Laserfiche WebLink
0 13 <br />lethal environmental conditions cannot be avoided in the Yuma Cove <br />backwater, alternative sites should be identified and utilized. <br />(3) Both sampling and recovery of young fish are hampered by <br />extensive growths of aquatic vegetation. Its removal or control <br />could result in significantly greater harvest capability, <br />especially if such were effective when fish numbers remained large. <br />(4) Preliminary results indicate that growth of hatchery-produced <br />fish stocked into Davis Cove was substantially slow2'r (through <br />November) than that of on-site fish produced at Yuma Cove. It is <br />unknown whether this apparent disparity is a function of habitat <br />(e. g. space, food availability, the flash flood of 10 August, etc., <br />in Yuma vs. Davis coves), a result:of.different initial size at <br />stocking, due to presence of non-native predatory and competitive <br />fishes in Davis Cove, or is a result of other factor(s). Growth <br />rates in the two habitats should be compared, and any contrast <br />should be investigated and evaluated. (5) It is unknown how and if <br />monthly fluctuations in Lake Mohave water level (see Figure 2) <br />affect fish in the Yuma Cove (and other) backwaters. Certainly, <br />poor water quality conditions in these habitats are exacerbated at <br />lowest lake elevations. Regardless, monthly fluctuations even at <br />higher levels may also have impacts, and efforts should be made to <br />stabilize or avoid such variations. <br />Clearly, the program established by NFWG has the potential to <br />0 contribute substantially to recovery of the razorback sucker by