Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Fish were successfully located and monitored in the upper study reach of the river, however, site <br />locations offish in Yampa Canyon were unsuccessful and no 24 hr monitoring was <br />accomplished. Telemetry data results from Yampa Canyon are provided in this report and the <br />results from fish in the upper study reach are located in the companion report (Miller and Rees <br />1997). <br /> <br />Results <br /> <br />Two trips were made through Yampa Canyon to implant radio transmitters in the four <br />target species and two additional trips were made to monitor specific locations of transmitter <br />implanted fishes. Sampling trips were made 1-5 July, and 15-19 July to implant study fish and <br />monitoring trips were made 3-6 September, and 30 September through 5 October, 1996. During <br />the first collection trip 5 Colorado squawfish (RM 23.8), 4 humpback chub (RM 37.5, 23.8, 18.2, <br />and 16.8), 3 channel catfish (RM 36.0, 18.2, and 16.8) and no northern pike wcre implanted <br />(Appendix I, Table 1). During the second collection trip I humpback (RM 36.2) and two channel <br />catfish (RM 39.5 and 37.3) were collected. During the first collection trip all five Colorado <br />squawfish and one humpback chub were collected at Big Joe Rapid (RM 23.8). A large spawning <br />aggregation of roundtail chub were observed at this location, and the single humpback chub <br />collected showed spawning coloration. <br /> <br />During the two telemetry monitoring trips only two ground contacts were made, a <br />Colorado squawfish (frequency 40.6332 at RM 10.3) and a channel catlish (frequency 40.5739 as <br />R\l 18.2), both during the 3-6 September trip. Site inspection of the Colorado squawfish contact <br />indicated no movement of the signal. Therefore, either the fish shed the transmitter or died <br />following implantation. No ground contact was made from any humpback chub in either <br />monitonng trip. [n an effort to increase the efficiencv of finding tish in Yampa Canyon, a large <br />18' whip antenna was used during the second monitoring trip. however. no lish contact was <br />made. <br /> <br />Despite the lack of ground contacts, movement patterns uf Colorado squawfish, <br />humpback chub and channel catfish were observed from aerial surveys. '\mong the Colorado <br />squawfish implanted, two let! Yampa Canyon during the second week ofAugUSL one month <br />[(lllowing implantation. Onc lish either died or lost its transmitter and two lish rcmained in <br />Yampa Canyon through the low flow period until at least 2C) October 96. All humpback chub <br />and channel catlish implanted in Yampa Canyon remained 1n thc C'all\on through the last aerial <br />night in 29 October. <br /> <br />Of the two Colorado squawfish that remained in Y ilmpa Cany"n, one remained in the <br />upper reach of the canyon and the other in the mid to lower reach of the canyon. Both fish <br />appeared to remain in a general area of the river f(lllowing 1" August (Figure 7). Following mid <br />'\ugusL "ne fish ranged from RM 12.1 to 20.1 (Freq 40.7i~41. :1I1d the other (Frcq. 40. 6233) <br />from 39.1 to 43.3 between mid August and late September On 2') October those same two fish <br />were found at <br /> <br />12 <br />