Laserfiche WebLink
<br />habitats, with the majority of samples being low or zero and one isolated case of a larger <br />CPUE (Figure 5). Backwater habitats in 2003 consistently had a low CPUE during all <br />three sampling periods, while the pond habitat had a large CPUE during the first two <br />periods and a decreased CPUE during the third period. This change in CPUE during the <br />third period may be due to age-O pike evading the electro fishing equipment as they grew <br />larger. The largest total catch ofage-O pike came from the gravel pit pond outlet during <br />2003 when on a single sampling occasion 44 age-O pike were found. In addition, <br />numerous age-O northern pike were observed around the gravel pit pond margins <br />suggesting that this area and associated habitat was well suited for pike recruitment. <br />Overall, no age-O pike were collected in 18 of the 37 backwaters sampled, and 32 of the <br />37 backwaters sampled resulted in a CPUE ofless than 3. <br /> <br />Evaluation of Barriers <br />The barrier installed at river mile 197.8 during the fall did not withstand winter <br />ice conditions and was repaired immediately after ice-out in March of2003. No northern <br />pike were visually observed behind the barrier at this time. The repaired barrier appeared <br />to function well and before it was removed on May 15, 2003, an overnight gill net set <br />behind the barrier failed to catch any northern pike. <br /> <br />Although the barrier installed in the spawning area adjacent to the gravel pit pond <br />at river mile 197 was not damaged over the winter, the barrier did not function as <br />expected. Water entering the back end of the area carried considerable organic debris <br />that was deposited on the face of the barrier, creating a dam. Water pressure from the <br />raised water level behind the barrier dislodged sandbags holding the barrier fencing to the <br />bottom. <br /> <br />The barrier installed at river mile 152.5 shortly before ice-out was able to <br />withstand the ice break up. However, it was not effective because of muskrat disruption <br />of the barrier. We believe muskrats burrowed under the barrier, causing the sandbags to <br />slide out of place and opening the seal between the barrier fencing and the backwater <br />bottom. Steel rebar posts inserted in front of the sandbags and through the underlying <br />fencing stopped the sandbags from moving out of place and no further problems were <br />observed. <br /> <br />The landowner questionnaire was sent to 169 property owners along the Yampa <br />River and 83 responses were received. Fifty-six percent of the respondents said they <br />would allow a barrier on their property, 23% said maybe and would like more <br />information, and 20% said no. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Assessment of spawning and nursery habitat characteristics <br />During the winter, backwaters were either dry, frozen solid or had narrow <br />unfrozen sections with low oxygen levels, probably from decaying vegetation. It is <br />unlikely that northern pike inhabit backwaters during the winter for these reasons and <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />