Laserfiche WebLink
This environmental assessment covers the actual procedures for stocking <br />nonnative fishes but does not cover actions such as pond reclamation and <br />screening that will require their own NEPA analysis. Construction of berms <br />peAct <br />COESpecies <br />funds usedEndangered <br />Federalundergo <br />rmit <br />within critical habitat otherel were have <br />compliance in cases ses where <br />was required. <br />A description of the basic components of each of the alternatives is presented <br />below. Tables 1-4 also summarize the similarities t and differences between the <br />preferred alternative and the other A NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE <br />No formal procedures would be in place. States would continue to seek input <br />from the Fish and Wildlife Service and the public on case-by-case proposals to <br />stock nonnative fish; however, in some cases stocking into public waters could <br />take place that may allow nonnative fish to escape into habitat occupied by <br />endangered fish. The States would maintain total discretion regarding <br />stocking of warmwater fishes in rivers and floodplain habitat in the Upper <br />Basin but would certainly consider potential impacts on the endangered fishes. <br />Very little or no stocking of warmwater nonnative fishes is occurring within <br />the Upper Colorado River Basin in Utah and Wyoming. The States may or may not <br />pursue needed measures to minimize the stocking of warmwater fish species in <br />privately owned isolated floodplain ponds and connected waters. It is more <br />likely that stocking of warmwater species in private ponds in the floodplain <br />would not be regulated (primarily in Colorado; stocking of private ponds in <br />Utah and Wyoming are currently regulated though approval of warmwater stocking <br />may still occur). <br />The highest priority measure in the Recovery Program's strategic plan for <br />control of nonnative fish is to prevent additional fish introductions that <br />could further exacerbate the existing interactions between nonnative and <br />endangered fishes (Tyus and Saunders 1996). Recovery Program actions would <br />continue to be implemented, for example; improve/protect flows, enhance <br />flooded bottomlands downstream of existing and new sources of nonnative <br />fishes, propagate fish, conduct monitoring and research activities. Isolated <br />public and private ponds in the 10-year floodplain would be reclaimed, <br />(i.e. nonnative fish would be removed by draining the pond, applying rotenone, <br />or other control techniques). Reclamation of privately owned ponds will be on <br />a voluntary basis. Those that have warmwater fish and do not wish to have <br />their ponds reclaimed will remain as sources for nonnative fish escapement <br />into the river. Connected ponds within the 50-year floodplain would be <br />reclaimed and have fish screens installed. Facilities would be installed on <br />reservoirs to preclude escapement of nonnative fish. <br />8