7025

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7025
• Author: Hawkins, J. A. and T. P. Nesler.
• Title: Nonnative Fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin
• USFW Year: 1991.
• USFW - Doc Type: An Issue Paper.
• Copyright Material: YES

41

Federal agency respondents indicated avoidance of conflict with threatened and
endangered species through NEP A compliance was standard policy. Concern was expressed
that the lack of regulation of stocking by private landowners by Colorado was a primary flaw
in the government regulatory structure.

Question 15: In practice, do you feel these policies/protocols are effective, are they selectively
implemented, are they ignored?

Ten of 16 respondents felt the policies or protocols in place within their states or
between agencies were generally effective. Only one federally-employed respondent
indicated the policies and protocols were generally' not effective due to the lateness of
concern. This respondent felt implementation was selective, and largely dependent upon
communication and cooperation between native and sport fish biologists. Other reservations
were expressed. The strength of these agreements was considered to be subject to changes
in public/political opinion and cooperation. If the potential impact to recreation or
economics was too great, political processes would engage to dictate agency activities and
direction. Another respondent felt initial communication between fisheries and nongame
sections was good, but was unsure of how long the communication link held up. One
respondent felt that sportfish biologists held little sympathy for the native fish fauna and
their riverine habitat if their presence conflicted with sportfishery desires. The proposed
rainbow smelt introduction in Lake Powell by Utah DWR was descn'bed as a test case. One
respondent used the regulation prohibiting seining for bait within drainages in New Mexico
as an example of a confounding state policy. In an effort to reduce incidental take of
endangered fishes through bait seining within their native range, the policy permits the use
of bait from outside the drainage and has resulted in the introduction of other nonnative
fishes. Another respondent felt state policy was largely ignored by the public until recent
prosecution in criminal court resulted in public education and better compliance.

Question 16: What do you see as likely management alternatives for maintaining native,
threatened, or endangered fish fauna in waters where problematic introduced fish
species cannot be eliminated or their adverse impacts ameliorated?

Twenty of 26 persons provided answers here. Responses to this question could be
categorized into six alternatives. Areas of potential management, listed in order of most
cited to least cited alternative, included habitat management, control of nonnative fishes,
augmentation, refugia, angler harvest, and unknown. Eighty percent of the responses
included some form of habitat management, 45 % included control of nonnative fishes, 40%
included augmentation, and 15% included refugia Only one respondent (and perhaps the
six others providing no answer) indicated no solution was apparent to the scenario described
in this question. Most of the respondents suggested a management strategy collSisting of
several approaches from the major categories. The alternatives are listed below along with
more specific comments provided by the respondents.