Common use of CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Clause in Contracts

CONSERVATION GUIDELINES. This section presents a generalized discussion on conservation topics relevant to the conservation of the three fish species. Intended as a guide for development of state conservation plans, it does not specifically outline minimum requirements for development of such plans. Rather, the signatories recognize that the priority of issues discussed in this section may vary widely from state to state and that the feasibility of resolving management implications discussed herein is situation- and species-specific. Furthermore, it is likely that conservation issues discussed in these sections will frequently be interrelated. For example, genetic concerns will likely be addressed in concert with metapopulation, population viability, and nonnative fish issues. Likewise, nonnative fish control issues may impact habitat management, and in some instances, hybridization issues (e.g., occurrence of white sucker in the upper CRB), and so on. It is therefore desirable that state managers identify interrelationships between conservation issues and formulate their state plans accordingly. Habitat Maintenance and Protection Habitat is an important component of metapopulation and species survival. Loss of available habitat may lead to the loss of individuals or populations that in turn may cause loss of metapopulation dynamics. Important physical habitat characteristics may include (but are not limited to) substrate, instream habitat complexity, and flow regimes. Chemical characteristics may include (but are not limited to) instream pH, temperature, specific conductance, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, major ions (e.g., carbonate), nutrients, and trace elements. If needed, the signatories will develop habitat improvement actions to support individual populations and metapopulation dynamics. Rigorous standards for habitat protection can be incorporated into state fishery and land use plans. Current guidelines exist for many agencies that can be incorporated into these efforts, including (but not limited to) Best Management Practices or other state water quality standards, Forest Service Plan Standards and Guidelines, National Park Service Natural Resources Management Guidelines, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) protocols, and recommendations from related broad-scale assessments. One of the most dramatic anthropogenic changes imposed on the CRB and Bonneville basins is alteration of natural flow regimes. Instream flow and habitat-related programs administered through existing recovery and conservation programs in upper and lower Colorado River basins can provide guidance for development of similar programs for the three species. Studies conducted by the Upper Colorado River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program can aid in identifying habitat requirements for main channel three species populations and select tributary populations (e.g., Chart and Lenstch 1999, Xxxxxxxx et al. 1999, Xxxx et al. 2000, Xxxxxxxxx 1999, Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2001, XxXxx 2003). Other examples of habitat management for tributary cypriniform populations have been proposed for the Virgin River (Xxxxxxx et al. 1995; Xxxxxxx et al. 2002). Habitat availability for flannelmouth and bluehead sucker as a function of stream discharge was recently identified in Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx (2003). The goal of this study was to derive biologically based instream flow recommendations for non-endangered native fish, which makes the study germane as a three species conservation guideline. Habitat quality and quantity were derived by relating output from two-dimensional (2-D) hydraulic models of mesohabitat availability (as a function of discharge) to patterns of fish abundance over a three-year period among three different systems (Xxxxxxx, Yampa, and Colorado rivers). The 2-D approach is advantageous over previous instream flow methods because it is not dependent on microhabitat suitability curves (and their attendant assumptions) for prediction of habitat availability. The higher level of spatial resolution attained by the 2-D allows for greater accuracy in habitat quantification. The 2-D approach as utilized in Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx (2003) is also advantageous because output is interpreted alongside relevant biological information such as non-native fish abundance and native fish size structure in the modeled stream reaches. Nonnative fish control Impacts of nonnative fish on native fish fauna of the Southwestern U.S. are dramatic. Of 52 species of fish currently found in the upper CRB, only 13 are native (six of these are endangered; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2003b). Native fish populations in the lower CRB have been similarly impacted by establishment of nonnative fish populations (Minckley et al. 2003). Direct and indirect impacts of nonnative fish on native fish fauna can be measured as changes in the density, distribution, growth characteristics, condition or behavior of both individual native fish and native fish populations (Xxxxxx et al. 1984; Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 1991). These changes result from altered trophic relationships (predation, competition for food), spatial interactions (competition for habitat), habitat alteration, hybridization, and/or disease or parasite introductions. All major recovery plans in the Southwestern U.S., including those of the San Xxxx River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP) (SJRIP, 1995), the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (UCREFRP) (USFWS 2003b), the June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program (USFWS 1999), and the Virgin River Resource Management and Recovery Program (USFWS 1995), identify control of nonnative fish species to alleviate competition with and/or predation on rare fishes as a necessary management action. Due to extensive use by the three species of lower-order streams throughout their range, however, states may have to identify HUC-specific control measures for nonnative fish. Guidelines for development of nonnative fish management actions (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 1991; Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx 1996; Xxxxxxx et al. 1996; SWCA Inc. 2002) include:

