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 />counties was conducted within a Master of Science research project, and sampling sites more <br />closely duplicated the sampling locations in Propst (1982). <br /> <br />Field sampling methods <br />At each sample site, a Level 1 survey form was completed and a photographic record <br />made, even ifthe site was dry at the time of the visit (Appendix A). At wet sites, fish were <br />sampled from all habitats present at each site using seining, backpack electrofishing, bank- <br />mounted electrofishing, or a combination of these methods. Each sampling site was 100-300 m in <br />length in order to include all macro-habitat types (e.g., run, riffle, pool) within the general stream <br />reach. All location and physical habitat data collected at a sample site was consistent with the <br />data requirements of the 1992 CDOW Stream Survey Level 2 form and the supplemental habitat <br />form (Appendix A). Fish species data requirements in the Level 2 form were completed for all <br />species that could be identified in the field. Notes were also taken on general habitat quality, <br />riparian and aquatic vegetation, and instream cover. A voucher collection of 5 to 10 various-sized <br />specimens was collected for all identifiable species for each hydrographic unit (hydrounit). <br />Specimens that could not be confidently identified in the field were preserved in 10 percent <br />formalin in labeled plastic containers for identification in the laboratory. Labels included stream, <br />date, township, range, section location, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates and <br />station number in order to be clearly linked with a completed survey site data form. Water quality <br />samples were collected at each site, and submitted to the CDOW Habitat Resources Section for <br />analysis under a separate study. Data from selected water quality parameters were subsequently <br />provided for analyses of associations of water quality with fish species presence. <br /> <br />Historic data compilation <br />Distributional and abundance data from published reports and museum records of <br />ichthyofaunal surveys in the South Platte basin were compiled and formatted into computerized <br />dBase files (Bestgen et al. 1995), and combined with existing CDOW stream inventory data. Fish <br />collection sites were mapped and digitized to obtain UTM coordinates. Species distribution and <br />abundance over the period of data collection were mapped using a computerized geographic <br />information system (ESRI 1996). The period of record for these data started in 1900. <br /> <br />Data analyses for species associations <br />A wide array of approaches exist to categorize, classifY, and analyze fish community <br />structure or species associations. The best of these approaches utilize long-term data sets to <br />determine fish community stability and persistence both spatially and temporally (Hansen and <br />Ramm 1994). Future analyses will attempt to incorporate longer-term population trend and water <br />quality information as it is available. The statistical analyses and interpretations which follow <br />were intended as a preliminary look at the South Platte fish sample data at a generalized <br />community level. The primary objectives were to identifY species associations based on sample <br />site data which could be used as "management units," and compare habitat measurements sampled <br />at each sample site to the "requirements" of the species comprising each group. The results might <br />then point toward possible management or recovery strategies and future research needs. <br /> <br />5 <br />