7804 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- k- ~ t It...... ..""":~..".:..'.'..'."".'.....'..'...""...'...'. ,\."f ~.,-, I. i .__.'S---"..,_......_........"."..~...w... At Lodore not a single fish vas found despite several hours of effort to seine the water. Not a single fish a.ppeared in the poisoned channel of the stream. This area. was kept under observation until late afternoon and examined that night and the following day by supervisory Ranger Forsell who was checking hunters in the area. TABI.B 2. F~H COLLECTIONS m DIHOSAUR NATIONAL MJNUMENT, OCTOBER'- 19-21.,1962 Gates of Echo Island Castle Split COJllD)n Name Lodore Park Perk Park M:Juntain Flannel-mouth sucker 1 8 12 25 Channel catfish 2 1 2 Colo. River squawf1sh 2 Round-tailed chub 12 2 5 Bluehead Mtn. sucker .. 10 ~ Colo. mottled sculpin 4- Utah silversides minnow .. 1 Green River Spring dace 2 15 103 2 Carp 10 1 36 :Black bullhead 2 Fathead minnow 11 .. Tota.1 0 26 35 133 75 Table 3, contrasts the species composition in the section sampled in 1961 and 1962. The greatest reduction vas at Lodore, of course (Figures 9 and 10), where no fish were found in 1962. At Echo Park there were only three of the species found of the eleven recorded in 1962. P1me~hales was found in 1962 at Echo Park but not in 1961. Loss of species vas great at Island Park but less severe at Split J.i:>untain. Obviously the methods used cannot guarantee that the sampling was representative of the fish present and that some fish species are not still in the river. :rt is certainly hoped that they are. The contrast between the numbers of fish taken in 1961 and 1962" however, was very apparent to all those who had participated in both expeditions. In 1961 so many fish were taken with less effective equipment and. in higher waters that no attempt vas made to count actual numbers of' fish. This is now regrettable in view of the change feuud in' 1962. In Echo Park" for example" the 1961 crew turned up hundreds of fishes in only one I1hole. near the entrance of Pool Creek. In 1962, this hole plus the entire section of' the river pro- duced only twenty-six fish. There is no doubt that the fish kill in the M:>nument was very extensive from the accidental stream pollution in September. A prel:lminary count of invertebra.te organisms taken in 1962 as cOJlilared with 1961 is shown in Table 4. The decrease in bottom organisms between 1961 and 1962" was ve'r7 striking. This is again contrar;y to what might be expected bad the stream not been polluted. The lover water "ould =9=