DOCSLIB.ORG

NORTHERN PIKE (Esox Lucius) CONTROL in the MIDDLE GREEN RIVER, UTAH 2001-2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NORTHERN PIKE (Esox Lucius) CONTROL in the MIDDLE GREEN RIVER, UTAH 2001-2006 NORTHERN PIKE (Esox lucius) CONTROL in the MIDDLE GREEN RIVER, UTAH 2001-2006 L. Monroe and T. Hedrick Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 152 East 100 North Vernal, UT 84078 SYNTHESIS REPORT February 22, 2008 Prepared for: Upper Colorado River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program Project Number: 109 Publication Number 08-XX Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1592 West North Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84114 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER This study was funded by the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Recovery Program is a joint effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Upper Basin water users, environmental organizations, the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, and the National Park Service. The authors would like to acknowledge the work of the previous principal investigators on this project: Ron Brunson and Kevin Christopherson, and thank Brent Sheffer and Ben Williams for their work on the project from 2001-2005. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their comments and critiques. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the authors, the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior, or members of the Recovery Implementation Program. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER..................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 3 LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ 5 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF KEY WORDS ...............................................................................................................7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 7 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 9 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................... 11 STUDY AREA............................................................................................................................. 12 METHODS.................................................................................................................................. 13 SAMPLING.................................................................................................................................. 13 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT .......................................................................................................... 14 AGE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 15 STOMACH CONTENT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 15 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 16 SAMPLING.................................................................................................................................. 16 2001....................................................................................................................................... 16 2002....................................................................................................................................... 16 2003....................................................................................................................................... 17 2004....................................................................................................................................... 17 2005....................................................................................................................................... 18 2006....................................................................................................................................... 18 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT .......................................................................................................... 19 AGE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 20 STOMACH CONTENT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 21 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 22 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT .......................................................................................................... 22 FACTORS AFFECTING CATCH RATES.......................................................................................... 22 Flows..................................................................................................................................... 23 Net placement........................................................................................................................ 23 Equipment issues................................................................................................................... 24 Crew turnover....................................................................................................................... 24 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 24 AGE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 266 STOMACH CONTENT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 288 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 29 3 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 31 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................. 32 4 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. CATCH RATES AND TOTAL NUMBER OF NORTHERN PIKE REMOVED DURING THE NORTHERN PIKE REMOVAL PROJECT (ONLY) FROM THE MIDDLE GREEN RIVER: 2001 – 2006. ..................................................................................................... 34 TABLE 2. EFFORT EXPENDED BY GEAR TYPE DURING THE NORTHERN PIKE REMOVAL PROJECT (ONLY): 2001-2006............................................................................... 34 TABLE 3. EFFORT AND NUMBER OF NORTHERN PIKE REMOVED DURING OTHER PROJECTS IN THE MIDDLE GREEN RIVER: 2001-2006. ..................................................... 34 TABLE 4. NORTHERN PIKE CAPTURES BY LOCATION: 2001-2006. .............................. 35 TABLE 5. NORTHERN PIKE CATCH RATES FROM THE UPPER AND MIDDLE YAMPA RIVER REMOVAL PROJECTS.................................................................................................. 35 TABLE 6. AGE GROUPINGS BY YEAR: 2001-2006.............................................................. 35 TABLE 7. INFORMATION COLLECTED ON THE FOUR NORTHERN PIKE ORIGINALLY TAGGED IN THE YAMPA RIVER AND SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVED FROM THE GREEN RIVER....................................................................................................... 35 5 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN WITH THE NORTHERN PIKE CONTROL REACH HIGHLIGHTED......................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 2. LENGTH FREQUENCY OF NORTHERN PIKE CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE GREEN RIVER: 2001................................................................................................................. 37 FIGURE 3. LENGTH FREQUENCY OF NORTHERN PIKE CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE GREEN RIVER: 2002-2003......................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 4. LENGTH FREQUENCY OF NORTHERN PIKE CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE GREEN RIVER: 2004-2006......................................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 5. AVERAGE AND PEAK ANNUAL FLOW (CUBIC METERS PER SECOND) AS MEASURED AT THE GREEN RIVER GAUGE AT JENSEN, UT, COMPARED WITH THE NORTHERN PIKE CATCH-PER-UNIT-EFFORT (NUMBER OF NORTHERN PIKE/HOUR OR NUMBER OF NORTHERN PIKE/FYKE-NET NIGHT) IN THE MIDDLE GREEN RIVER FROM 2001 – 2006 (NORTHERN PIKE REMOVAL PROJECT ONLY)..... 38 FIGURE 6. AVERAGE AND PEAK ANNUAL FLOW (CUBIC METERS PER SECOND) AS MEASURED AT THE GREEN RIVER GAUGE AT JENSEN, UT, COMPARED WITH THE NORTHERN PIKE CATCH-PER-UNIT-EFFORT (NUMBER OF NORTHERN PIKE/HOUR ) IN THE MIDDLE GREEN RIVER FROM 2001 – 2006 (ALL OTHER PROJECTS). ................................................................................................................................. 39 FIGURE 7. NORTHERN PIKE AGE ESTIMATES BY YEAR................................................ 39 FIGURE 8. NORTHERN PIKE AGE CLASS BY YEAR. ........................................................ 40 FIGURE 9. AVERAGE AND PEAK ANNUAL FLOW (CUBIC METERS PER SECOND)
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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]