My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9432 (2)
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9432 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 10:09:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9432
Author
Modde, T. and M. Fuller.
Title
Feasibility of Channel Catfish Reduction in the Lower Yampa River.
USFW Year
2002.
USFW - Doc Type
Vernal.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
120
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
The congregation of radio-tagged adult pikeminnow in the same location for <br />two consecutive years during the estimated spawning period plus the collection <br />of larvae 4 miles downstream at Bridgeport suggests that Colorado pi keminnow were <br />spawning there. Therefore, the reach between Escalante Bridge and Bridgeport is <br />believed to be an important spawning area for this species. <br />Former capture and radiotelemetry data indicate that adult Colorado <br />pikeminnow, uthe 2.3-mile reach of the Lower Gunnison River and plunge pool <br />immediately downstream of the Redlands Dam. Adult Colorado pikeminnow have <br />possibly used the Lower Gunnison River downstream from Redlands Dam as a spawning <br />site in some years (McAda and Kaeding 1991; Burdick 1997). Between 6 and 22 July <br />1994, this reach was sampled intensively and 20 adult Colorado pikeminnow were <br />captured (Burdick 1997). Although none of these pikeminnow handled had <br />expressible gametes, the high number of fish observed and collected during this <br />time suggested spawning or post-spawning activity. Since then, this reach has <br />not been sampled as intensively during the presumed summer spawning period, and <br />it is unknown whether other pikeminnow congregations have similarly occurred. <br />METHODOLOGY <br />Fish Trap <br />From 1996 to 2000 the trapping facility at the upstream end of the <br />passageway was monitored Monday through Friday between April and early-November. <br />The fish trap and passageway were not operated between early-November and March <br />in each of the five years of initial operation. On weekdays, all of the larger- <br />bodied (> 100 mm) fish collected in the fish trap were sorted and counted by <br />species. On the weekends, the trap was checked only for listed fishes, and for <br />the most part, fish were not sorted or counted. <br />The trapping facility allowed researchers to assess the use of the <br />passageway by all fish species. All fishes, except for three of the smaller <br />nonnative cyprinid species (fathead minnow, sand shiner, and red shiner) that <br />were collected were sorted, examined, and counted. No distinction was made <br />between juvenile, sub-adult, or adult fish when fish were sorted and counted. <br />Speckled dace found in the fish trap were counted, although it was recognized <br />that they were able to freely pass through the spacings between the conduits and <br />trash grates and therefore could move both up- and downstream through the <br />passageway uninhibited. Native fishes and salmonids were returned to the river <br />upstream of the dam. In 1996 only, all nonnative fishes (except salmonids) were <br />flushed downstream from the diversion dam via an underground PVC pipe. In all <br />following years, all nonnatives (except salmonids) were removed. <br />12
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.