Laserfiche WebLink
<br />RM 21.6 (Freq. 40,7334) and 29.7 (Freq. 40.6233). <br /> <br />Considerable movement was observed among the five humpback chub implanted with <br />transmitters (Figure 8). Average distance moved weekly following the first three weeks of <br />August was 8.2 river miles per week. Greatest movement occurred prior to the third week of <br />August and coincided with greater declines in discharge. After discharge seemed to reach the <br />lower boundaries, movement distance between dates decreased (3.7 miles/week between August <br />22 and September 10). All humpback chub were observed to move upstream at some time during <br />the low flow period, indicating that all fish survived and moved during the length of the study. <br />By the end of October all fish were found in the river above river mile 24.2. <br /> <br />Following implantation of channel catfish minimal movement was detected until the last <br />aerial flight 29 October (Figure 9). Whereas, aerial locations of fish did not vary over one mile in <br />three of five fish (one fish moved 3 miles and one 2 miles), three of four fish moved more than <br />two miles between the last September and October aerial flight dates. One fish moved in <br />downstream in excess 01'20 miles and another moved upstream approximately 8 miles, <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Radio telemetry data from the post runoff pcriod indicated that two Colorado squawfish <br />and all channel catfish, and all humpback chub remained in Yampa Canyon during the low flow <br />scason. Humpback chub showed the greatest travel distance through this period followed by the <br />two Colorado squawfish and an apparent lack of movement by channel catfish, until movement <br />to overwinter sites within the canyon. Distance Iraveled between contacts for both Colorado <br />squawfish and humpback chub appeared to decrease following onset of basetlows. <br /> <br />The failure to obtain 24 hr mowmcnt data on humpback chub and Colorado squawfish <br />reduce the capability of defining available habit31 in the canyon. Greater average depths and <br />increased quantity oflarge (boulder) substJ'ale may have reduced the effectiveness of collecting <br />telemetry data. Increased trips (with monitoring rails on each side of the canyon) and the use of a <br />new, longer whip antenna will be us cd to increase the efficiency of finding tish during the low <br />now period. <br /> <br />lllAPTER 2: HABITAT OUANTlI'ICA IlOJ\ <br /> <br />1\1ethods <br /> <br />This study used the eight strata (river reaches) described by Miller el al. (1982) for sample <br />'ltc selection on the Yampa River (Tablc I) I'our strata werc located below Cross Mountain and <br />,hreL' above Cross Mountain. Since strata" I ('n'" \ 1"untain Canvon) and strata 7 (Juniper <br />('"n, (11) were short, they were not included 111 lb,' "lI11plmg design. Sampling sites within the two <br />stud, strata were randomly selected by di\'idl11g the' strata into 0.5 mile segments, named clusters. <br /> <br />14 <br />