Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />that were in the area. In many cases fish that xere not captured could be <br />seen, but tsobably not in all cases. <br />If ah efficiency factor is applied to these data, based on field obser- <br />vations of the ease of sampling areas and the proportion of fish that were <br />observed eluding capture, then a more realistic value may be obtained. The <br />loxer two stations, because of their general shalloxness, are believed to <br />resilt in the greatest capture efficiency. An efficiency factor for these <br />stations of 5~ is considered reasonable <br />of 25% and 33o are considered appropriate. <br />For the upper two stations, factors <br />Using these factors, standing crop biomass for October ranged from 1-12 <br />pounds acre and for M.arch,4-40 pounds acre. The increase in March is partially <br />due to the crowding of fish into smaller water areas, but there may also be <br />• <br />movements of fish. Biomass data for July is not available. <br />This compares to Division of Wildlife catches of approximately 140 pounds <br />per acre upstream in the Som erset area below Fire Mountain Canal diversion in 19?6. <br />(Table 6-10) Although there are complicating factors in comparing the two <br />sets of data (Division of Wildlife shocked only along a 20-foot width near the <br />bank in July vs. the total river xidth for the Study Area) it appears that <br />the reduced flows in the Study Area (there are several diversions belox Som zrset), <br />rlus river bottom disturbance s, and perhaps other factors have contributed to <br />make the study area relatively poor. It is also probable that if shocking <br />xere done selectively ir. deeper pools a 'eater number and biomass of fish <br />would have been obtained in the Study Area. <br />6.2.3 Unicueness <br />The_-'e xere no threatened or endangered species encountered in the study, or <br />• =^own from the fiorth Fork. <br />6-6 <br />