Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />The draw back of additional stations is the lack of sufficient personnel to continue <br /> <br />with habitat mapping and flow modeling after July 2000. At the onset of the project it was <br /> <br />anticipated that once the "bugs" were identified and worked out, the modeling process could <br /> <br />become more or less by the book. If so, production runs at all flows of interest would be <br /> <br />practical and a computer literate temporary employee could be hired for that assignment. <br /> <br />However, it is now clear that there is a very steep learning curve and a lot of experience in <br /> <br />using this model is required for efficient application. Attempts to initiate a new graduate <br /> <br />project with the Fishery and the Earth Science departments at CSU were not successful this <br /> <br />year. Without a part-, or full-time computer modeler working on the project it will not be <br /> <br />possible to compile the habitat database and perform statistical testing in the same year the <br /> <br />data is collected. Efforts will be made to contract the modeling with a private consultant or <br /> <br />out of state. The instream flow recommendations are due to the CWeB by August 2002. It <br /> <br />was anticipated that more sites would be added in 200 I field season to strengthen fish-habitat <br /> <br />relationships. However without a modeling contract this principal investigator will have to <br /> <br />spend considerable time on modeling and reporting. <br /> <br />SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />· Large differences were found in species composition between the two Yampa sites and the <br />IS-Mile reach. The IS-Mile reach had the highest percent of native fish followed by the <br />Sevens and Duffy had a very low percent of native fish. <br /> <br />· Fish sampling has produced density estimates in the study area and indicate the carrying <br />capacity of the river sections. This sampling effort does not indicate how fish shift in <br />habitat use as flow change. However it is believed that density estimates are a higher <br />priority for justifying instream flow recommendations. <br /> <br />. Fish density and biomass on the IS-Mile reach was much greater than in the Yampa River. <br /> <br />· Preliminary modeling results show large differences in habitat composition between the <br />DuffY site and the IS-Mile Reach. But statistical tests have not been completed. <br /> <br />4S <br />