Laserfiche WebLink
<br />\..)1"\'0 <br /> <br />-Floodplain owned primarily by the NPS, BLM, FWS, USFS, and State of <br />Utah; includes Brown's Park National Wildlife Refuge, and the Yampa <br />confluence at RM 345; some floodplain development has occurred <br />(e.g., levees at Brown's Park). <br />-At present, the temperature of waters released from Flaming Gorge <br />Reservoir creates a thermal barrier in the Green River above the <br />confluence with the Yampa, which discourages use by endangered <br />fishes. As a result, this section of river is not being considered <br />a priority geographic area for floodplain restoration and protection <br />at this time. Studies are being conducted to explore opportunities <br />for thermal enhancement of waters released from Flaming Gorge. If <br />the studies conclude that water temperatures can be managed to make <br />the river habitable, then this area will become high priority for <br />floodplain restoration and protection. <br />-Conclusion: low priority for habitat restoration for razorbacks at <br />this time. <br /> <br />7. Gunnison River RM 0 to RM 50 (Colorado River to Escalante SWA) <br /> <br />-Squawfish: adults have been captured in this section. <br />-532 acres of potential floodplain habitat; some floodplain <br />development. <br />-Mostly privately owned. <br />-Conclusion: low priority for habitat restoration for razorbacks. <br /> <br />8. Yampa River RM 0 to RM 140 <br /> <br />-Squawfish: adult population in this area. <br />-Razorbacks: adults have been captured to RM 53.3. <br />-Floodplain owned/protected by NPS to RM 47; BLM and private lands <br />to Craig. <br />-Some floodplain development. <br />-Conclusion: low priority for habitat restoration for razorbacks. <br /> <br />9. White River RM 0 to RM 156 <br /> <br />-Squawfish: adult distribution (high concentration area to RM 21); <br />juvenile concentration area to RM 59. <br />-Mix of Tribal, BLM, and private lands. <br />-Some floodplain development. <br />-Conclusion: low priority for habitat restoration for razorbacks. <br /> <br />These are mv ooinions regarding the relative priority of river <br />segments for restoration. Members of the Work Group and Bioloqv <br />Committee may wish to offer alternative rankinqs for discussion at <br />upcominq meetinqs. The priority order should not be perceived as <br />beinq carved in stone; it may chanqe as obstacles and opportunities <br />arise; and as we proceed with Proqram implementation and evaluation <br />of results. <br /> <br />8 <br />