Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ) <br /> \ <br /> I <br /> ) 0 <br /> C":) <br />, '. ,,~ <br /> .. <br /> , .' <br /> , <br />) c..:-) <br />') 0 <br /> , <br /> , <br />....~, <br /> , <br /> , <br /> . <br />, j <br /> >. <br /> " <br /> t <br /> <br />..'1 <br /> <br />Table 1. San Jnan River C. latipilll/is fish health biologists' inspection data for abnormalities, <br />10/94 - 5199: <br /> <br />Date # of fish sampled # of fish with percent of fish with <br /> abnormalities abnormalities <br />10/94 95 5 5 <br />5195 99 8 8 <br />10/95 100 5 5 <br />5196 100 19 19 <br />10/96 100 4 4 <br />5/97 100 1 I <br />10/97 110 I 0.9 <br />5/98 80 2 2.5 <br />5/99 80 3 3.8 <br /> <br />During the May 1996 survey, the health of the sucker populations were in poor condilion compared to all <br />other swvey periods. Fish health biologists not only sampled the randomly selected C. laripinnis, but <br />also necropsied an additional 231 fish. These fish were mostly suckers and were selected due to <br />abnormalities. Of these 331 fish examined, 145 had lesions. More fish with abnormalities were <br />observed during the 1993 survey than during any other survey, with biologists saving abnormal fish for <br />the fish health biologists. During 1997-1999, fish health biologists have observed only an occasional <br />lesion, with no concentration of abnormalities in a specific area of the river. <br /> <br />Fishery biologist data: Fishery biologist data included all fish species collected and abnormalities <br />observed. Utilizing the data for C. latipinnis and C. discobolus, survey periods were compared (Table 2). <br />This provided a large number of suckers in the data base and changes in frequencies of abnormalities <br />from each river mile provided trends of probable problem areas of the San Juan River. The discrepancy <br />in values between fishery biologist and fish health biologist data is explained by the fish health <br />biologists' ability to observe pathology more carefully with more time allotted to fish health. The lower <br />fishery biologist abnormality incidence values may be attributed in part by the inclusion of C. discobolus <br />values which lowered the overall abnormality incidence rate. However, the same trend in abnormality <br />incidences was observed in both data sets from each type of survey. <br /> <br />3 <br />