My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01579
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01579
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:31:44 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:32:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.10.B
Description
UCRBRIP Annual Report
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
12/22/1997
Author
UCRBRIP
Title
1997 Annual Reports Package Part 2
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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 />during FY 97 to confirm FY 96 results. See attached FY 97 annual <br />report for Adobe Creek. <br /> <br />Gravel Pit at 29 5/8 Road <br /> <br />There are -340 gravel pits in the Colorado (Grand Valley) and Gunnison <br />(Delta) rivers. The Gravel Pit at 29 5/8 Road was connected to the <br />Colorado River (RM 174) to determine if gravel pits can serve as a <br />surrogate floodplain habitat to assist in recovery of the endangered <br />fishes. A final report was developed for the Gravel Pit at 29 5/8 <br />Road: "8urdick. B,D.. J. Flair, M. Lloyd. and B. Scheer. 1997. Native <br />and nonnative fish use of two gravel-pit ponds connected to the upper <br />Colorado River at 29 5/8 Road near Grand Junction.- Colorado. U.S. Fish <br />Wil dl. Serv.. Grand Junction. CO." <br /> <br />Levee Removal <br /> <br />Native fishes used all of the eight floodplain sites sampled: razorback <br />suckers used Bonanza Bridge. Baser/Chew. Old Charley Diked. and Old <br />Charley Wash; Colorado squawfish used all sites except Johnson J-4; one <br />larval razorback was light-trapped in Bonanza Bridge. one in <br />Baser/Chew. and one was drift-netted in Old Charley Diked. <br /> <br />During the period of time that floodplain terraces and depressions were <br />inundated, the fish catch was dominated by nonnative fishes. To keep <br />things in perspective. however. the main channel and main-channel <br />backwaters were also dominated by nonnative fishes (based on fyke net <br />data). Results are preliminary. but approximately 99% of fishes caught <br />were nonnatives. regardless of location or habitat type. Actually. <br />there were more native fishes found in the floodplain habitats than in <br />the main channel habitats. So far. there is no evidence to suggest <br />that restoring floodplain habitats will lead to an increase in the <br />percentage of nonnative fishes in the system. Again, however. results <br />are preliminary. Data will continue to be collected during 1998 pre- <br />and post-runoff, to monitor species response to habitat restoration. <br /> <br />A hypothesis presented last year. that shallow depressions will become <br />death traps for nonnative fishes. and that native fishes are too smart <br />to become stranded. is not entirely true. As flows were subsiding <br />during 1997. massive numbers of fishes were observed leaving floodplain <br />habitats. The vast majority of fishes that became stranded were <br />nonnative. However, there were also 20 flannelmouth suckers. 2 <br />speckled dace. and 2 roundtail chubs captured after floodplain <br />disconnection. No endangered fish were found stranded. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.