DOCSLIB.ORG

Can Humpback Chub and a Blue Ribbon Trout Fishery Coexist in the Grand Canyon?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Can Humpback Chub and a Blue Ribbon Trout Fishery Coexist in the Grand Canyon? Can Humpback Chub and a Blue Ribbon Trout Fishery Coexist in the Grand Canyon? Carson Jeffres Abstract Maintaining both a population of native Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) and non-native Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are stated goals for management downstream of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) on the Colorado River, yet these species have very different habitat requirements and often times the Rainbow Trout prey upon the Humpback Chub. Habitat conditions in the river downstream of GCD have been extremely altered with moderate flows, cold water temperature, and a much reduced sediment load compared to historic conditions. These physical habitat characteristics create ideal conditions for the non-native trout and have reduced the habitat quality for the chub. In addition to the change in habitat, the rainbow trout and other introduced species predate on the chub. Several management actions from mimicking high flow events to mechanical invasive species remove have taken place to date with differing success. It may also be natural fluctuation such as drought can override the management actions in terms of drivers of the humpback chub population. Recent studies have found that under drought conditions, humpback chub populations have been increasing with warmer water. Under such an altered condition, can both of the species coexist and how does societal desire for recreational trout fishing compete with maintaining a non-recreational fish such as the Humpback Chub? This question will ultimately have to be addressed if a long- term solution is to be found. Goals of the paper The goal of this paper is to describe the habitat conditions for both the Rainbow Trout and Humpback Chub and how the alteration of the river below GCD has made the river suitable for Rainbow Trout and reduced habitat quality for Humpback Chub and other native fish. In addition, various management actions have taken place to help both species; the efficacy of these actions will be discussed as well as if there is potential for long-term coexistence of the two species. Literature synthesis Habitat conditions have been extremely altered for fishes native to the Colorado River downstream of GCD (Pine III et al. 2013). Currently, flow is relatively homogenous on an annual scale, yet has large daily fluctuations for hydropower generation. Water temperatures are much colder than historic conditions and fluctuate very little on a daily or annual timescale due to the hypolimnetic release from GCD. In addition to flow and temperature changes, the sediment supply has also been disrupted and currently only clear water is released from GCD. The only sediment sources in the Grand Canyon are from tributaries downstream of the dam, mainly the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers. This alteration of the habitat has resulted in the extirpation of three (Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus Lucius), Bonytail Chub (Gila elegans), and Roundtail Chub(Gila robusta)) of the eight native fish species in the Grand Canyon (Webb et al. 1999). Of the remaining 5 species, two (Humpback Chub and Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)) are listed as endangered and three are relatively stable. The five species that are either extirpated or endangered are all species that have evolved novel morphologies for the natural flow regime of the Colorado River, including large size, narrow caudal peduncles and deeply forked tails. The three species that have relatively stable populations are Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus), Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), and Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus), all of which have more generalist morphologies that are similar to fish found throughout the western North America. Rainbow Trout were introduced into the Grand Canyon to create a “Blue Ribbon Trout Fishery” in 1964 following the closure of GCD (Korman et al. 2012). In addition to rainbow trout, several amphipods species were introduced as a food source for the trout. The closure of the dam created ideal conditions consisting of cool and clear water for both the amphipods and the trout. In addition to the water conditions, the lack of sediment exposed suitable spawning gravels that were not historically available prior to the GCD. The result was a trout fishery that attracted fisherman from around the world to catch large trout (>7kg) in the arid desert environment. As the legend of the Glen Canyon trout fishery grew, the likelihood of managing solely for native fish declined. Essentially, a new stakeholder group of trout fisherman was created and that group is included into the operation decisions of GCD and other downstream habitat mitigation. The humpback chub is a fish that evolved in the hell and high water of the historic Grand Canyon and was not officially described until 1945 (Miller 1946), and was the last of the native fishes of the Grand Canyon to be described. The humpback chub is a long-lived fish that can live for more than 40 years (Coggins and Walters 2009). They have a large dorsal hump, a compressed skull, small eyes with a narrow caudal peduncle and forked tail (Figure 1). All of these physical characteristics were evolved in the warm turbid waters of the Colorado River and the fish community that has evolved in that area over the last ~ 3.5 million years. The life history and habitat use of the