Laserfiche WebLink
<br />GRAND CANYON NATIVE FISH MANAGEMENT <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />survival to sexual maturity (Kaeding and Osmundson 1988), reduced condition, lipid stores, <br />and size that result in elevated overwinter mortality for young-of-year fishes (Thompson et <br />aI. 199I), Iowered egg production by adults (McAcIa and Wydoski 1983), and reduced <br />survivaI of developing embryos (Marsh 1985). <br /> <br />" <br />, <br /> <br />As a result of post-clam hydrology, temperature, and sediment changes, major trophic shifts <br />have occurred in the mainstem Colorado River. Standing crops of attached aIgae in the <br />relatively stabIe, clear, armored, and nutrient-rich tailwater increased relative to pre-dam <br />conditions (McConnell and SigIer 1959, Zimmerman and Ward I984). Sediment inputs from <br />the Paria River, 25 Ian downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, abruptly reduce standing <br />biomass of the periphyton community (Angradi et aI. 1992, Usher et aI. 1987, Blinn et aI. <br />1992). <br /> <br />.':.,;.. <br /> <br />,-' <br />.~; <br />:0:: <br /> <br />High.. densities and biomass of invertebrate populations contrast with low species diversity <br />in the Glen Canyon Dam tailwater (Leibfried and Blinn 1986). Thermal constancy and low <br />absolute water temperatures disrupt cues necessary for the compIetion of life cycles of many <br />macroinvertebrates (Ward 1976, Hauer and Stanford 1982). The transitory character of <br />nearshore habitats has rendered them largely unsuitabIe for coIonization by <br />desiccant-intoIerant algae and invertebrates (Usher and Blinn 1990, Angradi et aI. 1992). <br /> <br />~i <br />( <br /> <br />I';. <br /> <br />. ~. C _~-.J-:.. <br /> <br />Disturbances to pre-dam habitats and fluviaI processes have been detrimental to most native. <br />and non-native fishes. Native forms, however, fared the worst; three species were extirpated <br />and others are threatened. with extirpation. As forcefully argued by Minckley (1991), <br />introductions of non-native fishes to the Colorado River Basilt is the most. critical factor <br />. affecting the Iong-term status of native form.s. The canyon now supports populations of at <br />least 10 non-native fishes (Maddux et aI. 1987, VaIdez et aI. 1992) and several non-native <br />macroinvertebrate taxa (Blinn and CoIe 1991), the latter including the fish parasites Lenuzea <br />cyprinocea (Carothers et aI. 1981) and Bothriocephalus achielognathi (Angradi et aI, 1992, <br />Clarkson 1992, Clarkson and Robinson 1993). The sometimes subtle ways that non-native <br />species may displace and eliminate native forms through competition and preclation were <br />discussed by Minckley (1991) Ruppert et aI, (1993), and DougIaset aI. (1994). . <br /> <br />;..,. <br /> <br />~,- <br />'':~ <br />> <br /> <br />! <br /> <br />:-'.( <br />?'~' <br /> <br />~ .:?:5!1iL.":~. . <br /> <br />;i,' <br />.;~ <br />~~' <br />;;J <br />~~ <br />:~~~ <br /> <br />:.-. <br /> <br />LegQl History-Prior to construction of Glen Canyon Dam, evaluation. of its Potential impacts <br />on fishery resources was limited to expectations for sport fisheries development in Lake <br />Powell and in the downstream tailwater (U .S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1958). <br />Native -suckers and the CoIorado squawfish were mentioned only in passing, even though the <br />latter species and razorback sucker already were decIining rapidIy in the lower CoIorado <br />River basin (Minckley 1973). The three chubs (bonytail, humpback, and roundtail) were not <br />cOnsidered,' perhaps in. part because of the co,nfusion surrounding their taxonomic <br />differentiation (Holden and Stalnaker 19~. . <br /> <br />";"" <br />