9490

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9490
• Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Title: Final Environmental Assessment for Procedures for Stocking of Nonnative Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: Grand Junction.
• Copyright Material: NO

G. ALTERNATIVE 4
This alternative includes provisions to allow stocking of largemouth bass, bluegill, and black crappie in isolated ponds outside the
10-year floodplain of critics) habitat, in ponds that are harmed to FEMA standards to artificially place them outside the 10-year
floodplain of critical hsbitst, and in connected waters that are adequately screened (both those shove the 10-year floodplain and
' those harmed to FEMA stsndarde for the 10-year floodplain).
Under this alternative all standing waters located upstream of other standing waters (lakes or reservoirs higher in the drainage
than one other lake or reservoir) could be stocked with any species already established in the downstream standing water (for
example, smallmouth bees in Strawberry Reservoir because a reproducing population already exists downstream in Starvation
Reservoir, Utah).
This alternative would allow the routine stocking of largemouth base, bluegill, black crappie, channel catfish, moequitofish, and
' fathead mimows in all isolated waters located 5 feet above the lhdinary High Water Line, without FEMA approved dikes and in
all isolated waters located above an elevation of 6,500-foot msl (Figure 1).
Monitoring of changes in the nonnative fish populations in habitat occupied by the endangered fish for fish that are stocked on a
' routine basis will be done through the Recovery Programs Inter-Agency Standardized Monitoring Program and/or other studies
being conducted by the Recovery Programs or State wildlife agencies.
' Instances when and where nonnative fishes can be stocked on a routine basis (not requiring acase-by-case review) are presented
in Table 5. Stocking of nonnative fishes that are not managed 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.
H. ALTERNATIVE 5
This alternative ie similar to alternative 4 in that it provides more cases where routine stocking can occur then alternatives 2 and
' 3. The primary difference between this alternative and alternative 4 is that, alternative 4 states that a pond can be harmed to
FEMA specification to functionally remove it from the portion of the floodplain in question. This alternative has no harming
requirements or opportunities but states that limitations placed on stocking within a specific floodplain Gave no exceptions.
Situations that require acase-by-case review for this alternative are identical to alternative 1.
Monitoring of changes in the nonnative fish populations in habitat occupied by the endangered fish for fish that are stocked on a
routine basis will be done through the Rewvery Programs Inter-Agency Standardized Monitoring Program and other studies being
conducted by the Recovery Programs or State wildlife agencies. This requirement is identical to alternative 1.
' Instances when and where nonnative fishes can be stocked on a routine basis (not requiring acase-by-case review) are presented
in Table 6. Stocking of nonnative fishes that are not managed 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.

t

1~