7025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

40 Question 14: What is your state's policy regarding introductions of nonnative fish species into the state, and are there policies or protocols for stocking gamefish predator species or fish forage species in waters or drainages that may adversely affect threatened or endangered fishes? In Colorado, policy and administrative directive have been formalized to guide stocking of fish species nonnative to the state. Policies implemented in 1975 indicate nonnative fish species will be introduced only when sufficient investigations are conducted to insure that the species will not have an adverse effect on the habitat occupied by native fish species; and that no nonnative fish species will be stocked in waters of the state without prior written approval of the State Fish Manager. An administrative directive dated May 1976 confirms the written approval requirement. A subsequent directive dated June 1986 further delineates the procedure and requir~ments for stocking nonnative, non-salmonid fish on the western slope of the state where management of T &E fish species is taken into consideration. Requirements for stocking nonnative fish species in western slope waters include lake or stream management plans approved by the Regional Manager and Director, and the involvement of any outside agencies that have jurisdiction or authority over the waters to be stocked. In practice, this involvement has commonly included the USFWS. The USFWS has reviewed approximately 20 lake management plans. The management plan for the White River in Colorado requires approval by the Director (moW) to stock any non-salmonid species. For private stocking in Colorado, no formal policy or protocol exists. Much stocking is performed by landowners in floodplain gravel pit ponds. Requests for importation licenses in the Grand Valley totalled 17 in 1989 and were up to 10 by June of 1990. No review of these requests is conducted (or required) by CDOW. One individual's perception outside CDOW suggested the state still takes an indiscriminate approach to fish stocking. In Utah, there exists no formal policy and there is no specific agreement for USFWS review of stocking plans. However, stocking of new species must be approved by the State Wildlife Board, and reviewed by the Resource Development Coordinating Committee statewide. Also, coordination between nongame and gamefish sections is required. Transfers of fish within the state require coordination with the nongame section, though exceptions have occurred in the past. A new program of writing management plans for all waters for sport fisheries is expected to reduce miscommunication. One respondent felt that it was proper not to stock introduced fishes in waters known to contain threatened and endangered fishes (Green, Colorado, and San Juan), but the management of sport fisheries in tributary streams that do not hold endemic T &E fishes (Duchesne, Price, San Rafael) should not be held "hostage" to endangered fish concerns. In New Mexico, proposals for introductions are reviewed by staff biologists. No introductions of new fish species occur in a drainage without prior consultation with their endangered fish biologist and the Director's (NMGF) approval Approval must be obtained at each level of the organizational hierarchy through the Department Director. It was indicated New Mexico had strict importation rules and policies. i_