My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC02460
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
14000-14999
>
WSPC02460
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:19:16 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:23:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.300.31.J
Description
Colorado River Threatened-Endangered Species - Recovery Program - San Juan - Environmental Studies
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
5
Date
9/1/2000
Author
Biology Committee
Title
San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program Biology Committee - Program Evaluation Report - 7 Year Research Period 1991-1997 - 09-01-00
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
115
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />001611 <br /> <br />Evaluation of habitat as a limiting factor was a complex issue requiring a variety of biological and <br />physical studies. The biological studies investigated the habitats that the fishes used and attempted <br />to determine which habitats were key for their success. Spawning habitat and nursery habitat were <br />generally considered key habitats for the two endangered fish species because lack of recruitment <br />was a major factor influencing the fishes' endangered status (Minckley et al. 1991, Tyus 1991), and <br />their spawning and nursery habitats were relatively rare and flow dependent. Physical studies were <br />needed to describe the key habitats, determine their availability, determine their quality, and <br />determine if habitat quantity and quality improvements in the San Juan River were needed. Key <br />habitats may be in short supply, too poor in quality, or not available at the right time of year. This <br />section describes how the SJRIP studies determined key habitats, key habitat availability, and key <br />habitat quality for each of the two endangered species. Also presented are management actions <br />taken to maximize key habitat quality and quantity. <br /> <br />Habitat Use <br /> <br />Colorado Pikeminnow <br />Studies in the Green and Colorado rivers during the 1970s and 1980s identified the major life <br />history components of Colorado pikeminnow. Adults migrated during early summer, often over <br />200 miles, to two major spawning areas in the Green River (Tyus 1985, 1990, 1991). Young <br />hatched in a matter of days and drifted downstream to suitable backwater nursery habitats (Haynes <br />et al. 1984, Nesler et al. 1988). Young-of-the-year were found in backwaters in the fall (Holden <br />1977, Tyus and Haines 1991). Because of sampling inefficiencies, and perhaps low population <br />numbers, 2-, 3-, and 4-year-old Colorado pikeminnow were seldom collected (Holden and <br />Stalnaker 1975, Tyus and Haines 1991), so their habitat use is poorly understood. These efforts <br />led to research focused on two key habitats: spawning areas and backwaters. Chapter 3 of the Flow <br />Report (Converse and Holden 1999) summarizes what is known about the life history and habitat <br />use of this species. The following highlights San Juan River habitats used by this species and those <br />habitats that became the focus of studies. <br /> <br />Adults <br />Adult Colorado pikeminnow habitat use in the San Juan River was studied primarily through <br />radiotelemetry. From 1991 to 1994, 13 adult Colorado pikeminnow were captured, radio-tagged, <br />and followed, both on the ground (from shorelines and boats) and in the air (Ryden 2000a, Ryden <br />and Ahlm 1996). Fish capture locations, along with 236 subsequent radiotelemetry contacts, <br />provided information on portions of the river used, movements, likely spawning locations, and <br />specific habitat use. Most of the fish remained within a relatively small area of the river (Figure <br />3.1), from about RM 109 to RM 142 (Figure 2.1). This 33-mile reach included the "Mixer" (RM <br />129.8 to RM 133.4), an area of structural complexity and numerous secondary channels. Only one <br />of the 13 radio-tagged fish was found outside this 33-mile reach, a large female captured and <br />tagged near Bluff, Utah. This fish remained in the area ofRM 73 to RM 76, except in 1994 when <br /> <br />September 2000 <br /> <br />3-3 <br /> <br />Program Evaluation Report <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.