Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000572 <br /> <br />1994a,b; 1995). Researchers and other participants in the Recovery Program <br />agree that predation and competition by established, self-sustaining <br />populations of nonnative fishes and chronic escapement of nonnative fishes <br />from off-channel ponds and impoundments are factors that increase mortality <br />of the endangered fi shes. They further agreed that action to control <br />nonnative fishes was needed immediately. <br /> <br />The spec ifi c purpose of th is envi ronmenta 1 assessment is to evaluate <br />alternatives for management and control of nonnative fish species that will <br />reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate chronic escapement of nonnative fish <br />species from floodplain ponds along the Upper Colorado and Gunnison rivers <br />(Figure 1). The project area (Upper Colorado River from the Colorado-Utah <br />state 1 ine upstream to Rifle, Colorado and the Gunnison River from the <br />confluence of the Colorado River upstream to Delta, Colorado) includes the <br />critical habitat of the Colorado squawfish and razorback sucker (Maddux et <br />al. 1993). Five alternatives to achieve this goal are considered in this. <br />environmental assessment including the mechanical' and/or chemical control <br />of nonnative fish species from floodplain ponds. <br /> <br />This draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by the U.S. Fish and <br />Wildlife Service (Service) in compliance with the National Environmental <br />Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. Sections 4321-4361), Endangered Species <br />Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and related U.S. Department of the <br />Interior mandates, regulations, and policies. This EA was used by the <br />Division of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as the <br />basis for writing a biological opinion related to Section 7 of the <br />Endangered Species Act through an intraservice consultation. This document <br />will also be used to determine (1) if the proposed action is a major federal <br />action that significantly affects the environment and (2) if an <br />Environmental Impact Statement is necessary under NEPA. <br /> <br />C. Need. The alteration of natural fish communities through introductions of <br />nonnative fish species has resulted in reductions of numerous native fishes <br />throughout North America (Courtenay 1993; Li and Moyle 1993; Meffe 1985; <br />Matthews and Heiss 1987; Moyle et ale 1986; Scoppettone 1993; Taylor et al. <br />1984). About three-fourths of the 40 North American fish species that <br />became extinct during the past century were related to two factors: (1) <br />alteration of physical habitat - 73% and (2) detrimental effects of <br />introduced fishes - 68% (Miller et al. 1989). <br /> <br />Some of the nonnative fish species were introduced into the Upper Colorado <br />River Basin to provide sportfishing opportunities. Biologists from state <br />and federal agencies worked cooperatively to develop "Procedures for <br />Stocking Nonnative Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin" (Colorado <br />Division of Wildlife et al. 1996). The intent of these Procedures is to <br />allow stocking of nonnative fish species for warmwater sportfishing <br />opportunities in the Upper Colorado River Basin that would be compatible <br />with recovery of the endangered fishes. <br /> <br />Recovery Program part i c i pants i dent i fi ed an urqent need to control or manaqe <br />nonnative fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin if recovery of the <br />endangered fishes was to be achieved. They participated in the development <br /> <br />2 <br />