humpback chub prior to CGD is unknown. Currently, humpback chub populations are relatively low (Figure 2) and they are listed as endangered under the endangered species act. Figure 1. Humpback chub. Credit: U.S. Geological Survey. Since the installation of GCD, Humpback Chub have been observed to spawn during the spring (March – May) in the warm tributaries of the Grand Canyon, primarily the Little Colorado River (LCR) (Coggins and Walters 2009). There are no descriptions of main-stem habitat use prior to GCD, mostly due to difficulty of observation and lack of interest in a non-game species. Currently, the main-stem is too cold (minimum of 16°C) for egg survival due to the hypolimnic releases from GCD. After spawning in the LCR, juvenile chub get washed down into the main- stem and can be found near the stream margin where vegetation is present, in talus or shallow backwaters. During the non-spawning season, adults are generally found in large back-water eddies on the main-stem of the Colorado River, but near the LCR with slow velocities and abundant food resources. Figure 2. Estimated adult humpback chub abundance in Grand Canyon using age-structured mark recapture model and incorporating uncertainty in assignment of age (Coggins and Walters 2009). In an attempt to mitigate for the altered hydrograph and associated changes to habitat, there has been a series of high flow experimental (HFE) releases from CGD to mimic historic conditions and create lost habitat both for native species and creating beaches for whitewater rafters. There have been a total of six HFEs since 1996. The HFEs have several goals, one of which is to create backwater habitat for native fish. Although one of the stated goals of these flows is to create backwater habitat and simulate historic high flows, the HFEs are relatively small and short in duration compared to the historic hydrograph (Figure 3). In addition, the flows are often times not during the time of year when they would have happened historically and are thus out of sync with the life history of the native fish. Historically, high flows were the result of snow-melt during the spring in the upper watershed and lasted for months. During that time, newly emerged humpback chub would get washed into the margin habitats that were flooded by the spring snow melt from the upper watershed. These margin habitats were relatively warm and the turbid waters provided protection from predators. As flows continued to drop throughout the summer, temperature would warm, approaching 30°C. Currently the HFEs only partially mimic the formation of backwater habitat and do not mimic any of the environmental cues that the native fish use for various life history stages. Timing of HFEs has been variable over time, ranging from November to May and is currently determined primarily by physical conditions such as sediment accumulation in the river channel and flows in the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers. Only after monitoring following HFEs that occurred in the spring has the importance of timing been shown on the biota within the river. It was theorized that mimicking the general timing of flood events would provide native fish with environmental cues that would benefit the population. Surprisingly, following HFEs in the spring, there was a four-fold increase in recruitment of rainbow trout in the section below GCD (Korman et al. 2012). During surveys downstream near the LCR, there was also found to be an increase in rainbow trout abundance, despite the lack of spawning habitat downstream of Lee’s Ferry. There were so many juvenile trout recruited from the Glen Canyon reach that density dependent effect essentially pushed those excess fish downstream into the habitat that is considered critical for the humpback chub. It was determined that the high flows during the spring coincided with the spawning time of the rainbow trout, a fish species that also evolved to spring during the spring snow-melt recession. The increase in flow increased the amount of spawning habitat as well as quality of rearing habitat for newly emerged fish. Similar to juvenile humpback chub, the newly emerged trout found abundant food resources and flooded margin habitat with slightly warmer water and lower velocities. These habitat conditions allowed for much less mortality during this life stage compared to years without high flows (Kroman et al. 2012). This was an unintended consequence of trying to mimic a natural process for native fish and ultimately increasing the population of their non-native predators.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Record of Decision Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement I. Summary of Action and Background The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has completed a final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam. The EIS describes the potential effects of modifying the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam to assist in the recovery of four endangered fish, and their critical habitat, downstream from the dam. The four endangered fish species are Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and bonytail (Gila elegans). Reclamation would implement the proposed action by modifying the operations of Flaming Gorge Dam, to the extent possible, to achieve the flows and temperatures recommended by participants of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program). Reclamation’s goal is to implement the proposed action and, at the same time, maintain and continue all authorized purposes of the Colorado River Storage Project. The purpose of the proposed action is to operate Flaming Gorge Dam to protect and assist in recovery of the populations and designated critical habitat of the four endangered fishes, while maintaining all authorized purposes of the Flaming Gorge Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), including those related to the development of water resources in accordance with the Colorado River Compact. As the Federal agency responsible for the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam, Reclamation was the lead agency in preparing the EIS. Eight cooperating agencies also participated in preparing this EIS: the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Status of Humpback Chub, Gila Cypha, and Catch
