8174

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8174
• Author: Martinez, P. J.
• Title: West Slope Warmwater Fisheries.
• USFW Year: 1997.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

the Procedures. This activity was intended to demonstrate that removal of fishes from floodplain ponds could
be performed safely and successfully and that the State would reestablish sport fisheries for warmwater fish
species that were possibly better than that offered by the existing fish population. As this goal to perform a
pilot demonstration progressed, it was decided that there would be two demonstration projects, one in the
floodplain of the Colorado River and one along the Gunnison River.
As efforts to accomplish this demonstration within a short timeframe proceeded, it became evident
that reclaiming public fisheries was out of the question from a public relations standpoint. There was also
considerable debate among some participants of the recovery program about the merits of reclaiming ponds
in different portions of the floodplain. Some opinions held that those ponds which reconnected with the river
more frequently posed a more imminent threat of contributing nonnative fishes to the mainstem riverine
habitats (ponds in the 0-10 year floodplain), therefore, any expanditures for reclaiming fish population within
Critical Habitat should be spent on these ponds. Conversely, other perspectives believed that by proceeding
with reclamation of ponds above the more frequently flooded portions of the floodplain, i.e. above the 10 year
floodplain, that the treatment would have a more lasting effect since it was less likely to be reinvaded by
nonnatives since it presumably would less frequently reconnect with the river during high flows, therefore,
this was a better investment toward recovery of endangered fishes.
As efforts to identify ponds for the pilot reclamation demonstration continued, the issue of fish prey
for migratory and resident birds became an issue to the extent that the Wildlife Commission in approving the
Stocking Procedures in September, 1996, prescribed that this potential consequence of nonnative fish control
(the reduction of prey for fish-eating birds) be mitigated if necessary. This issue arose for 30-Road Pond, a
public pond owned by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that lacked a recognized public fishery. Despite the
absence of the fishery, several issues including recent planting of vegetation that might dry-up, potentially
deleterious levels of selenium, nesting and resting site for migratory birds, and for migratory birds
themselves. In the end, it was determined that performing the fish removals on private land was most feasible
given the array of concerns for public resources and there was not specific expectation to follow-up with
development and establishment of a public sport fishery. Time passed as these various concerns were
considered making it unlikely that the permitting process for application of rotenone (Appendix G) could be
completed within the timeframe of the project.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
I prepared a Scope of Work to fund the reclamation of two ponds. This proposal specified that the
ponds would be reclaimed by draining of the ponds by pumping as described in Appendix F. The sum of
funds supplied to this project was $84,000. The pond reclaimed by CDOW on the Gunnison River was Delta
Gravel Pit 41 owned by Com Construction Company near Delta. The pond reclaimed on the Colorado River
was 22 3/4 Road Pond owned by Grand Junction Pipe and Supply Company. I inspected the pond at Delta on
19 Dec 96, after it had been drained. I inspected the pond on the Colorado on S Feb 97, prior to draining. In
addition, in June 1997,1 reviewed the draft Environmental Assessment for the overall floodplain pond
reclamation project being developed jointly between USFWS (D. Wydoski, Denver) and CDOW (A.
Martinez, Grand Junction) and provided written comments.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Because of timing and lack of appropriate equipment, no estimates of fish biomass in either pond
was accomplished. Details available about the reclamation process, fish species present and comments about
the relative abundance of fishes are given in summary reports by CDOW biologist S. Hebein and B. Ehnblad
(Appendix I). The first strategy that I would explore, however, to quantify fish species composition, size
structure and abundance would be the use of transect nets as described by Johnson et al. (1988).
23