Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />~... <br />--.1 <br />~ <br />~... <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />a. Pertinent references 0), (7), & (8) -- (On March 21, 1978, a <br />copy of (1) was sent to each of the State fishery biologist who <br />had been designated to be the contact for CIFSG during the <br />assessment) . <br /> <br />b. Comments as to the nature and extent of representative <br />reaches -- a representative reach should be of a length which <br />assures a representative distribution of pools, riffles, runs, <br />etc. for fishery analysis, or rapids, pools, beaches, etc. for <br />recreational analysis. The length of any representative reach, <br />therefore, may vary from other reaches, from one stream type to <br />another or as to 1 engths used in the same stream' type for <br />fishery as contrasted with recreational analysis. <br /> <br />c. <br /> <br />Target species response curves -- The calculation of how much <br />habitat is available to a life-stage of a target species at <br />various discharge levels depends upon the response of the <br />animal at that life-stage to certain parameters (in this case, <br />depth and velocity). Curves are drawn to show these responses. <br />When this assessment was initiated, these were known as "proba- <br />bil ity of use curves." Si nce the word "probabi 1 ity" has cer- <br />tain connotations incompatible with use in this instance, the <br />term "response curves" is considered more appropriate. Attach- <br />.D <br />ment ~ pointed out that, while the list of target species was <br />not intended to exclude any of the species found in 14A or 148, <br />use of any of those 1 i sted and/or any others suggested was <br />dependent upon sufficient knowledge of response to depth and <br /> <br />29 <br />