Laserfiche WebLink
<br />25 <br />3. Largemouth bass and biuegill existed prior to 1992 and 1993 stocking. <br />~ B. Species numbers, and dates <br />1. Largemouth bass - 300/yr <br />2. Bluegill - 600/yr <br />3. Channel catfish - 300/yr <br />~ IV. Escapement factors <br />A. Escapement potential <br />1. Duke lake is joined to Large Connected Lake by a 400' ditch. Potential <br />~ loss of fish into the river system is very low as the Large Connected <br />Lake would stop escapement and the outlet from Large Connected <br />Lake is filtered by 3/4" gravel and Marifi fabric. <br />2. Upstream escapement th-rough the inlet diversion from the Redlands <br />Power Canal is blocked by the laminar flow of up to 2 cfs of water in <br />200 feet of pipe and by a .5 inch mesh screen at the upper end of the <br />~ pipe. <br />3. The lake itself lies at about the 100 year flood level, but since it is <br />connected to Large Connected Lake, fish from Duke Lake could reach <br />the river at an approximate 40 year flood event. <br />B. Survival potential following escapement <br />• <br />1. Largemouth bass and bluegill do not survive in the Colorado River <br />because of the harsh river environment. <br />2. Channel catfish from Duke Lake could survive in the Colorado River as <br />evidenced by the high populations of wild channel catfish in this part <br />of the river. However, the hatchery reared Duke Lake catfish would <br />i have a difficult time competing with wild catfish. <br />C. Control measures to avoid escapement -Control measures are provided at <br />Large Connected Lake (3/4" gravel and Marifi fabric filter at outlet) and by <br />the 40 year floodplain. <br />~ V. Impact to endangered species <br />A. There is no impact anticipated to endangered species that would effect <br />recovery because: <br />1. Duke Lake fish would seldom come into contact with <br />~ endangered fish because the lake would only communicate <br />with the river at greater than 40 year flood events. <br /> <br />