    Population Status of Humpback Chub, Gila cypha, and Catch Indices and Population Structure of Sympatric Roundtail Chub, Gila robusta, in Black Rocks, Colorado River, Colorado, 1998- 2012 Picture 1. Humpback chub on grid board (2012). Photo credit: T. Francis, USFWS. Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Project Number 131 (22a3) Final Report April, 2016 Travis A. Francis U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado River Fishery Project 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 140 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 -and- Dr. Kevin R. Bestgen Dr. Gary C. White Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 i Suggested Citation: Francis, T.A., K.R. Bestgen, and G.C. White. 2016. Population status of humpback chub, Gila cypha, and catch indices and population structure of sympatric roundtail chub, Gila robusta, in Black Rocks, Colorado River, Colorado, 1998-2012. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 199. Final Report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Project Number 131. Grand Junction, Colorado. ii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Razorback Suckers Are Making a Comeback in the Upper Colorado River Basin
    Winter 13 Razorback suckers are making a comeback in the upper Colorado River basin iologists are thrilled that the recovery programs’ stocking Hatchery programs have been very successful. In the upper efforts are bearing fruit and razorback suckers are becom- basin, razorback suckers are being raised by the Ouray National Bing more numerous throughout the upper Colorado River Fish Hatchery, Randlett and Grand Valley units near Vernal, Utah basin. “We catch so many razorbacks these days; it takes us lon- and Grand Junction, Colorado. Following analysis of razorback ger to complete our Colorado pikeminnow sampling trips,” says sucker stocking and survival by Colorado State University’s Larval U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) researcher Travis Francis. Fish Lab, the Recovery Program increased the size of razorback Historically, the razorback sucker occurred throughout warm- sucker for stocking from an average of about 11 inches to about 14 water reaches of the Colorado River Basin from Mexico to Wyoming. PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY UDWR-MOAB inches and is stocking the fish in the fall when fish survive better. When this species was listed in 1991, its numbers were much reduced To increase growth, the Program raises the fish in a combination and biologists were worried it might become extinct. Thanks to of outdoor ponds during warmer months and indoor tanks in the the efforts of the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation winter. Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery This past summer, many wild-spawned razorback larvae drift- Program, these fish are making a real comeback today. Hatchery- ed from a middle Green River spawning bar into the Stewart Lake produced fish are being stocked to re-establish the species in the JUVENILE RAZORBACK SUCKER, MAY, 2013 wetland about 11 miles downstream.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Pikeminnow: Forgotten Predator of the Lower Colorado River
    Colorado Pikeminnow: Forgotten Predator of the Lower Colorado River David Ward US Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Outline • Historical context • A common misperception about Colorado Pikeminnow • Political Context • A Call to Action Historical Context Celebration at completion of Laguna Dam 1909 Concrete Cap on Laguna Dam stretching from CA to AZ Catching Colorado pikeminnow above Hoover Dam c.1938 Last Colorado pikeminnow captured in Lake Mohave, November 13, 1962 1976 last pikeminnow caught in Grand Canyon at Havasu Creek A Common Misperception • Colorado Pikeminnow will cause detrimental impacts to other endangered fish Conservation efforts through predation Flathead Catfish Smallmouth Bass Bullhead Catfish Colorado Pikeminnow Body depth of Humpback Chub Body depth of Razorback Sucker Why Have they Been forgotten? •2002 Recovery Goals stated that no Conservation actions downstream of Glen Canyon Dam count toward species recovery • This decision was to be re- evaluated during 5-year status reviews - but has not occurred Adult Pikeminnow persist in the Verde River, but no research is conducted because no money is available The River is too disjunct! Segregated native fish management Marsh and Pacey 2005 Clarkson et al. 2005 Mueller 2005 If we are not going to pursue segregated fish management Which of our native fish are likely to persist with Non-native fishes? Colorado Pikeminow – one of best candidates Conclusions • Gape comparisons indicate Pikeminnow pose little threat relative to other introduced predatory fishes (and they have no teeth) • Arguments against repatriation based on fears of potential negative impacts to other endangered native fishes may be overstated • Without revision of the recovery goals the fate of Colorado Pikeminnow in the Lower Colorado River basin may be sealed.
