8220

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8220
• Author: Miller, W. J. and D. E. Rees.
• Title: Colorado Squawfish Habitat Use and Movement During Summer Low Flow in the Yampa River Upstream of Cross Mountain Canyon.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: Fort Collins, Colorado.
• Copyright Material: NO

habitat but only slightly during the entire eight weeks of observations conducted on the

river. In addition, one fish used an eddy pool, but less than 5% of the time of
observation.
Channel catfish used pools and runs but the majority of the time they were in pools
(Figure 37). The run habitat used was at a higher rate than that used by Colorado
squawfish and probably is indicative of difference in feeding behavior and general habitat
differences exhibited by the two species.
Northern pike, like Colorado squawfish, mainly used pools during the study. There was
some backwater habitat used by these fish. This was the only species that was observed
using the backwater habitat during the low flow period (Figure 38).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for the 1997 field season include modifications to determining
available habitat in conjunction with habitat use during the radio telemetry study. The
observations for the radio telemetry will remain the same in 1997 with the exception that
the 24 hour observations will be a priority. Fish that are on accessible areas will be
observed in 1997 for a 24 hour period. Contacts in 1996 were limited due to land owner
access and the need to implant fish throughout the first four weeks of the study. The
recommendation for 1997 is to contact all land owners early in the year to advise them
that we would like access to their property so that we may either canoe through or get
land access at various locations to observe the fish.
Habitat use information should be based on ground contacted fish locations. Contacts by
air overflights should be used for general river location to assist ground crews in locating
implanted fish. Ground crews were able to triangulate locations of implanted fish to
verify actual river locations. In some instances the actual locations differed by several
miles from the location reported by air surveys. The large differences, with no apparent
Draft Yampa River Radio Telemetry Report Page 51
Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. December 13, 1996