9717 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 9 Lack of information Compounding the preceding obstacles to the conservation of the three species is a near absence of historical abundance and distribution information regarding the three species. Not only were remote localities rarely sampled by wildlife agencies, information from these remote locations from members of the public are not reliable even as anecdotal information due to the historical tendency of laypersons to refer to all chubs in the Colorado River Basin (bonytail, humpback chub, roundtail chub) as "bonetails,'? creating questions regarding the validity and accuracy of historical, non-agency records (Quartarone 1995). The limited historical information on these species makes determination of proper management and conservation tools difficult, especially in heavily impacted drainages. The three species are not classified as sport fish in most settings and managers have historically not collected information on these species; hence, information on them is comparatively fragmented and rare. Increasing risks from threats such as water development, nonnative fishes, and disease, combined with increasing public and professional scrutiny, have raised the levels of concern and actions for the three sp€tCies concurrent with increasing potential for them to be listed. Information regarding the distribution, status, and abundance of the three species in Utah is just recently being organized (beginning in 2002) as a result of the three species project; however, prior to the initiation of the Agreement, species information in Utah was oftentimes outdated. Both mainstem and tributary habitats are likely important for these species depending on their life stage. A number of researchers have noted the home range of flannelmouth sucker tends to include both mainstem and tributary habitats (Beyers et a1. 2001, Chart and Bergersen 1992, Douglas and Marsh 1998, Holden 1973, Holden and Crist 1981, Vanicek 1967), though the relationship is not clear. Snyder and Muth (1990) suggest that flannelmouth sucker will sometimes migrate depending on habitat availability and homing behaviors. In the Grand Canyon, only limited spawning habitat is present and flannelmouth sucker will travel great distances to get to these spawning locations (Weiss et a1. 1998); in addition, some suggest that tributaries are important for spawning in the Grand Canyon (Douglas and Douglas 2000, Douglas and Marsh 1998, Maddux et a1. 1987). It is also thought that roundtailchub and bluehead sucker likely use a combination or mainstem and tributary habitats in certain locations, though this information has not been described for any specific population of the three species in Utah. Relation to other conservation programs Distribution of the three species among both mainstemand tributary habitats is extensive and use of tributary systems for spawning, rearing, and/or adult habitat is well documented for the three species (Bestgen and Propst 1989, Carlson and Platapia 1984, Cavalli 1999, Martinez et a1. 1994, Miller and Rees 2000, Valdez and Ryel 1995, Wick et a1. 1991). Because endangered fish recovery program activities are conducted within mainstem habitats and certain tributaries, it is expected that they will afford some amount of incidental protection or conservation measures for the three species. At this time, the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Implementation Program (program), the Virgin River Recovery Program (VRRP) and the San Juan Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP) provide funding for nonnative removal from mainstem habitats. The Program has funded mark-recapture efforts for flannelmouth and bluehead sucker and development of flow recommendations for tributaries to the Green River such as the Duchesne and Price rivers. The VRRP provides protection for flannelmouth sucker throughout the Virgin River system; however, this extensive protection is unusual and partially a result of the ranges of the endangered species targeted by this program. Instream flow acquisition and the idea of experimental flows to benefit endangered fishes is usually a provision of recovery programs; however, emphasis on provision of