7999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 i] stocking of non-native species in various components of the flood plains from the 10 year to the 100 year flood plain. These alternatives can be reviewed in the document provided by Mr. Hamill as Appendix "D". The goal of the parties is' to agree by October 1996. FWS takes the position that if some agreement is not reached by that time, they will operate under the authority provided in the Threatened and Endangered Species Act and issue some decisions. There are about 40 species of non-native fish currently inhabiting the system and approximately 95% of the bio-mass is of non-natives. Concerns of the water and energy organizations in both basins are toward emphasizing this imbalance and away from the environmental and ecological damages caused by diversions, impoundments, water releases, etc. The process of looking at possible control processes was started about 5 years ago. It quickly became apparent that no one agreed what may be possible and, in any case, did not want any control measures in their backyard. The project moved to identify the most important exotic species and principal areas inhabited with the objective of controlling particular species and/or particular habitats. The group has developed a document which should be available in May for outside comment. The document discusses what possible things can be done to prevent non-native fishes from inhabiting or influencing the system. Priority areas that seem to be reaching current consensus includes the "minnow" fish habitat areas in the Middle Green River and Nursery habitat areas in the Grand Valley. The primary specie that is being looked at is the channel catfish. A variety of control options includes commercial fisheries, selective intensive removal in areas, and northern pike removal below particular impoundments. Whatever the areas are, they should be particularly controversial, and in local areas, reach high levels of criticism. The idea is to provide for experimental projects in 1997 depending on the highest priority activities. There is definitive, but far from conclusive, data available that non-natives are a problem to the survival and well being of native fishes of the main stem. Comments from the Council included the position that if non-native fish impacts to endangered fish are raised to the same level as impacts of water release, water temperature, diversions and power generation; the solutions to all these issues must go forward at the same time or, if not, will not result in a measurable increase in the animals. Also, the document must consider who pays, what reasoning would conclude that this would have any long term effect, and especially how and who, as monitor, makes the overall 5 1