8017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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