Laserfiche WebLink
<br />environment. In the hatchery ponds, the larvae and <br />juveniles feed strictly on zooplankton while, in the <br />grow-out ponds, they become acquainted with <br />macro invertebrates so that they may become better <br />foragers after stocking. <br /> <br />Based on the work of Papoulias and Minckley, about 2 <br />months of time is required for razorback suckers to reach <br />a length of 1 inch (-25 mm). Razorbacks that are about <br />1 inch long are no longer vulnerable to predation by some <br />predators such as the red shiner based on the gape size <br />work by Todd Crowl. Floodplain habitats that are <br />ephemeral will not provide enough time for razorback <br />larvae to reach a length of 1 inch. Since nonnative fish <br />species dominate backwater habitats (95-99% based on <br />ISMP), razorba~~. JfY'=Vae that enter the river as ephemeral <br />floodplains ~ will be extremely vulnerable to <br />predation (especially by the numerous minnows) since <br />razorback larvae constitute the only wiggling food items <br />in the spring. <br /> <br />I've enclosed a copy of the latest draft of the WYdoski <br />and Wick manuscript that attempts to sl1JW11~X'ize the <br />importance of duration for razorbacks in fl~lain <br />- habi tats. I'm not certain whether Ed and I will complete <br />this manuscript in final since it wasn't sponsored by the <br />Recovery Program but you can cite it as a draft report. <br /> <br />3. Is it possible to take a different approach to RecOllJllleJ'ldation <br />5? State and county officials may not be receptive to <br />acquisition of lands that they own. However, they may be very <br />receptive to cooperating with the Recovery Program. For <br />example, Mesa County haS a l..and-use plan and the riverfront <br />legacy proj ect that looks at broad-range management for <br />mul tiple uses. You may already have seen the following <br />references that could be used in contacting those folks. <br /> <br />Mesa County Planning Commission. 1996. Mesa Countywide Land <br />Use Plan. Mesa County Planning Commission, Grand <br />Junction, Colorado. 174 pp. <br /> <br />Mesa County Riverfront Commission. 1996. Colorado riverfront <br />green way legacy project. Mesa County Riverfront Commission, <br />Grand Junction, Colorado. 68 pp. + Appendix A. <br /> <br />Could a Memorandum of Agreement be developed between the state <br />agency and the county so that the two ponds would remain <br />connected to the river and that the bottoms could be shaped to <br />benefit the endangered fishes while managing nonnative fish <br />species? Acquisition of Wagner's property would provide the <br />Recovery Program with better control for management (and <br />possibly altering) the floodplain habitat. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />