Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,1 analyses if it,met any <br />lditions: (1) 25 percent <br />m backwaters, concav- <br />embayments and grav- <br />~rcent or more of data <br />60 percent or more of <br />ation of 1 and 2 above. <br />:at constraint was im- <br />the species expe~ts fe~t <br />.tics of habitats Identl- <br />Land 2 could not pres- <br />l. This general habitat <br />to 8 of the 18 curve sets <br />~ three species, which <br />,pecies experts recom- <br />e of these curve sets un- <br />lbitats are characterized <br />LeIs. <br />on of workshop 2, the <br />ld participants felt that <br />nown about the biology <br />IlSed by the endangered <br />lshes to declare the 51 <br />project as final. Instead, <br />o identify these 51 curv~s <br />rves," feeling that addl- <br />>n was being gathered <br />research projects. <br />,0 recognized that other <br />meters besides depth, ve- <br />'ate are likely to be im- <br />re fishes of the Colorado <br />.tem, for example, cover <br />est in the traditional sense <br />anks and vegetation as in <br />n. Rather, it may be de- <br />ity for concealment from <br />structure such as vertical <br />alus slopes, or instream <br />rocks, sand bars, and rock <br />~ts recognized the need to <br />cover as a microhabitat pa- <br />e fish. <br /> <br />, Refinement <br /> <br />lrkshop 2, all curve sets <br />(pert consensus were re- <br />led to the species experts <br />participants for final ~p- <br />ment. Comments were In- <br />a final report (Valdez et al. <br />as distributed to all inter- <br /> <br />This project resulted in 14 51 curves on <br />riverine habitat for humpback chub in the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin (Figures 2-6). <br />These were developed for four life stages <br />identified by the experts as larvae (<21 <br />mm total length); young-of-the-year, YOY <br />(21-74 mm); juvenile (75-259 mm); and <br />adults (>260 mm). One curve set, consist- <br />ing of depth, velocity and substrate 51 <br />curves, was developed for each life stage; <br />no substrate curve was developed for lar- <br />vae. <br /> <br />Larvae <br /> <br />Very little is known about recently- <br />hatched humpback chub. The experts be- <br />lieved that larvae use habitat similar to that <br />of larval Colorado squawfish, for which <br />there were substantial data (Table 1; Figure <br />2). They agreed that the depth and velocity <br />used by larvae of the two species was prob- <br />ably similar, but felt that humpback chub <br />probably use a different substrate, as in- <br />dicated by the rocky regions in which the <br />juveniles and adults occur; no substrate cri- <br />teria were developed for the larval stage. <br />Thus, the depth and velocity 51 curves ap- <br />plied to larval humpback chub were the <br />same as those developed for larval Colo- <br /> <br />RESULTS <br /> <br />rado squaw fish, but a very low confidence <br />rating (0) was given to this curve set be- <br />cause the data were originally developed <br />for another species. The velocity curve was <br />hand-drawn through the data to represent <br />high use of zero velocity areas by larvae. <br />The experts felt that these 51 curves should <br />only be applied to rearing and nursery areas <br />in the Upper Colorado River Basin, and <br />only at the onset of spawning and imme- <br />diately after. The experts did not recom- <br />mend use of this 51 curve set because 89 <br />percent of the data came from backwaters <br />(general habitat constraint applied). The <br />experts recognized the need to more thor- <br />oughly describe the habitat used by young <br />humpback chub, but also acknowledged the <br />problem of distinguishing, in the field and <br />laboratory, the young of the species from <br />other closely-allied sympatric chubs. <br /> <br />Young-Of-The-Year <br /> <br />The small amount of field data describ- <br />ing the microhabitat of YOY humpback <br />chub allowed for only a low confidence <br />rating (C) for this curve set (Figure 3). The <br />small amount of data for this life stage is <br />caused by the difficulty in definitively dis- <br />tinguishing the humpback chub from the <br /> <br />TABLE 1 <br />Depth, velocity and substrate statistics associated with 51 curves for the four life stages of <br />humpback chub in the Upper Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />Parameter Larvae YOY <br />Depth (feet) <br />Observations 1,498 71 <br />Mean 1.4 2.1 <br />Variance 1.7 1.1 <br />Minimum 0.1 0.1 <br />Maximum 8.3 5.1 <br />Velocity (feet per second) <br />Observations 1,512 67 <br />Mean <0.1 0.2 <br />Variance <0.1 0.1 <br />Minimum 0.0 0.0 <br />Maximum 0.3 1.0 <br />Dominant substrate NO SI/SA <br /> <br />a NO = substrate not developed for this lifestage. <br />51 = silt, SA = sand, BO = boulder, BE = bedrock. <br /> <br />January 1990 I <br /> <br />[ R. A. Valdez et al. <br /> <br />Green <br /> <br />Juvenile <br /> <br />Colorado I <br />Yampa <br /> <br />Adult <br /> <br />34 <br />2.3 <br />1.0 <br />0.1 <br />4.4 <br /> <br />44 <br />11.1 <br />78.3 <br />1.0 <br />35.1 <br /> <br />286 <br />10.3 <br />65.2 <br />2.5 <br />40.1 <br /> <br />74 <br />0.6 <br />0.3 <br />0.0 <br />2.6 <br />51/SA <br /> <br />74 <br />0.6 <br />0.3 <br />0.0 <br />2.6 <br />BO/BE <br /> <br />274 <br />0.6 <br />0.4 <br />0.0 <br />3.9 <br />BO/SA <br /> <br />37 I'I~ <br /> <br />