Laserfiche WebLink
<br />34 <br /> <br />squawfish used backwaters almost exclusively in the Colorado River near <br /> <br />Grand Junction, although times of capture were not noted. <br /> <br />Small humpback chubs have similar habitat preferences to small <br /> <br />squawfi sh but use more of a variety of areas, especially eddies . No <br /> <br />previous study has reported on preferred habitats of small humpback <br />chubs. <br /> <br />Habitat preferences of adult humpback chubs have generally included <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />\ eddies near fast current (Holden and Stalnaker, 1975) and/or depths of <br />20+ feet (Kidd, 1977). The data collected during the present study show <br /> <br />no distinct preference for either depth or velocity, although some hump- <br /> <br />backs were caught in very fast currents (2.5 fps) and in very deep areas <br /> <br />(20 ft.). <br /> <br />Concerning electivity curves, the Cooperative Instream Flow Service <br /> <br />Group has set guidelines for evaluating reliability based on number of <br />fish captured. They suggest the following reliability levels: excellent, <br /> <br />200 individual measurements; good, 50-200 samples; and fair, less than <br /> <br />50 measurements. Using these criteria, none of the curves shown above <br /> <br />can be rated excellent, young-of-the-year squawfish and humpback chubs <br />are good, and the others only fair. The additional information from the <br />literature would probably increase the reliability of the young-of-the- <br />year squawfish data, but would add little reliability to the other groups. <br /> <br />It is doubtful that a two-month study of rare Colorado Basin fishes <br /> <br />can produce sufficient data for excellent reliability, except for young- <br /> <br />of-the-year fish. The endangered status of the Colorado squawfish and <br /> <br />humpback chub suggest extreme rareness, as, in fact, they are, Several <br /> <br />