USGS2014
Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu were rare in the upper Colorado River basin until the early 1990’s when their abundance dramatically increased in the Yampa River sub-basin. Increased abundance was due primarily to colonization from Elkhead Reservoir, which was rapidly drawn down twice, first to make improvements to the dam (1992) and a second time for reservoir expansion (2005), and allowed escapement of resident bass to the river through an unscreened outlet. Elkhead Reservoir is located on Elkhead Creek, a tributary of the Yampa River. The rapid Elkhead Reservoir drawdown in 1992 was followed by a period of drought years with low, early runoff in the Yampa River sub-basin that benefitted smallmouth bass reproduction. This combination of factors allowed smallmouth bass to establish a self-sustaining population in the Yampa River. Subsequently, successful recruitment allowed smallmouth bass to disperse upstream and downstream in the Yampa River and eventually move into the downstream Green River. Smallmouth bass were also likely introduced, by unknown means, into the upper Colorado River and have since dispersed in this sub-basin. The rapid increase of smallmouth bass in the upper Colorado River basin overlapped with significant reductions in native fish populations in some locations. The threat to these native fishes initiated intensive mechanical removal of smallmouth bass by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. In general, three factors explain fluctuating patterns in smallmouth bass density in the upper Colorado River basin in the last decade: reductions due to electrofishing removal, bass recovery after exploitation due to recruitment and immigration, and changes due to environmental factors not related to electrofishing and other management actions. Our analyses indicated that smallmouth bass densities were substantially reduced in most years by 7 electrofishing removal efforts. Less often, but dramatically in some cases, environmental effects were also responsible for significant declines in smallmouth bass densities in some reaches. Abundant year classes of young smallmouth bass produced in low flow and warm years such as 2007 have potential to overwhelm removal efforts, and the year class persists for one or more years. Nonetheless, it appears that increased electrofishing removal efforts from 2007 to 2011 resulted in sustained reductions in density of smallmouth bass sub-adults and adults throughout the upper basin despite environmental conditions that favored smallmouth bass reproduction in some years (e.g. 2007 and 2009), subsequent recruitment into sub-adult and adult age classes, and movement of smallmouth bass which previously (prior to increases in electrofishing removal efforts) allowed densities to recover in some reaches. We recommend that removal efforts continue in most areas of the upper basin but that the Recovery Program consider allocating effort based on population trends and suspected areas of highest smallmouth bass reproduction. For instance, reproduction, recruitment, and movement of smallmouth bass allowed densities to recover in some reaches, particularly Little Yampa Canyon. Smallmouth bass population recovery implies that areas such as Little Yampa Canyon itself or adjacent reaches (especially upstream), may provide important habitat for age-0 production. We recommend continued assessment of smallmouth bass populations in reaches where reproduction or age-1 nurseries are suspected, such as Little Yampa Canyon and the adjacent upstream reach. It may also be necessary to expand monitoring to areas surrounding suspected sources of smallmouth bass reproduction and increase electrofishing removal effort in these reaches.