    [Show full text]
  • Flaming Gorge Operation Plan - May 2021 Through April 2022
    Flaming Gorge Operation Plan - May 2021 through April 2022 Concurrence by Kathleen Callister, Resources Management Division Manager Kent Kofford, Provo Area Office Manager Nicholas Williams, Upper Colorado Basin Power Manager Approved by Wayne Pullan, Upper Colorado Basin Regional Director U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation • Interior Region 7 Upper Colorado Basin • Power Office Salt Lake City, Utah May 2021 Purpose This Flaming Gorge Operation Plan (FG-Ops) fulfills the 2006 Flaming Gorge Record of Decision (ROD) requirement for May 2021 through April 2022. The FG-Ops also completes the 4-step process outlined in the Flaming Gorge Standard Operation Procedures. The Upper Colorado Basin Power Office (UCPO) operators will fulfil the operation plan and may alter from FG-Ops due to day to day conditions, although we will attempt to stay within the boundaries of the operations defined below. Listed below are proposed operation plans for four different scenarios: moderately dry, average (above median), average (below median), and moderately wet. As of the publishing of this document, the most likely scenario is the moderately dry, however actual operations will vary with hydrologic conditions. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program), the Flaming Gorge Technical Working Group (FGTWG), Flaming Gorge Working Group (FG WG), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) provided input that was considered in the development of this report. The FG-Ops describes the current hydrologic classification of the Green River Basin and the hydrologic conditions in the Yampa River Basin. The FG-Ops identifies the most likely Reach 2 peak flow magnitude and duration that is to be targeted for the upcoming spring flows.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Mark-Recapture Monitoring of a Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus Lucius Population: Assessing Recovery Progress Using Demographic Trends
    Vol. 34: 131–147, 2017 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Published July 31 https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00842 Endang Species Res OPEN ACCESS Long-term mark-recapture monitoring of a Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius population: assessing recovery progress using demographic trends Douglas B. Osmundson1,3,*, Gary C. White2 1Colorado River Fishery Project, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 445 West Gunnison Ave., Suite 140, Grand Junction, CO 81505, USA 2Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, 1484 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA 3Present address: 380 34 Road, Palisade, CO 81526, USA ABSTRACT: Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius, a large, endangered, piscivorous cypri- nid once abundant throughout warm-water reaches of North America’s Colorado River system, has been reduced to 2 wild populations inhabiting the Colorado and Green rivers. Status and trends of these remaining populations were unknown when a recovery program was initiated in 1987. During 1991 to 2013, we used mark-recapture to monitor the smaller Colorado River popu- lation. Adult abundance was estimated and patterns of recruitment and dispersal assessed to determine if recovery actions produced a population response. In 1992, adults were rare (Nˆ = 345; 95% CI = 216 to 583) in the 288 km study area, but recruitment of a strong 1986 year class began a positive trend, and adult estimates reached 674 (95% CI = 517 to 897) by 2008. A significant decline then ensued, and by 2013, an estimated 282 adults remained (95% CI = 204 to 407). Annual adult survival was relatively high and stable. Juvenile survival was variable, making catch rates of young-of-the-year unreliable predictors of later recruitment strength.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater
    FishTraits database Traits References Allen, D. M., W. S. Johnson, and V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1995. Trophic relationships and seasonal utilization of saltmarsh creeks by zooplanktivorous fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42(1)37-50. [multiple species] Anderson, K. A., P. M. Rosenblum, and B. G. Whiteside. 1998. Controlled spawning of Longnose darters. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 60:137-145. [678] Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila Spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970(1):9-18. [485] Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Belk, M. C., J. B. Johnson, K. W. Wilson, M. E. Smith, and D. D. Houston. 