Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />III. Evidence of reproductive success per species. <br />IV. Comparisons (if available): <br />A. Historical sample sites--presence/absence compared to Propst & others if readily <br />available. <br />V. Threats: (only those applicable to hydro unit ). <br />A. Habitat modification, degradation/source (e.g., grazing) <br />B. Barriers <br />C. Water depletion <br />D. Water quality/pollution; only identifY potential point/nonpoint sources <br />E. Introduced fishes: potential predators/competitors <br />F. Angling: seine harvest for bait <br />VI. Discussion <br />A. Sampling efforts: representative of fishes present and relative abundance, biases <br />B. Trends by species from historic data <br />C. Fish distribution as affected by threats <br />D. Management options for: <br />I) protection of native fish communities <br />2) control of introduced fishes <br />3) habitat enhancement/protection <br />4) water quality status <br />5) priority needs <br /> <br />In the hydro unit results that follow, it should be noted that species collected are grouped <br />according to the abundance criteria in Table 2, even though their relative abundance and <br />frequency of occurrence in that hydro unit may be more or less than the overall criteria. The <br />purpose for this is to remain focused on the species' overall grouping, but also to demonstrate <br />differences within each hydro unit. Thus, an uncommon species may be found to be relatively <br />abundant in several hydrounits, but uncommon or absent from the others. As an uncommon <br />species overall, these results would suggest particularly suitable habitat conditions in select <br />tributaries or river reaches and would guide conservation management measures to maintain these <br />habitats. <br /> <br />9 <br />