WSP01392 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I available. This is especially true when considering only 16 habitat types were used which means the range of depths and velocities used to define meso-habitat types is broad. Calibration correlations will be much more critical if 30 or more types are used to describe habitat composition. On the IS-mile reach, the study site was broken into five sub-reaches, which had differing compositions of habitat-types and fish. It was detennine that is was possible to compare meso-habitat units to fish composition using correlation analysis. Sections with higher percentages ofrime habitats also have higher composition of blue head sucker and sections with higher proportions of run habitats had high composition of flannel mouth sucker (Figure 8). This preliminary analysis suggests that community structure can be correlated against physical habitat availability, at least at the meso-habitat scale. Further analysis with calibrated models should provide further insight into habitat dynamics. Table 9: Habitat composition, based on depth and velocity criteria, for the IS-Mile Reach and the Duffy Tunnel study sites. Habitat Types Depth Velocitv 15 Mile Reach Duffy Tunnel (m) (m1s) (2000 cfs) (600 cfs) Netted sand 0.01 . 0.2 < .15 1.4% 11.4% hoal 0.2 - 0.5 < .15 0.9% 2.3% hallow pool 0.5 -1.0 <.15 1.2% 2.5% medi -pool 1.0 - 2.0 < .15 1.0% 0.6% eep pool > 2.0 < .15 0.1% 0.0% Netted run .01-0.2 .15- .6 2.7% 2.4% hoal-run 0.2 - 0.5 .15 -.6 5.8% 13.0% hallow run 0.5 to 1.0 .15- .6 5.1% 48.9% medi-run 1.0 to 2.0 .15 -.6 4.2% 8.4% deep run > 2.0 .15- .6 0.5% 1.1% shallow riffle < 0.2 0.6 - 1.5 0.5% 0.2% Riffle 0.2 to 0.5 0.6 - 1.5 6.1% 3.4% deep riffle 0.5 to 1.0 0.6 -1.5 27.8% 5.6% extra deep riffle > 1.0 0.6 - 1.5 36.3% 0.3% shallow rapid < 0.5 > 1.5 0.9% 0.0% deep rapid > 0.5 > 1.5 5.5% 0.0% 41