9554 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Flows . Peak and average flows varied over the study period. Again, we did not do any statistical analyses on these data; however, by overlaying peak and average annual flows onto catch rates for northern pike in the middle Green River, some patterns do emerge (Figure 5). For the . northern pike removal project, it initially appears that low flow may have been responsible for the decrease in catch rates between 2001 and 2002 for both electro fishing and fyke netting. It is difficult to conclude, however, that the decrease in catch rates were entirely a result of low flows . because catch rates did not rebound with an increase in flows in 2003 or any subsequent year. Over the same low-flow period, however, there was no real decrease in trammel netting catch . rates, suggesting that trammel netting may be a more consistent method of removal over varying hydrologies. Flows may affect catch rates of northern pike during the Colorado pikeminnow . abundance estimates (Figure 6), during which northern pike catch rates mirrored patterns in annual peak flow. Northern pike catch rates during smallmouth bass removal seem to show the opposite trend (Figure 6). It is important to realize, however, that these two projects are . conducted at very different times of the year in terms of hydrology. The pikeminnow abundance estimate is completed in the spring before peak flows, whereas smallmouth bass removal is done . after peak flows recede. In 2005 and 2006, most of the smallmouth bass removal was actually done during base flows. Therefore, the number of northern pike captured during these studies may instead be a result of the timing of the projects, not necessary flows. . Net placement Specific net set locations varied little between 2001 and 2005, and only to improve catch . rates. For example, if crews had set a net in the mouth of Ashley Creek that was not fishing well after one or two days, they moved it within this same general location to better catch fish as they . 23