2005. Variation in intrinsic individual growth rate among populations of leatherside chub (Snyderichthys copei Jordan & Gilbert): adaptation to temperature or length of growing season? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:177-184. [349] Bonner, T. H., J. M. Watson, and C. S. Williams. 2006. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. In Press. [133] Bonnevier, K., K. Lindstrom, and C. St. Mary. 2003. Parental care and mate attraction in the Florida flagfish, Jordanella floridae. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology 53:358-363. [410] Bortone, S. A. 1989. Notropis melanostomus, a new speices of Cyprinid fish from the Blackwater-Yellow River drainage of northwest Florida. Copeia 1989(3):737-741. [575] Boschung, H.T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. [multiple species] 1 FishTraits database Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus Lucius
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FINAL March 2020 Species Status Assessment Report for the Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior Upper Colorado Basin Region 7 Denver, CO FINAL Species Status Assessment March 2020 PREFACE This Species Status Assessment provides an integrated, scientifically sound assessment of the biological status of the endangered Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius. This document was prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with assistance from state, federal, and private researchers currently working with Colorado pikeminnow. The writing team would like to acknowledge the substantial contribution of time and effort by those that participated in the Science Team. Writing Team Tildon Jones (Coordinator, Upper Colorado River Recovery Program) Eliza Gilbert (Program Biologist, San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program) Tom Chart (Director, Upper Colorado River Recovery Program) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Status Assessment Advisory Group Craig Hansen (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6) Reviewers and Collaborators Upper Colorado River Recovery Program Directors Office: Donald Anderson, Katie Busch, Melanie Fischer, Kevin McAbee, Cheyenne Owens, Julie Stahli Science Team: Kevin Bestgen, Jim Brooks, Darek Elverud, Eliza Gilbert, Steven Platania, Dale Ryden, Tom Chart Peer Reviewers: Keith Gido, Wayne Hubert Upper Colorado River Recovery Program Biology Committee Members: Paul Badame, Pete Cavalli, Harry Crockett, Bill
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution, Demise, and Restoration of the Native Fishes of the Lower Colorado River by Brent R
    The evolution, demise, and restoration of the native fishes of the lower Colorado River By Brent R. Campos ABSTRACT Throughout the last century, the Colorado River’s natural flow regime was drastically altered by the infrastructure of water regulation. The once dramatic seasonal and annual variations in water flows, which shaped the life histories and unique morphologies of its native fishes, have been subdued by the many impoundments throughout the river. Bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, speckled dace, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnnow, humpback chub and razorback sucker are fish native to the Colorado River Basin, the latter four being critically endangered endemics. The native fish face two major threats: (1) habitat degradation, caused by cold, sediment-starved, and relatively flat-lined water releases, and (2) nonnative fishes, introduced since the late 1800s. Both of these threats work together in precluding the recruitment of the natives. The cold, clear, hypolimnetic releases degrade the natives’ backwater rearing habitat and cause near-zero growth rates in their young-of-year offspring, while the introduced fishes predate upon the young-of-year and juveniles. The current and proposed management strategies for restoring and/or perpetuating the fish native to the mainstem of the lower Colorado River include experimental flows, mimicking the natural flow regime, tailwater warming, nonnative fish control, and artificially-maintained populations. A holistic, ecosystem-based approach, using a combination of these management options, will likely be needed if the sustainable recovery of the lower Colorado River’s native fishes is ever to be achieved. INTRODUCTION The many dams impeding the natural flow of water on the Colorado River and its tributaries make the Colorado River Basin one of the most altered watersheds in the world (Fradkin 1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Response of Native Fish Fauna to Dams in the Lower Colorado River By
