My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC06712
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
19000-19999
>
WSPC06712
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:07:25 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 6:01:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.10.H
Description
Colorado River Threatened-Endangered - UCRBRIP - Program Organization-Mission - Stocking
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
6/4/1997
Author
Tom Nesler CO DOW
Title
Five Year Stocking Plan for Endangered Colorado River Fish Species in Colorado - Draft - 06-04-97
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.
/
28
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 />002834 <br /> <br />Reach priorities were based on the following considerations: <br /> <br />1) Bony tail will initially be introduced only in the Grand Valley reach of the Colorado River <br />due to a presumed distribution throughout the mainstem Colorado and larger tributaries <br />like the Green River, and a hypothesized need for floodplain habitat This hypothesis <br />has not been adequately tested, but is suggested by the anecdotal evidence (Quartarone <br />1993) of bonytail inhabiting larger riverine habitat like the Colorado River near Moab, <br />Utah, where floodplain habitat was more likely to exist. The logistics of this reach make <br />it more suitable for monitoring survival of stocked fish than the Green-Yampa within <br />Dinosaur National Monument. <br />2) Bonytail were collected from the Green and Yampa rivers near their confluence at Echo <br />Park (USFWS 1987, Vanicek and Kramer 1969), While this site tends to refute the <br />floodplain habitat need hypothesis, bonytail juveniles of the same size collected in <br />previous studies (up to 200mm) should be reintroduced there. <br /> <br />Further, the following species interactions and recovery actions are anticipated: <br /> <br />1) Biomass and production occupied by common caIp in the Grand Valley will be reduced <br />by control efforts, lessening competitive pressure within floodplain habitats, and perhaps <br />enhance expansion of bony tail biomass, <br />2) With successful establishment of an adult bony tail population, general abundance of other <br />native species may be reduced as a result of some competition, <br /> <br />Reintroduction of bony tail into the upper Colorado River Basin has been assessed by <br />several studies (Chart and Cranney 1992, Meyer 1992, Wydoski 1994, Lentsch et al, 1996), <br />Recommendations included the necessity of reintroduction of bonytail in the wild to determine <br />it's ecological requirements, but concerns have been expressed about reintroducing bonytail <br />because of the potential hybridization with the other Gila species, especially humpback chub, <br />While acknowledged as a potential risk associated with reintroduction and establishment of <br />bonytail near existing humpback chub populations (e,g, Black Rocks), this risk appears to be <br /> <br />DRAFT - June 4, 1997 <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.