Laserfiche WebLink
<br />22 <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 /> <br />responsible, since both sites have similar physical conditions for flow and temperature between <br />years. Nesler (1995) proposed it was reasonable to assume normal fUnoffflows would be <br />adverse enough to prevent stable recruitment of small mouth bass in the Yampa River. Sevens <br />apparently has a lack of habitat availability for YOY small mouth bass which indicates Nesler <br />(1995) was probably correct in regard to this section of the Yampa. However large numbers of <br />small mouth bass YOY have been produced in all years, even with normal runoff flows, at Duffy <br />and throughout Little Yampa Canyon. This large section of the river provides a stable source of <br />small mouth bass YOY for colonization to downstream sections like Sevens. <br /> <br />Hawkins et aI (1997) reported the occurrence of nonnative fish were fairly rare in the <br />Little Snake River and attributed this to highly variable physical factors such as flows, <br />temperature and turbidity. Hawkins et al (1997) suggested the extreme low flows he observed in <br />the Little Snake River during sampling in 1994, might explain the high percent of native fish <br />population collected during his sampling. Because nonnative fish were not common in their <br />study sites on the Little Snake River, they concluded native fish could tolerate the extreme low <br />flow that year. Those conclusions for the Little Snake are not consistent with results found on <br />the Yampa River during this study. In the Yampa River, native fish versus nonnative <br />composition was found to be primarily a function of local channel morphology or habitat <br />availability, not water quality parameters. Also the Little Snake River fish population was <br />mostly comprised of fish less than 15 cm, not the larger or adult size fish typical of the Yampa, <br />whose habitat requirements need to be a strong consideration in regards to flow assessment. <br /> <br />In the Yampa River nonnative species composition for fish less than 15 cm improved <br />greatly in years with low base flows at all sites and it is suspected that this will impact the over <br />15 cm fish population in the long-term. The low flows in 2000 nearly eliminated all riffle <br />habitats, defined as areas with velocity over 0.6 m/sec, from the Duffy section. Riffles are the <br />principle habitat for speckled dace and aquatic invertebrates, and presumably carrying capacity <br />for riffle obligate species was negatively impacted in 2000 and 2001. The reduced velocities <br />experienced at 2000 flows may not exclude dace from remaining riffles in and of itself, but <br />reduced velocities in riffles made them suitable habitat for YOY small mouth bass. In 2001 it <br />was found that YOY small mouth bass occupied riffle habitats in Little Yampa Canyon. This <br />makes it clear that YOY small mouth bass are very tolerant of low flows and are an efficient <br />predator and/or competitor with species that require habitat with swift currents. <br /> <br />It could be that small mouth bass YOY will not occupy riflle habitats when velocities and <br />flow in riflles exceed a certain threshold. However it is not likely that dace can quickly become <br />reestablished in the Yampa River even if high base flows return in the near future. The long- <br />term implications of low base flows are that trophic relationships natural to native fish have been <br />impacted. There appears to be a relationship between YOY bass abundance and reduced YOY <br />of most other species. In 2001 YOY bass could forage on invertebrates in the productive riflle <br />habitat, but not dace or sculpin which explains the YOY bass population increase in 2001. It <br />does not appear that any of the native species are an efficient predator on YOY bass and that <br />larger bass may be their only efficient predator. Northern pike were probably a significant <br />predator on juvenile bass, but pike numbers have been noticeably reduced in 2000 and 2001 <br />either due to unsuitable habitat, forage or management activities (pike removal by the recovery <br />program). It appears that small mouth bass numbers and composition for fish over 15 cm will <br />continue to increase given flow conditions observed in recent years. <br />