Laserfiche WebLink
<br />LOWER BASIN PROGRAMS <br />Lower Basin Management Prospectus <br />After decades of extensive research and stocking of the listed fishes in the <br />Lower Basin, Region 2 of the FWS initiated a management plan, now incorporated <br />in a document called the "prospectus" for the listed, big river fishes in that <br />subbasin, which was circulated for review in February 1995. The prospectus <br />cites the need to institutionalize funding for research and recovery efforts <br />in the Lower Basin and focuses primarily on the circumvention of recruitment <br />failure by managing wild and hatchery fishes in semi-natural and newly built <br />habitats. The prospectus explains: "this rationale differs considerably from <br />those offered in existing recovery plans" and in the "documents developed to <br />guide the management of these fishes in the upper Colorado River basin". <br />While its goal was stated as the "stabilization and maintenance self- <br />perpetuating populations of all four big river fishes in the Lower Colorado <br />River basin", the prospectus concentrates on the hatchery propagation of the <br />Lake Mohave stocks of razorbacks and bonytail, and the recruitment and <br />maintenance of these stocks in controlled Lower Basin habitats from which <br />predators can be excluded. This emphasis for the Lower Basin is substantiated <br />by years of study on Lake Mohave stocks by Dr. W.L. Minckley and others which <br />indicated that predation by the non-native fishes was the single most likely <br />factor precluding recruitment of razorbacks in the Lower Basin's developed <br />habitats. The more recent of these studies show that razorback larvae <br />harvested from natural reproduction in Lake Mohave and held in protected, <br />predator free backwater habitats, where they are grown to about 300 mm in <br />length, can be tagged and returned to the reservoir and are large enough to <br />avoid most predators. A number of these grown out and tagged razorbacks have <br />been recaptured along with the older razorbacks. Razorbacks are also being <br />similarly reared in hatcheries and stocked in Lake Havasu and downstream <br />backwaters, and there is some evidence that they are also surviving. <br />The approach taken by the prospectus differs from that taken by the Upper <br />Basin and San Juan Programs under which the restoration and protection of <br />instream flows and connected floodplain habitat is proceeding concurrently and <br />adaptively with genetic banking, hatchery propagation, grow out, and the <br />control of non-native fishes. The prospectus does not put a priority on <br />project re-operation and the protection of instream flows as essential for <br />recovery, because the Lower Basin is largely developed and has little <br />remaining natural flow regimes. It instead is immediately concerned with <br />preventing the extinction of the razorback and bonytail and emphasizes <br />identifying, enhancing, and managing habitats in the Lower Basin where <br />recruitment and grow out of these fishes can occur. <br />Indeed, the prospectus suggests that the habitat needed for recovery should be <br />defined, at least in the Lower Basin, in terms of the removal or exclusion of <br />non-native predators and of refugias and isolated habitats for species <br />survival, recruitment and maintenance. This approach assumes long-term <br />intervention to perpetuate these stocks, and it is not clear whether these <br />stocks might eventually be able to sustain themselves without the managed <br />exclusion of non-native fishes. Project re-operation or other types of <br />habitat restoration are not ruled out, but the document also does not specify <br />what, where, or how other recovery strategies should be pursued in the Lower <br />Basin. <br />While it does not address the artificial propagation and grow out of squawfish <br />in the Lower Basin, the prospectus does recommend that the status of the <br />re-introduced squawfish populations in the Salt and Verde Rivers be changed to <br />"experimental, essential" which would then invoke most of the regulatory <br />protections of the ESA and allow designation of critical habitat for such re- <br />introduced populations. It.is not clear if this is a recommendation to amend <br />18