CONSERVATION GUIDELINES. This section presents a generalized discussion on conservation topics relevant to the conservation of the three fish species. Intended as a guide for development of state conservation plans, it does not specifically outline minimum requirements for development of such plans. Rather, the signatories recognize that the priority of issues discussed in this section may vary widely from state to state and that the feasibility of resolving management implications discussed herein is situation- and species-specific. Furthermore, it is likely that conservation issues discussed in these sections will frequently be interrelated. For example, genetic concerns will likely be addressed in concert with metapopulation, population viability, and nonnative fish issues. Likewise, nonnative fish control issues may impact habitat management, and in some instances, hybridization issues (e.g., occurrence of white sucker in the upper CRB), and so on. It is therefore desirable that state managers identify interrelationships between conservation issues and formulate their state plans accordingly. Habitat Maintenance and Protection Habitat is an important component of metapopulation and species survival. Loss of available habitat may lead to the loss of individuals or populations that in turn may cause loss of metapopulation dynamics. Important physical habitat characteristics may include (but are not limited to) substrate, instream habitat complexity, and flow regimes. Chemical characteristics may include (but are not limited to) instream pH, temperature, specific conductance, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, major ions (e.g., carbonate), nutrients, and trace elements. If needed, the signatories will develop habitat improvement actions to support individual populations and metapopulation dynamics. Rigorous standards for habitat protection can be incorporated into state fishery and land use plans. Current guidelines exist for many agencies that can be incorporated into these efforts, including (but not limited to) Best Management Practices or other state water quality standards, Forest Service Plan Standards and Guidelines, National Park Service Natural Resources Management GuidelinesGuidelines (DO-77), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and recommendations from related broad- scale assessments. Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) protocolsprotocols are found in Bureau of Land Management publication TR 1737-15 (1998) “Riparian Area Management, a User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and recommendations from related broad-scale assessments. Supporting Science for Lotic Areas.” One of the most dramatic anthropogenic changes imposed on the CRB and Bonneville basins is alteration of natural flow regimes. Instream flow and habitat-related programs administered through existing recovery and conservation programs in upper and lower Colorado River basins can provide guidance for development of similar programs for the three species. Studies conducted by the Upper Colorado River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program can aid in identifying habitat requirements for main channel three species populations and select tributary populations (e.g., Chart and Lenstch 1999, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx et al. 1999, Xxxx et al. 2000, Xxxxxxxxx 19992001, Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2001, XxXxx 2003). Other examples of habitat management for tributary cypriniform populations have been proposed for the Virgin River (Xxxxxxx et al. 1995; Xxxxxxx et al. 2002). Habitat availability for flannelmouth and bluehead sucker as a function of stream discharge was recently identified in Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx (2003). The goal of this study was to derive biologically based instream flow recommendations for non-endangered native fish, which makes the study germane as a three species conservation guideline. Habitat quality and quantity were derived by relating output from two-dimensional (2-D) hydraulic models of mesohabitat availability (as a function of discharge) to patterns of fish abundance over a three-year period among three different systems (Xxxxxxx, Yampa, and Colorado rivers). The 2-D approach is advantageous over previous instream flow methods because it is not dependent on microhabitat suitability curves (and their attendant assumptions) for prediction of habitat availability. The higher level of spatial resolution attained by the 2-D allows for greater accuracy in habitat quantification. The 2-D approach as utilized in Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx (2003) is also advantageous because output is interpreted alongside relevant biological information such as non-native fish abundance and native fish size structure in the modeled stream reaches. Nonnative fish control Impacts of nonnative fish on native fish fauna of the Southwestern U.S. are dramatic. Of 52 species of fish currently found in the upper CRB, only 13 are native (six of these are endangered; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWSFWS] 2003b). Native fish populations in the lower CRB have been similarly impacted by establishment of nonnative fish populations (Minckley et al. 2003). Direct and indirect impacts of nonnative fish on native fish fauna can be measured as changes in the density, distribution, growth characteristics, condition or behavior of both individual native fish and native fish populations (Xxxxxx et al. 1984; Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 1991). These changes result from altered trophic relationships (predation, competition for food), spatial interactions (competition for habitat), habitat alteration, hybridization, and/or disease or parasite introductions. All major recovery plans in the Southwestern U.S., including those of the San Xxxx River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP) (SJRIP; XXXXX, 19950000), the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (UCREFRP) (USFWS ; FWS 2003b), the June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program (USFWS JSRIP; FWS 1999), and the Virgin River Resource Management and Recovery Program (USFWS FWS 1995), identify control of nonnative fish species to alleviate competition with and/or predation on rare fishes as a necessary management action. Due to extensive use by the three species of lower-order streams throughout their range, however, states may have to identify HUC-specific control measures for nonnative fish. Guidelines for development of nonnative fish management actions (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 1991; Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx 1996; Xxxxxxx Lenstch et al. 1996; SWCA Inc. 2002) include:

CONSERVATION GUIDELINES. This section presents a generalized discussion on conservation topics relevant to the conservation of the three fish species. Intended as a guide for development of state conservation plans, it does not specifically outline minimum requirements for development of such plans. Rather, the signatories recognize that the priority of issues discussed in this section may vary widely from state to state and that the feasibility of resolving management implications discussed herein is situation- and species-specific. Furthermore, it is likely that conservation issues discussed in these sections will frequently be interrelated. For example, genetic concerns will likely be addressed in concert with metapopulation, population viability, and nonnative fish issues. Likewise, nonnative fish control issues may impact habitat management, and in some instances, hybridization issues (e.g., occurrence of white sucker in the upper CRB), and so on. It is therefore desirable that state managers identify interrelationships between conservation issues and formulate their state plans accordingly. Habitat Maintenance and Protection Habitat is an important component of metapopulation and species survival. Loss of available habitat may lead to the loss of individuals or populations that in turn may cause loss of metapopulation dynamics. Important physical habitat characteristics may include (but are not limited to) substrate, instream habitat complexity, and flow regimes. Chemical characteristics may include (but are not limited to) instream pH, temperature, specific conductance, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, major ions (e.g., carbonate), nutrients, and trace elements. If needed, the signatories will develop habitat improvement actions to support individual populations and metapopulation dynamics. Rigorous standards for habitat protection can be incorporated into state fishery and land use plans. Current guidelines exist for many agencies that can be incorporated into these efforts, including (but not limited to) Best Management Practices or other state water quality standards, Forest Service Plan Standards and Guidelines, National Park Service Natural Resources Management GuidelinesGuidelines (DO-77), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and recommendations from related broad- scale assessments. Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) protocolsprotocols are found in Bureau of Land Management publication TR 1737-15 (1998) “Riparian Area Management, a User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and recommendations from related broad-scale assessments. Supporting Science for Lotic Areas.” One of the most dramatic anthropogenic changes imposed on the CRB and Bonneville basins is alteration of natural flow regimes. Instream flow and habitat-related programs administered through existing recovery and conservation programs in upper and lower Colorado River basins can provide guidance for development of similar programs for the three species. Studies conducted by the Upper Colorado River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program can aid in identifying habitat requirements for main channel three species populations and select tributary populations (e.g., Chart and Lenstch 1999, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx et al. 1999, Xxxx et al. 2000, Xxxxxxxxx 19992001, Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2001, XxXxx 2003). Other examples of habitat management for tributary cypriniform populations have been proposed for the Virgin River (Xxxxxxx et al. 1995; Xxxxxxx et al. 2002). Habitat availability for flannelmouth and bluehead sucker as a function of stream discharge was recently identified in Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx (2003). The goal of this study was to derive biologically based instream flow recommendations for non-endangered native fish, which makes the study germane as a three species conservation guideline. Habitat quality and quantity were derived by relating output from two-dimensional (2-D) hydraulic models of mesohabitat availability (as a function of discharge) to patterns of fish abundance over a three-year period among three different systems (Xxxxxxx, Yampa, and Colorado rivers). The 2-D approach is advantageous over previous instream flow methods because it is not dependent on microhabitat suitability curves (and their attendant assumptions) for prediction of habitat availability. The higher level of spatial resolution attained by the 2-D allows for greater accuracy in habitat quantification. The 2-D approach as utilized in Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx (2003) is also advantageous because output is interpreted alongside relevant biological information such as non-native fish abundance and native fish size structure in the modeled stream reaches. Nonnative fish control Impacts of nonnative fish on native fish fauna of the Southwestern U.S. are dramatic. Of 52 species of fish currently found in the upper CRB, only 13 are native (six of these are endangered; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWSFWS] 2003b). Native fish populations in the lower CRB have been similarly impacted by establishment of nonnative fish populations (Minckley et al. 2003). Direct and indirect impacts of nonnative fish on native fish fauna can be measured as changes in the density, distribution, growth characteristics, condition or behavior of both individual native fish and native fish populations (Xxxxxx et al. 1984; Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 1991). These changes result from altered trophic relationships (predation, competition for food), spatial interactions (competition for habitat), habitat alteration, hybridization, and/or disease or parasite introductions. All major recovery plans in the Southwestern U.S., including those of the San Xxxx River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP) (SJRIP; XXXXX, 19950000), the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (UCREFRP) (USFWS ; FWS 2003b), the June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program (USFWS JSRIP; FWS 1999), and the Virgin River Resource Management and Recovery Program (USFWS FWS 1995), identify control of nonnative fish species to alleviate competition with and/or predation on rare fishes as a necessary management action. Due to extensive use by the three species of lower-order streams throughout their range, however, states may have to identify HUC-specific control measures for nonnative fish. Guidelines for development of nonnative fish management actions (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 1991; Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx 1996; Xxxxxxx et al. 1996; SWCA Inc. 2002) include:

