8231

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8231
• Author: Maddux, H. R.
• Title: Draft Environmental Assessment For Procedures For Stocking Of Nonnative Fish Species In The Upper Colorado River Basin.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: Grand Junction, CO.
• Copyright Material: NO

floodplain wishing to have fishing would have to purchase trout rather
than warmwater fishes from the aquaculture industry. Ponds would
probably not be suitable for trout during summer months. Fishina in
private ponds would be concentrated during spring and fall months. If
the same level of warmwater fishing opportunities in Colorado are to be
maintained, Colorado and the Recovery Program would have to seek
opportunities elsewhere. This might include agreements with entities
such as water districts that own waters not currently available to the
public for fishing. Colorado public waters below the 10-year floodplain
would only be stocked with trout. Because warmwater fishing in Colorado
represents-a small percentage of the total fishing and additional trout
could be provided for ponds near the river, overall numbers of fishing
days are unlikely to decrease significantly.
3. Recovery of Endangered Fishes: Flows greater than a 10-year event
will still allow nonnative fishes to escape to the river and establish
in lower elevation ponds that have been reclaimed though Recovery
Program efforts. Recovery would continue, but would be impeded by
nonnative fishes in the system.
4. Economy: No costs of berming ponds to FEMA standards occur in this
alternative. It is likely that stocking of warmwater fishes in private
ponds would decrease causing impacts to the aquaculture industry and
loss of fishing opportunities in private ponds. Trout sales from the
aquaculture industry may likely increase. The change in overall fishing
days in Colorado would be minimal. This alternative may reduce fishing
expenditures by some unknown amount. As an example, if future warmwater
fishing opportunities are reduced by 20 surface acres, assuming 100 days
fishing/acre at $40/day expenditure, the direct economic impact could be
$80,000/year; if reduced by 100 surface acres the direct impact would be
5400,000/year.
G. Other Aspects Not Affected by Stocking Procedures.
Many of the actions that could be implemented as part of the stocking
procedures would require a separate NEPA analysis if implemented by a
Federal agency or with Federal dollars. Because these are only
procedures to regulate stocking and not an on-the-ground type activity
factors such as air quality, water quality (pond reclamation will
require separate NEPA analysis), soils, geology, mineral resources,
vegetation, esthetics, cultural resources, etc. are not impacted. The
only environmental impacts identified are decreases in the numbers of
nonnative fishes and increases in the endangered fish populations.
Table 9 summarizes the impacts of each of the alternatives. Positive and
negative impacts are not equally weighted, but must be considered all together
prior to selecting a set of procedures for implementation. Additional impacts
will come forward during the public and agency review. These additional
positive and negative impacts will be incorporated into the table as
appropriate. Information may also be provided that show that the impacts of
the alternatives are different than those presented. Changes to the
discussion of impacts and Table 9 will be made appropriately.
33