Laserfiche WebLink
investi ational activities were <br />fi <br />- -- ---e ---_ __ ..... ___...,___ r- ..,~..~, _, g <br />concentrated on making population estimates, following the rotenone <br />~"_-movement, determining rotenone concentrations, and observing <br />the reactions of the- fauna to the toxicant. <br />Attempts to make fish population estimates were abandoned <br />after the first day, when the activities of crowds of people made <br />unbiased counts of fish along the banks impossible, Salvage by the <br />public greatly decreased the wastage of fish. At no time was there <br />any serious nuisance problem resulting from dead fish. Some in- <br />,; __,. _ <br />formation was obtained by midstream drift counts made as the <br />rotenone moved past different points on the river. Observations <br />were also made at a few isolated locations which had not been <br />disturbed by the public. The results of these counts are presented <br />in Table 2. This table shows that Cottus bairdi was more common <br />in section II than was previously suspected. A brief, premature, <br />release of rotenone from station #1 was made on the evening prior <br />to the scheduled start. Because of this release, many trout were <br />killed before the main treatment and were removed by the public <br />before the count was made near the field bioassay site, thus inter- <br />ferring with the estimation of the trout population. Observations <br />,revealed marked dominance of whitefish in the fish population of <br />f "^a <br />''•~ <br />~3 <br />-~ r <br />c,~ <br />--+ <br />_..,..t <br />~~ <br />,.~ <br />--~ <br />y <br />a <br />