7346 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Squawfish could have been attracted to the warmer waters of the Little Snake River and to better feeding opportunities. Average movement of radiotagged fish related to spawning was 65 miles (range 34.5 - 84.5 miles) for both years. This was the one-way distance from the point of last contact above Yampa Canyon to the lowest river mile location in Yampa Canyon. In the summer 1987, three fish (A08, All, and Bll) were located within the spawning area of Yampa Canyon (personal communication H.M. Tyus, USFWS, Vernal, Utah). All three fish were located back at their over- wintering areas in the fall, 1987. Four fish (A91, B85, C87, and C89) were known to migrate to the Yampa Canyon spawning area in the sumunar, 1988, (personal communication, H.M. Tyus, USFWS, Vernal, Utah). Fish C87 was located during a radiotelemetry spot check of the area by the authors. Fish B85 was collected by CDOW during the Fall 1988, at RNII 80.8 (Table 3). These fish exhibited a high degree of honing ability and fidelity by locating and using the same habitats previously used after spawning migration. Three of the implanted fish (BB7, C87, and e95) had capture histories that also indicated fidelity to a specific river reach over one or more years. For example, fish C87 was recaptured, radiotracked over an entire winter, and relocated during the fall of the next year only 0.1 mile from where it had been originally caught and Carlin tagged 7 years earlier (Table 3). Although fish remained in specific areas during the winter, they were also quite active within each habitat. Fish in embayments and backwaters would move between several favored spots within the habitat, staying in a spat for several minutes to several hours before mowing. Fish would often repeat this pattern of movement. These spots were often used by more than one squawfish at the same time. Movement did not appear to be influenced by the presence of other Colorado squawfish. This would often result in small congregations of two to three Colorado squawfish within a one meter diameter spot. Fish using run and shoreline habitats appeared to be more active, mowing within and between habitats more frequently. Fish found in larger ' pools and eddys behaved similar to those in backwater and em ayment habitats.- Those using smaller pools and eddys behaved similar to fish in run and shoreline habitats. I Habitat Use There was a distinct difference in winter habitat use between years. During Winter 1, fish most often used habitats off the min channel (off- Channel habitats). In Winter 2, fish used main-channel habitats (Figures 6 and 7). Predominant habitats used winter 1 were backwater, embaymmt, and 1 run. Run and pool habitat were used more Winter 2. Flows during Winter 1 were higher, whereas flows during Winter 2 were lower than mean historic winter flows (Figure 8 and Appendix c). High use of pool habitat in Winter 2 was due to the addition of the Lily Park study area, which is characterized by pool,and eddy habitat and absence of backwater and embayment habitat. Habitat use by Colorado squawf ish varied between stud areas as did habitat availability. When a variety of habitats was available within a river ' reach, fish often selected off-charnel habitats over main-channel types. Backwater use in Winter 1 was exclusively at the M 95.7 backwater. This backwater was drastically altered during ice-off and spring runoff the first year; this may be a reason for limited use in Winter 2. During Winter 1, this backwater habitat apparently satisfied the needs of fish sufficiently that 21