7611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Accordingly, it wan pzactically is~ossible to sasple the tntire .~ river with the sale effort. Although soee of the reservoir/river habi- twt wan elettrofished, reduced sar°^~+rg effectiveness associated with an increase in water depth preclud= ser~oir electrofiahing. All fish stunned by the electr {invent were netted, placed in a Dive-well and identified upon comFz ion of the aaapling period during which they were identified and return: J to the river. Total lengths were taken of all fish electrofished during the September sampling trip only. Since no rare or endangered fish were collected through electrofishing, none of the fish enplaned received identifiable marks or tags. Reservoir fish sampling vas accosplished ezclnsively by setting a variety of entanglement nets. Both gill and traasel nets varying in lengths of 75 to 300 feet long and ranging in aesh sine frog 3/4 to 3 3/4 inches were used. Also, both floating and sinking-type nets were set. In general, nets were set off a prow vent point perpendicular to the shoreline. Fish were removed fros the nets three times during day- light periods and were fished 24 hours per day. Sets were periodically extracted and placed in other areas of the reservoir within mileage areas 0 to -2.0. All discernable varying habitat areas were sampled within this range. Initially, netting vas cried further upstreas within the river but proved to be ineffective primarily because of the swift water current and the tendency for the nets to "silt in". Fish taken from the nets were identified and released back into the water. Rare and endangered fish were measured (total length), weighed and affixed with a light blue individually numbered Carlin tag inserted between the posterior portion of the dorsal ray ptergiophores. The fish was then released back into the water. 5