Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Each cluster was numbered and 9 clusters were selected from strata I, 11 from strata 2, 3 from <br />strata 3, 2 from strata 4, 12 from strata 6, and 13 from strata 8 in 1996. The rest will be sampled in <br />1997 (Table 2). <br /> <br />Table 1 . The river mile and location of sample strata (river reaches) in the Yampa River, Colorado, <br />1996. <br /> <br />I Strata I River Mile I Description I <br /> 1 0-20 Echo Park to Harding Hole <br /> 2 20-45.0 Harding Hole to Deerlodge Park <br /> , 45.0-51.0 Deerlodge Park to Little Snake River ConHuence <br /> ~ <br /> 4 51.0-55.6 Little Snake River ConHuence to Cross Mountain <br /> 5 55.6,58.8 Cross mountain Canyon <br /> 6 58.8-88.7 Cross Mountain Canyon to Juniper Canvon <br /> 7 88.7-91.0 Juniper Canyon <br /> 8 91.0,124.0 Juniper Canyon to Round Bottom <br /> <br />Habitat features were determined for a rift1e:run sequence using cross sectional profiles. <br />Cross sections were made between headpins on both sides nf the channel and measured the bed <br />profile and water surface elevations and also depth, velocity and substrate at 25 to 30 points. The <br />1irst cross section was placed at the most suitable hydraulic control in the cluster. Cross sections <br />llpstream of the control were positioned to describe the Imver run, middle run. pool or upper run, <br />I,mer riffle, and at the shallowest part of the riffle ('ross sectional measurements were taken in <br />September during the low How period. Only nne stage-discharge measurement was taken at each <br />cross section. The range of concern for habitat availability was at flows of less than about 200 to <br />30n cis. Therefore, as long as field readings wcrc WIthin this range, only one calibration flow was <br />considered necessary. <br /> <br />Habitat types were defined by a certain combmation of depths and velocity. Instead of <br />assigning suitability values for depth and velocity for a species and liCe stage, we characterized the <br />river intn six discrete habitat types. Threc of these habitat l\'pes arc considered usable by adult <br />Colorado squawtish and three of them arc not (Tahle)). Class I and Class 11 pools (over 2m and <br />1m. respectively), were used by Wick and Hawkins (I QX6) in their habitat snitability model for <br />ddull Cl)lurado squawfish. Their determination was thai adult CS were 2.~ times more likely to be <br />GlLlght from pools over 2 m deep than in pools bet\"'l'l1 ] and 2 111 of depth. Thev also reported that <br />[lools IeS, than 25 square meters were con,idercd U111hL'd. Habitat use inl"nnatiol1 obtained by <br />reldil) 1ldcking during the study was also used tll vali'!;lt." the criteria used to de1lne usable habitats <br /> <br />1'7 <br />