    Response of native fish fauna to dams in the Lower Colorado River By: Mikaela Provost ([email protected]) ECL 290 Grand Canyon Course March 8, 2017 Introduction As early as 1895 explorers and naturalists came to know the Grand Canyon as a unique system unlike any other river system in North America. One of the Canyon’s most distinguishing features, its fish fauna, was described by Evermann and Rutter (1895), both employees of the US Bureau of Fisheries who traveled extensively throughout the Colorado River Basin: “Though the families and species are very few, they are unusual interest to the student of geographic distribution… over 78% of the species of fishes now known from the Colorado Basin are peculiar to… a larger percentage of species peculiar to a single river basin than is found elsewhere in North America.” The Colorado River has the lowest diversity of fish and highest endemism of river systems in the North America, likely due to the system’s isolation and the high variability of temperature and flow conditions in the mainstem and tributaries The Grand Canyon native fish fauna is comprised of eight species; six endemic to the Grand Canyon and two, Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus) and Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta), are found throughout the Colorado River Basin. Humpback Chub (Gila cyhpa), Bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), and Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) are listed or proposed as endangered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus latipinnis) and Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus) remain relatively common throughout the Lower Basin (Minckley et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment for Restoring Fish Passage at the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam on the Colorado River Near Palisade, Color
    BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR RESTORING FISH PASSAGE AT THE PRICE-STUBB DIVERSION DAM ON THE COLORADO RIVER NEAR PALISADE, COLORADO Bureau of Reclamation Western Colorado Area Office Upper Colorado Region Grand Junction, Colorado June 2003 Price-Stubb Fish Passage Biological Assessment - 1 - Price-Stubb Diversion Dam Vicinity Map Rifle X( r e iv R o d DeBeque ra lo X( o C Loma Pa ( lis Gr and Va lley P roje ct Dive rs ion Da m X ad $Z X( Fruita e Grand X( $Z Price-Stubb Diversion Dam Junction $Z GVIC Diversion Dam and Fish Passage N # Redlands Diversion Dam S and Fish Ladder $Z G u W E n n is o n R S iv e r x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grand Valley Project x x $Zx x Diversion Dam x . x r x C x u x a x e x t x x la x x P x x r x x e x x v i x x R x x x o x d x a x r x x o x l x x xx xx o x x C x x x x x x x x x #·x Colorado River Siphon x x %[x Ute Water Pump Plant x x x $Zx x Price-Stubb x x Interstate 70 x x x Diversion Dam S# x Palisade x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Hwy 6 x x 232.x 3 x $Zx GVIC Diversion Dam x x x x x x xx x x x x x x xx xx x and Fish Passage x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Price-Stubb Fish Passage Biological Assessment - 2 - Table of Contents Page 1.1 Purpose 01 1.2 Recovery Program 02 2.1 Project Description 03 2.2 Construction 04 2.3 Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Measures 04 3.0 Federally Listed Species 04 3.1.0 Colorado River Endangered Fishes 05 3.1.1 Colorado Pikeminnow 05 3.1.2 Colorado Pikeminnow Distribution-Colorado River 06 3.1.3 Colorado Pikeminnow
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of the Dakotas
    South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2020 Fishes of the Dakotas Kathryn Schlafke South Dakota State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Schlafke, Kathryn, "Fishes of the Dakotas" (2020). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3942. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd/3942 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FISHES OF THE DAKOTAS BY KATHRYN SCHLAFKE A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Major in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Specialization in Fisheries Science South Dakota State University 2020 ii THESIS ACCEPTANCE PAGE Kathryn Schlafke This thesis is approved as a creditable and independent investigation by a candidate for the master’s degree and is acceptable for meeting the thesis requirements for this degree. Acceptance of this does not imply that the conclusions reached by the candidate are necessarily the conclusions of the major department. Brian Graeb, Ph.D. Advisor Date Michele R. Dudash Department Head Date Dean, Graduate School Date iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my advisors throughout this project, Dr. Katie Bertrand and Dr. Brian Graeb for giving me the opportunity to work towards a graduate degree at South Dakota State University.
    [Show full text]