Laserfiche WebLink
It is difficult to predict the success that <br />Colorado pikeminnow might have in spawn- <br />ing or in establishing home ranges upstream <br />of the 15-mile reach. However, from what <br />we currently know about the temperature re- <br />gime of the river and the temperature re- <br />quirements of this species, the Grand Valley <br />appears to be located near the upstream <br />limits of the optimal range for this popula- <br />tion. Thus, the importance of the 15-mile <br />reach will not be diminished by the reestab- <br />lishment of access to more upstream reaches. <br />Clearly, providing passage to reaches <br />upstream of Palisade should be pursued as <br />part of recovery efforts for the razorback <br />sucker and Colorado pikeminnow. Razor- <br />back sucker persisted in this reach until <br />recent times suggesting that its thermal <br />requirements may be slightly lower than <br />those for Colorado pikeminnow. Also, <br />razorback sucker typically exploit warm, off- <br />channel ponds and flooded areas. This be- <br />havior may serve to offset temperature limi- <br />tations of the main channel allowing the <br />razorback sucker population to extend up- <br />stream farther than the population of Colo- <br />rado pikeminnow. However, restoring pas- <br />sage is also anticipated to extend the range <br />of year-round use by Colorado pikeminnow <br />upstream an estimated 14 miles into canyon <br />habitat downstream of De Beque. This will <br />provide a much-needed addition to the lim- <br />ited amount of adult habitat currently avail- <br />able to this population. Also, the more up- <br />stream De Beque-to-Rifle reach, though per- <br />haps too cool for year-round use, might <br />serve Colorado pikeminnow as a seasonal <br />feeding area during the warm months of late <br />summer (Osmundson 1999a). However, this <br />more upstream reach should not be viewed <br />as a substitute for the high quality habitat <br />found within the warmer, alluvial reaches of <br />the Grand Valley. Nevertheless, all sections <br />of former range in the upper Colorado <br />River are important and must be restored if <br />the long-term viability of these endangered <br />populations is to be assured. <br />SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS <br />During the course of their lives, indi- <br />vidual Colorado pikeminnow may utilize the <br />entire 185 miles of the upper Colorado <br />River to meet the demands oftheir changing <br />life history needs. Habitat selection in- <br />volves tradeoffs between the relative avail- <br />ability of various resources. More optimum <br />thermal regimes for Colorado pikeminnow <br />and razorback sucker are located in lower <br />portions of the river, but substrates are <br />unsuitable for spawning and food availabil- <br />ity for adults is low. Further upstream, <br />steeper gradient and local geological condi- <br />tions produce coarser substrate and diverse <br />channel morphology resulting in suitable <br />physical conditions for spawning. In addi- <br />tion, greater nutrient input and light pene- <br />tration results in greater food production in <br />upstream reaches, particularly in alluvial <br />valleys. However, for warm-water species, <br />like Colorado pikeminnow and razorback <br />sucker, the further upstream an individual <br />ventures, the cooler the thermal regime <br />becomes, and the more the potential for <br />growth declines. The greatest concentra- <br />tions of adult Colorado pikeminnow are <br />found in the Grand Valley, presumably <br />because the benefit of high food availability <br />outweighs the cost of a cooler thermal <br />regime. Further upstream, food availability <br />remains high but temperatures decline until <br />food availability can no longer offset the <br />negative effects of low temperatures. Thus, <br />12