Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002654 <br /> <br />improving efficiency for water delivery to agricultural operations, and ensuring that <br />municipalities and industry implement conservation measures. <br /> <br />Pal!e 29: - In regards to much of the hesitation expressed regarding a state in-stream flow <br />right, the Program is urged to look at the long-term benefits which could be derived from <br />such a right throughout the balance of the Program while the endangered fishes are still <br />listed. . <br /> <br />Pat;!e 52: In addition to the impact to the recreational amenities of Steamboat Lake from a <br />drawdown, there are impacts to both the fish population and to the wetlands along the <br />shores of the lake. The impacts to the fishery are mentioned in half a sentence on page <br />71, but there is no mention of the impacts ofa draw down to the wetland areas around the <br />lake or to other critical aquatic habitats, including those for the endangered boreal toad. <br /> <br />Palle 8]: - Re: State-sponsored bounties for removal otnon-native fish. In the earlier <br />iterations of this plan, a reward program was being considered. With the heightened <br />sensitivity to nonnative fish control and public criticism, the feasibility of such a program <br />appears nil. At this time, there is little to no support for this idea in the field. Not only <br />does it create a logistical nightmare, this concept will contribute to the perception that <br />non-native fish are "trash" and that anglers do not need to follow other state regulations <br />when they fish for them. Creating this perception is not the direction we want to take at a <br />time when public scrutiny of consumptive wildlife users is intense. We have no problem <br />with a privately sponsored fishing derby providing that ALL state statutes and regulations <br />are in place, including the statute which requires that the angler provide for the human <br />consumption of game fish. <br /> <br />Pal!e 103: The last sentence states that "bald eagles are not known to nest in northwestern <br />Colorado". This statement is not accurate. Bald eagles have nested in northwestern <br />Colorado for many years. In fact in Routt County alone, we are aware of six nest sites <br />along theYampa River. There are additional ACTIVE nests along the Yampa River in <br />Moffat County. In banding eaglets, non-native fish remains are CONSISTENTLY found <br />in eagle nests, suggesting a reliance on these species as a prey base. <br /> <br />Pal!e 103: - Bald eagle - Listed reference is NOT in bibliography. <br /> <br />Page 105: Re: Canada lynx - This section states that there are no lynx north of 1-70. This <br />statement is also not true. Even in the absence oflynx north ofI-70, there is extensive <br />lynx habitat north of 1-70, and released lynx have traveled as far north as Wyoming. <br /> <br />Page]] 9: - Threatened and endangered species: <br /> <br />~ <br />I' <br /> <br />I. Bald eagle - We would suggest that reduction in non-native fish may in fact have <br />an effect on the nesting bald eagles by reducing their available food supplies. This effect <br />assumes that there is no compensatory increase in native fish populations. It is possible <br />that the impacts of nonnative, predatory game fish have reduced the native fish forage <br />historically available for eagles, but the current abundance of these species has apparently <br /> <br />Appendix F - Notice of Availability/Comments <br /> <br />F-4 <br />