Laserfiche WebLink
t <br />Table 8. Control techniques applicable to nonnative fishes in the UCRB (from <br />Lentsdti et x1.1996). See text and original source for more detail. <br />Table 9. Control Measures Ranking Sheet as compiled by partiapants at the <br />Nonnative Fish Control Workshop. Headers refer to small groups; <br />n3nkings are high (H), medium (M), and low (L) according to the expected <br />effectiveness of a control technique. Blanks indicate that a particular <br />technique is not thought to be feasible for control of a particular species. <br />1 <br />Table 10. Most effecctivve control methods recommended for nonnative fishes of most <br />concern to native fish recovery in the upper Colorado River basin. (Note: ,~ <br />list of spades and control methods not ail inclusive; data from Tables 6 <br />and 9, and Lentsch et al. 1996). <br />Table 11. Suggested top priority strategies for control of nonnatives in the UCRB. <br />Scenarios were developed during the Nonnative Fish Control Workshop. <br />Each scenario is defined in terms of geographic location, target nonnative <br />spaces, principal source of nonnatives at that location, control measures <br />to be applied, and native species that benefit. Not all facets were defined <br />for each scenario during the workshop. Abbreviations are defined as <br />follows: • Csq=Colorado squawfish, RZ=razorback sucker, HC=humpback _ <br />chub, YOY=young-of-year. For descriptions of river reaches (e.g., G1, <br />lJC1, etc.) see Table 2. <br />I <br /> <br />1 <br />A <br /> <br />1 <br />