Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Experiments to evaluate the impacts of red shiner competition with larval and <br />early juvenile razorback sucker provided no insight into competitive interactions. <br />However, the rapid predation of larval razorback sucker by red shiner corroborated the <br />suggestion by Ruppert et al. (1993) that larvae of endangered fishes are vulnerable.to <br />predation by this minnow. Because razorback sucker are the first larval fish to appear <br />in the spring, the potential for predation by red shiners in absence of other prey sources <br />may represent an obstacle for recruitment if red shiners are abundant in floodplain <br />habitat. <br /> <br />Although floodplain habitat has been linked to the early life history and <br />recruitment of razorback sucker in the middle Green River, little is known of the specific <br />relationship of wetlands use by razorback sucker. Nutrients in floodplain habitat are <br />much greater than in main-channel habitat (Junk et al. 1989) and contribute to greater <br />production in both in- and off-channel habitats. Mabey (1993) reported that <br />invertebrate production in Old Charley Wash was approximately an order of magnitude <br />greater than observed in either backwater or main channel habitats. Despite the well <br />established trend of high production in wetland habitat, timing and distribution of <br />invertebrate production and use by native fishes in this habitat of the middle Green <br />River are not well understood. <br /> <br />Irving and Burdick (1995) stratified the floodplain of the middle Green River as <br />terrace (not retaining water as river elevation receded following spring peak flows) and <br />depression (retaining water following decline in river elevation in the spring) wetlands <br />and described their area and distribution. Water retention is a major factor separating <br />the functional characteristics of these wetland types. Their importance to the early life <br />history of razorback sucker mayor may not be equivalent.. The quality or relative <br />importance of these two floodplain habitat types to endangered fish recovery is yet to <br />be defined and may have an important influence on flow management strategies. <br /> <br />CHAPTER THREE: Inundation of Old Charley Wash <br /> <br />METHODS <br /> <br />The wetland habitat availability portion of this study was narrowly focused on <br />determination of flows necessary to inundate Old Charley Wash. A surface elevation <br />gage was installed in the outlet to Old Charley Wash and data was collected during the <br />high water year of 1993. Surface elevations were correlated with the flows at the <br />Jensen USGS gage and then used, together with 0.3 m topographic maps, to <br />determine the flows necessary to inundate Old Charley Wash. Flows necessary to <br />maintain flooding in Old Charley Wash were determined using the outlet gage data. <br /> <br />RESULTS <br /> <br />Surface elevation contours of Old Charley Wash, Le. Wood's Bottom (0.3 m, <br />contour maps), indicate that the lowest point along the dikes of the wetland are located <br />on the downstream portion of the wetland at an elevation between 1418.8 and 1419.1 <br />meters above mean sea level (mamsl) (Modde and Irving 1994). Based on the surface <br />elevation data collected from the Old Charley Wash outlet gage in 1993, water began <br />inundating the wetland from the river at a discharge between 405 m3/s and 455 m3/s <br />(Figure 7). <br /> <br />28 <br />