WSPP336 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

GOQ534 No impacts are expected on Indian trust assets or environmental justice under this alternative. VeQetation and Land Use. Native vegetation could be replanted on reclaimed land under this alternative so that the area would be "restored" to natural- like conditions. . Fish and Wildlife Resources. All animal species that depend upon water would be adversely affected while terrestrial animals would benefit from pond reclamation under this alternative. EndanQered Species. The endangered Colorado River fishes would benefit under this alternative because chronic escapement of nonnative fishes would stop from reclaimed ponds. Therefore, predation .upon and competition with the endangered fi shes by nonnative fi shes shoul d be decreased. The threatened bald eagle is usually a winter visitor in the project area. However, bald eagles feed on carrion and prey on waterfowl during the winter so they do not depend entirely upon fish as their diet. Therefore, the filling of some floodplain ponds would not adversely affect bald eagles. The Southwestern willow flycatcher may benefit from more woody native shrubs on the reclaimed land. Socio-Economic Factors. Since there are at least 308 floodplain ponds along the Upper Colorado and Gunnison rivers, filling of new ponds would not interfere with recreational activities of people because there is already adequate sites available. The greatest negative impact would be on gravel mining operations because fill would have to be hauled from offsite locations and used to fill the idle mining pits. The cost for hauling and spreading fill would perhaps cost more than the revenue that miners gain from the mined gravel. In addition, mining resumes in some idle gravel pits as dictated by the supply and demand for gravel. Sites with ponds that are under 1 ease, agreement, or owned by gravel mi n i ng operat ions woul d not likely be available under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative is not considered to be practical when viewed from the economic perspective. F. Preferred A lternat i ve and Envi ronmenta 1 Commi tments. A lte.rnat i ve 2 to control nonnative fish species in floodplain ponds along the Colorado and Gunn i son ri vers through mechani ca 1 or chemi ca 1 control methods is the preferred a 1 ternat i ve of the fi ve a lternat i ves that were evaluated. A combination of Alternatives 2 (mechanical or chemical control), 3 (install mechanical fish control devices in ponds with outlets) and 4 (reconnect floodplain ponds with the river) will be used by the Recovery Program to control or manage nonnative fishes. Alternative 2 provides for greater control of chronic escapement of nonnative fishes into the riverine envi ronment and is expected to decrease mortality from nonnative fi sh predat i on and compet it i on on the early 1 i fe stages of the endangered Colorado River fishes. In addition, ponds that are free of nonnative fish can be used as grow-out ponds for captive-reared endangered fi sh or to provide sportfishing opportunities under the "Procedures for Stocking Nonnative Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin" (Colorado Di~ision of Wildlife et ale 1996). 25