CONSERVATION GUIDELINES. This section presents a generalized discussion on conservation topics relevant to the conservation of the three fish species. Intended as a guide for development of state conservation plans, it does not specifically outline minimum requirements for development of such plans. Rather, the signatories recognize that the priority of issues discussed in this section may vary widely from state to state and that the feasibility of resolving management implications discussed herein is situation- and species-specific. Furthermore, it is likely that conservation issues discussed in these sections will frequently be interrelated. For example, genetic concerns will likely be addressed in concert with metapopulation, population viability, and nonnative fish issues. Likewise, nonnative fish control issues may impact habitat management, and in some instances, hybridization issues (e.g., occurrence of white sucker in the upper CRB), and so on. It is therefore desirable that state managers identify interrelationships between conservation issues and formulate their state plans accordingly. Habitat Maintenance and Protection Habitat is an important component of metapopulation and species survival. Loss of available habitat may lead to the loss of individuals or populations that in turn may cause loss of metapopulation dynamics. Important physical habitat characteristics may include (but are not limited to) substrate, instream habitat complexity, and flow regimes. Chemical characteristics may include (but are not limited to) instream pH, temperature, specific conductance, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, major ions (e.g., carbonate), nutrients, and trace elements. If needed, the signatories will develop habitat improvement actions to support individual populations and metapopulation dynamics. Rigorous standards for habitat protection can be incorporated into state fishery and land use plans. Current guidelines exist for many agencies that can be incorporated into these efforts, including (but not limited to) Best Management Practices or other state water quality standards, Forest Service Plan Standards and Guidelines, National Park Service Natural Resources Management Guidelines, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) protocols, and recommendations from related broad-scale assessments. One of the most dramatic anthropogenic changes imposed on the CRB and Bonneville basins is alteration of natural flow regimes. Instream flow and habitat-related programs administered through existing recovery and conservation programs in upper and lower Colorado River basins can provide guidance for development of similar programs for the three species. Studies conducted by the Upper Colorado River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program can aid in identifying habitat requirements for main channel three species populations and select tributary populations (e.g., Chart and Lenstch 1999, Xxxxxxxx et al. 1999, Xxxx et al. 2000, Xxxxxxxxx Osmundson 1999, Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2001, XxXxx McAda 2003). Other examples of habitat management for tributary cypriniform populations have been proposed for the Virgin River (Xxxxxxx et al. 1995; Xxxxxxx et al. 2002). Habitat availability for flannelmouth and bluehead sucker as a function of stream discharge was recently identified in Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx (2003). The goal of this study was to derive biologically based instream flow recommendations for non-endangered native fish, which makes the study germane as a three species conservation guideline. Habitat quality and quantity were derived by relating output from two-dimensional (2-D) hydraulic models of mesohabitat availability (as a function of discharge) to patterns of fish abundance over a three-year period among three different systems (Xxxxxxx, Yampa, and Colorado rivers). The 2-D approach is advantageous over previous instream flow methods because it is not dependent on microhabitat suitability curves (and their attendant assumptions) for prediction of habitat availability. The higher level of spatial resolution attained by the 2-D allows for greater accuracy in habitat quantification. The 2-D approach as utilized in Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx (2003) is also advantageous because output is interpreted alongside relevant biological information such as non-native fish abundance and native fish size structure in the modeled stream reaches. Nonnative fish control Impacts of nonnative fish on native fish fauna of the Southwestern U.S. are dramatic. Of 52 species of fish currently found in the upper CRB, only 13 are native (six of these are endangered; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2003b). Native fish populations in the lower CRB have been similarly impacted by establishment of nonnative fish populations (Minckley et al. 2003). Direct and indirect impacts of nonnative fish on native fish fauna can be measured as changes in the density, distribution, growth characteristics, condition or behavior of both individual native fish and native fish populations (Xxxxxx et al. 1984; Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 1991). These changes result from altered trophic relationships (predation, competition for food), spatial interactions (competition for habitat), habitat alteration, hybridization, and/or disease or parasite introductions. All major recovery plans in the Southwestern U.S., including those of the San Xxxx River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP) (SJRIP, 1995), the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (UCREFRP) (USFWS 2003b), the June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program (USFWS 1999), and the Virgin River Resource Management and Recovery Program (USFWS 1995), identify control of nonnative fish species to alleviate competition with and/or predation on rare fishes as a necessary management action. Due to extensive use by the three species of lower-order streams throughout their range, however, states may have to identify HUC-specific control measures for nonnative fish. Guidelines for development of nonnative fish management actions (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 1991; Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx 1996; Xxxxxxx et al. 1996; SWCA Inc. 2002) include: