennination in-stream flow needs based on habitat require- ments. Because water resources in the arid West are hotly contested, identified require- ments for water must be biologically defens- ible. Flow issues are national and international in scope, potentially affecting allocations among and between all seven Colorado River basin states and the United States and Mexico. Determination of in-stream flow needs of nonendangered fishes need not be as exacting as for endangered fishes because mistakes can be corrected in time through reestablishment of populations. If the stream in question is, for example, a put-and-take recreational trout fishery, more hatchery-reared fish can be stocked. In the case of the endemic Colorado River fauna, in-stream flow determination is deadly serious because limited gene pools can- not be sacrificed, and no successful self-sus- taining population of Colorado squawfish, once lost, has yet been reestablished. No ecologist or fish manager wishes to participate in the eradication of a species (or its associ- ated fauna) through an error in professional judgment. And no water-resource planner wishes to give up water rights if not absolutely required to do so. Therefore, determination and implementation of in-stream flows for habitat management are nearly impossible. Biologists are unwilling to make recommen- dations without some safety factor, and devel- opment interests are loathe to accept recom- mendations unless provision of each volume allocated is clearly supported by proof of need. Although large reservoirs upstream of en- dangered fish habitat can aid in providing flow releases, the appropriation or acquisition of water rights is needed to provide in-stream flow for recovery and to offset impacts as- sociated with continued development. Section 7 of the ESA provides for consultation between