My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8215
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8215
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 7:23:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8215
Author
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Title
Final Environmental Assessment
USFW Year
1997.
USFW - Doc Type
Management and Control of Noonative Fish Species in Floodplain Ponds of the Upper Colorado and Gunnison Rivers.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
A detailed description of the Recovery Program is provided by the U.S. <br />Fish and Wildlife Service (1987a), an environmental assessment of its <br />implementation is provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service <br />(1987b), and its evolution along with pertinent background is summarized <br />by Wydoski and Hamill (1991). <br />The Recovery Program consists of five major elements for recovery of <br />endangered fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin: (1) provision of <br />in-stream flows; (2) habitat development and maintenance; (3) native <br />fish stocking; (4) management of nonnative species and sport fishing; <br />and (5) research, monitoring, and data management (U.S. Fish and <br />Wildlife Service 1987a, 1987b). <br />Representatives of the cooperating agencies and organizations serve on -- <br />several committees to oversee the Recovery Program within the framework <br />of the Endangered Species Act, existing states' water rights, and terms <br />of the Colorado River compacts (Rose and Hamill 1988). All decisions <br />by the Recovery Program participants are made on the best available <br />information and refined as new information becomes available using the <br />adaptive management approach (Walters and Hillborn 1978; Walters 1986). <br />2. Recoverv Issue Discussed in this Draft Environmental Assessment. Human <br />alteration of the Upper Colorado River and its tributaries had a major <br />negative impact on some of the native fishes -- to the point where they <br />are now listed as endangered. Some of the native fishes, adapted to the <br />highly variable aquatic environment of the natural ecosystem, are still <br />able to maintain self-sustaining. populations, despite the drastic <br />altered state of the present river environment. In less altered river <br />reaches, native-fish species dominate the fish fauna (Anderson 1997; <br />Burdick 1995) while, in more altered reaches, nonnative fish species are <br />more successful (Miller et al. 1982; Tyus et al. 1982). <br />(A) Introduction of Nonnative Fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin <br />and Impacts on Native Fishes The introduction of fish species <br />not native to the Colorado River Basin began in the late 1800's. <br />Such introductions occurred for a variety of reasons including <br />establishment of sport fish populations, forage for the sport fish <br />species, biological control of unwanted pests, aesthetic or <br />ornamental purposes, release of unwanted pets or bait fish, and <br />accidental releases (Taylor et al. 1984). Some of these <br />introductions were not successful in becoming established while <br />other introductions resulted in establishing self-sustaining <br />populations in various parts of the Upper Colorado River Basin. <br />The species composition of a fish community can be altered <br />dramatically and quickly. For example, pre-impoundment <br />investigations of Taylor Draw Dam on the White River, Colorado in <br />1983-1984 was dominated (97%) by native fishes above, within, and <br />below the reservoir basin. By 1989-1990, nonnative fishes <br />comprised 90% of the fishes collected in the reservoir and 80% of <br />the fishes collected in the river below the dam (Martinez et al. <br />1994). Generally, the successful nonnative fishes expanded their <br />ranges throughout the Upper Basin wherever habitats were suitable <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.