9490 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 1 LJ Table 2. Alternative 1 locations/situations where nonnative fish species can be stocked on a routine basis. 1. All waters of the Upper Benin: selmonids (trout). 2. Largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie, channel catfish, fathead minnow, mosquitofish, and triploid grass carp in isolated waters located outside of the 100-year floodplain. 3. Striped bass and threedfin shad in Leke Powell. 4. Channel calf-ish, mosquitofish, redeide shiner, and smallmouth bass in all waters upstream of Flaming Gorge Dam. 5. Strawberry Reservov: smallmouth bass. E. ALTERNATIVE 2 This alternative would allow stocking of largemouth base, bluegill, black crappie, triploid grass carp, and mosquitofis6 in isolated ponds above the 50-year floodplain of critical habitat in ponds that are harmed to FEMA standards five feet above the Ord'mary High Water Line (OHWL) and in connected waters that are adequately scrcened. Largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie, channel catfish, triploid grass carp, mosquitofish, and fathead minnows could be routinely stocked in isolated ponds and reservoirs upstream of critical habitat if harmed to FEMA standards Eve feet above the OHWL. The following fish species would be prohibited from being stocked in any waters in the basin: northern pike, tiger muskie, common carp, red shiner, black bullhead, wiper, great sunfish, yellow perch, walleye, and white crappie. Prior to implementing the routine stocking, the Recovery Program would conduct a peer reviewed study to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISMP to detect changes in the survivability and/or abundance of routinely stocked fish. Unless the study wnclueively demonstrated that the ISMP is effective for tracking nonnative fishes, s program would have to be implemented to do eo. If it is determined that nonnative fish escapement is occurring or that the survivability and abundance of a nonnative species ie increasing in occupied habitat, then routine stocking of that species would be diswntinued. Subsequent stockings of that species would then require case-by-case review until the problem ie addressed. Instances when end where nonnative fishes can be stocked on a routine basis (not requiring acase-by-case review) are presented in Table 3. Stocking of nonnative fishes that ere not managed or not prohibited in the Upper Basin at the present time or are not included under routine Blocking would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the proposed stocking of these fishes will not adversely affect the endangered fishes. F. ALTERNATIVE 3 This alternative would confine stocking of fish except trout to above the 100-year floodplain in river reaches that are designated as critical habitat, would not condone the use of artificial dikes to remove ponds from the 100-year floodplain of critical habitat, and would not allow stocking (except trout) in connected waters regardless of proposed screening measures. The following fish species would be prohibited from being stocked in any waters in the basin: northern puce, tiger muskie, common carp, red shiner, black bullhead, wiper, green sunfish, yellow perch, walleye, and white crappie. Prior to implementing the routine stocking, the Recovery Program would conduct a peer reviewed study.to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISMP to detect changes in the survivability and/or abundance of routinely stocked fish. Unless the study conclusively demonstrated that the ISMP for tracking nonnative fishes, a program would have to be implemented to do so. If it is determined that nonnative fish escapement is occurring or that the survivability and abundance of a nonnative species is increasing in occupied habitat, then routine stocking of that species would be discontinued. Subsequent stockings of that species would then require case-by-case review until the problem is addressed. Instances when and where nonnative fishes can be stocked on a routine basis (not requiring a casFby-case review) are presented in Table 4. Stocking of nonnative fishes that are not managed or not prohibited in the Upper Basin at the present time or are not included under routine stocking would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the proposed stocking of these fishes will not adversely affect the endangered fishes. 15 ~I