WSP04021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UJJ13~ 9 Electroshocking sections were from 500 to 1,000 feet of stream channel and contained at least two complete cycles of stream habitat, ,i.e., riffle-pool-riffle being one cycle. No attempt was made to prevent movement of fish into or out of the area during electroshock- ing. However, in two study sections shocking runs were made both above and below the study areas to evaluate the movement of marked fish out of the population estimation area. In one stream. no marked fish moved out and in the other only one marked trout of more than 200 captures had moved out of the study area, or less than 0.5%. Timmermans (1974) found this to be the case as well and concluded that screening of study areas was a superfluous exercise. Trout captured on the first pass were marked by punching a 2 mm diameter hole in the caudal fin with a hand-operated paper punch. The hole heals up in 2 to 4 weeks and does not hinder the fish's swimming ability. Biometric data (length, weight, species, and scale samples) were collected after the second electroshocking and all fish were checked for marks. Only fish in excess of 13 cm in length were considered in the population estimation process. Data from the e1ectroshocking surveys are summarized in Appendix A. Instream Flow Service Group - Special Analysis Procedures The IFSG prepared guidelines of suggested analysis procedures to be included as part of the final report. These analyses are presented in the appendix. The IFSG recommended method of stream by stream time and cost analysis is presented in Appendix D. Appendix E contains a brief curriculum vitae of all participants in this study and a stream by stream list of the functions the various individuals performed on the streams. Appendix F is a list of species occurring in each of the study areas as well as the target species.