Laserfiche WebLink
<br />10 <br /> <br />,I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />,I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />presented as a means of indicating possible changes that have occurred in the Dolores River in the <br />last 9-10 years. Based on differences in catch rates and species composition between BIO/WEST's <br />1990 and 1991 data, the potential for a high variability in catch data is apparent. Differences between <br />the two studies were expected especially with differences in gear types, efficiency and methods. Since <br />these differences could not be evaluated, comparisons between catch data from the two studies <br />focused on gross differences in composition and catch rates. <br /> <br />Catch rates for netting and electrofishing combined (Table 29) showed little differences between <br />the two studies. No unusual discrepancies or patterns were identified between the two data sets. <br />Catch rates for seining also showed no major differences between the two studies (Table 30). One <br />minor difference was the high catch rates for red shiners and roundtail chubs by the Service in April <br />followed by a decline in July. BIO/WEST's data suggests an opposite pattern, low catch rates in April <br />followed by higher catch rates in July as individuals from the current year class became prominent <br />in the catch. Differences may have reflected a poor year class of these two species during the <br />Service's study in 1981. <br /> <br />No major changes in fish species composition captured in gill nets, trammel nets and by <br />electrofishing were evident between the two studies (Table 31). Several trends were noteworthy and <br />suggested subtle changes in species composition. Except for Reach 1, consistently lower catch rates <br />of round tail chub by BIO/WEST suggest a decrease in abundance of this species. Conversely, <br />consistently higher catch rates of flannelmouth suckers in all reaches except Reach 1 indicate an <br />increased abundance of this species, particularly higher in the drainage. <br /> <br />With the exception of compositional shifts between sand shiners, red shiners and fathead <br />minnows, seining data showed very few changes in species composition of fish captured seining since <br />1981 (Table 32). The shift in composition between red shiners, sand shiners and fathead minnows <br />probably represents natural variation in populations of these prolific species. <br /> <br />4.3 Summary of Colorado Squawfish Habitat Assessment <br /> <br />Habitat suitability assessment of the Dolores River for Colorado squawfish was divided into three <br />components including: 1) physical attributes; 2) chemical attributes, and 3) biological attributes. Each <br />of these components is address in the following sections. <br /> <br />4.3.1 Physical Attributes <br /> <br />Habitat suitability of the Dolores River was influenced by physical attributes such as flow, <br />temperature, substrate characteristics, habitat structure, and channel morphology. Measuring these <br />physical attributes was generally not difficult, but determining the combination of attnbutes most <br />suitable to a species like the Colorado squawfish is not well defined, particularly since the fish cannot <br />be observed directly. For the purposes of this study, it was necessary to use information collected <br />on physical habitat for Colorado squawfish from other upper basin rivers. We assumed that physical <br />habitat of the Dolores River was suitable and not limiting if its physical attributes were within the <br />range in areas of other rivers used by the species. <br /> <br />Criteria for physical habitat suitability were based on HSI curves developed by Valdez et ale <br />(1987), for endangered fish of the Upper Colorado River Basin. These HSI curves were developed <br />using data collected on various life stages of Colorado squawfish between 1964 and 1985. Studies of <br />Colorado squawfish in other upper basin drainages were also used. Information collected from the <br />Yampa and White rivers was used to describe habitat requirements, since these systems may be <br />