My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7956
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7956
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
6/1/2009 12:00:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7956
Author
Day, K. S.
Title
Colorado Squawfish Population Trends, Upper Green River And Lower White River, Utah, 1990-1994 (Draft).
USFW Year
1995.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
sand/silt substrate. The lower 10 miles are confined in a low desert canyon, also with a <br />low gradient and fine substrates. <br />~l~~~ <br />MATERIALS AND METHODS ~ ,~~ <br />ISMP Late juvenile/adult Monitoring <br />Late juvenile/adult monitoring was conducted annually in April and May as river <br />flows began to increase and squawfish began spawning migrations. All sampling <br />procedures complied with guidelines in the Draft ISMP Handbook (FWS 1987). An I8- <br />ft, outboard powered, flat-bottom boat equipped with 2, 14' fiberglass booms extending <br />off the bow was used to electrofish the standardized river reaches. Stainless steel <br />spheres suspended from the booms into the water acted as circuit anodes. -Dropper <br />cables in the middle of the boat acted as cathodes to complete the circuit. Power was <br />supplied by an electric generator with a minimum rated output of 4-kilowatts. A Coffelt <br />Model 15 or equivalent variable voltage pulsator equipped with a lapsed time clock was <br />used to produce a pulsating direct current. Fish were captured with long-handled dipnets <br />and target species placed in live tanks in the boat. An electrofishing crew was comprised <br />of 1 boat driver and 1 or 2 dipnetters. To maximize efficiency and ensure- comparability <br />between years, at Least 2 crew members were required to have previous experience <br />electrofishing large turbid rivers. <br />Each sampling Reach (see Study Area) was subdivided into 2 to 4 subreaches <br />ranging between 2.5 and 6.7 miles in length. Sampling began at the top of each Reach <br />and proceeded downstream at a constant, slow rate along the same shoreline to the end. <br />During sampling, the electrofishing boat proceeded at a constant rate along the shoreline <br />with electrofishing current applied continually to the water column. AIL. shoreline habitat <br />within each Reach was, where possible, eiectrofished including backwaters, tributary <br />mouths and other shoreline features. No attempts were made to concentrate efforts in <br />`good' habitat nor to herd or trap fish. Only rare fishes (Colorado squawfish, razorback <br />sucker, humpback chub, or bonytaii) were targeted, although all fish that could. not be . <br />readily identified were netted. Predatory, non-native fishes including northern pike, <br />walieye, largemouth and smallmouth bass, as well as any uncommon species, were noted <br />on the data sheets. <br />Upon capture of a rare fish, electrofishing was discontinued and data was <br />collected. All rare fishes were weighed and measured and those longer than 200 mm in <br />length were tagged with passively induced transponders (1991-1994). Fish were returned <br />to the river at the site of capture. Additional data collected included water temperature <br />of the capture site and the main river, habitat type, river mile and time of capture. <br />Colorado squawfish which were positively identified but not captured were recorded on <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.