My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03464
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03464
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:50:32 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:45:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.300.31.J
Description
San Juan River - Environmental Studies
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
5/12/1995
Title
Biological Evaluation of a Proposal to Stock Non-Native Fishes into Ponds within the 0- to 50-year Floodplain of the Upper Colorado River Basin in Critical Habitat of Endangered Fishes
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.
/
10
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 />)'" <br />)". <br />,. <br />, <br />., <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />replace present fishes with largemouth bass. bluegilL <br />and black crappie. <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />Proponents of the proposal argue that eliminating the <br />regular occurrence of emigrating nonnative fishes from "0-10 <br />ponds" would benefit the endangered fishes within the mainstream <br />that are being impacted by the nonnatives. In addition, the <br />three game fishes (largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie) do <br />not appear to be maintaining self-sustaining populations within <br />the mainstream, and make up only a minute proportion of the <br />numbers and biomass of nonnative fish predator/competitors. <br /> <br />The 6 March, 1995 memo suggested the proposed conditions <br />would: <br />(~) provide diverse sportfishing opportunities in the <br />upper basin, and <br /> <br />(2) be consistent with the recovery of the endangered <br />fishes. <br /> <br />A team to review the proposal, composed of biologists from FWS, <br />DOW, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and Wyoming Game and <br />Fish Department recommended an independent evaluation by three <br />knowledgeable scientists. Drs. James. Johnson, Wayne Hubert, and <br />Stephen Flickinger met with the review team in Denver, Colorado <br />on 24-25 April, 1995. Brief resumes of these scientists are <br />found in the appendix. This report is their evaluation of that <br />question. <br /> <br />We would first like to make two preliminary points as <br />biologists, without reference to their practicability in the re~ <br />world. <br /> <br />1. As a general principal, non-native fishes should not be <br />stocked into unaltered habitats outside of their historic <br />ranges, or in waters where escapement could impact native <br />fishes. This is especially true in watersheds like the <br />Colorado River that contain critical habitats for four <br />endangered fishes, Chances of escapement of the nonnative <br />fishes from the stocking sites are likely. We see no real <br />biological difference among any of the various floodplain <br />proposals (10-,40-,50-, and ~OO-years). Nonnative fishes in <br />ponds at any of these floodplain elevations will eventually <br />gain access to the Colorado River mainstream, and the <br />difference in timing of those introductions is insignificant <br />in the overall life span of a species. <br /> <br />2. If the existing data are correct and occurrence of <br />largemouth bass, bluegill, and black crappie within the <br />mainstream is rare and results from off-stream inoculation, <br />then all of this discussion over their stocking in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.