My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPP351
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPP351
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 9:24:59 PM
Creation date
4/23/2007 10:01:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.130.60
Description
Colorado River - Colo Riv Basin Orgs/Entities - Upper Colo River Comm(UCRC) - Annual Reports
Date
2/2/2004
Author
UCRC
Title
Summary of Recommendations from 2003 Annual and Final Reports
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />000192 <br /> <br />RESEARCH AND MONITORING <br /> <br />Haines, B., and T. Modde. 2002. Humpback chub monitoring in Yampa Canyon, 1998-2000. <br />Final Report of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vernal, Utah to Upper Colorado River <br />Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colorado. <br /> <br />~ Yampa Canyon represents marginal habitat for humpback chub during the <br />baseflow period, particularly in low flow years, therefore, fish marked in Yampa <br />Canyon may move to more suitable habitats in the Green River on a seasonal or <br />annual basis. In alignment with the recovery goals, we recommend that a <br />population estimate be attempted for the Yampa population which includes the <br />Yampa, Whirlpool, Split Mountain and Lodore canyons. Hopefully, assessing the <br />entire reach occupied by this population will create a higher probability of <br />recapturing marked fish. <br />~ Monitoring juvenile life stages of humpback chub is feasible and we <br />recommend that juvenile fish abundance, distribution, and length frequency be <br />monitored in documented nursery areas (i.e., Yampa Canyon, Whirlpool Canyon <br />and Island Park). <br />Bestgen, K.R, G.B. Haines, R Brunson, T. Chart, M. Trammell, RT. Muth, G. Birchell, K. <br />Christopherson, and J.M. Bundy. 2003. Status of wild razorback sucker in the Green River <br />Basin, Utah and Colorado, determined from basinwide monitoring and other sampling programs. <br />Final Report of Larval Fish Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado to <br />Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colorado. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />The small and declining population of wild razorback suckers remaining in <br />the Green River mandates continued stocking of hatchery fish. <br />Stocked populations should be used to gain conclusive information <br />regarding mechanisms of recruitment failure of razorback suckers so that threats <br />can be removed and recovery can proceed. Areas of focus may include effects of <br />non-native fishes in critical nursery areas, and timing of flow releases and <br />availability of critical habitat in relation to reproduction. <br />Population status, nursery habitat, and spawning areas of razorback <br />suckers in the lower Green River should be identified and further protection <br />extended to those areas if necessary and possible. The San Rafael River inflow <br />area should be one area of emphasis. <br />Develop a rigorous monitoring scheme for adult, juvenile, and larval life <br />stages of razorback sucker in the middle and lower Green River. Sampling should <br />be integrated with existing programs to facilitate multiple uses of data. Explicit <br />estimates of reproduction, rates of survival and recruitment, and abundance should <br />be gathered to track the long-term status of populations. <br />Evaluation efficacy of light-trap sampling in low-velocity channel margin <br />habitat to detect larvae and to estimate annual reproductive success of razorback <br />suckers. Minimally, the relationship between fish density, backwater size, <br />sampling effort, and detection probabilities should be quantified. Another <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />2003 Report Recommendations, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.