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 />14 <br /> <br />River at low numbers. The similar trends in fish sample sites and number of <br />Colorado squawfish caught also suggests a relationship between effort dnd <br />catch (Figure 1). Data from the 1983 field season are not available, but <br />preliminary reports indicate additional squawfish were caught. <br />Tagging and radiotelemetry studies of the Colorado squawfish strongly <br />suggest that the species moves freely between the White River and the Green <br />River. Squawfish have been tracked from the Green River up the White River <br />well into Colorado (Miller et ale 1982). There is, however, no evidence <br />that the species spawns in the White River, i.e. no larvae or <br />young-of-the-year have been recovered. The species does spawn in another <br />nearby tributary of the Green -- the Yampa River. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br />All available fishery data of the White River in Utah from 1974 to 1982 <br />have been assi~ilated into this analysis to assess the thoroughness of the <br />data and its use in determining species composition and distribution. The <br />first subsection of this discussion explores the feasibility of using fishes <br />in the White River as a tool to monitor possible effects of the shale oil <br />operation. The second subsection addresses the issue of endangered fishes <br />in the White River and the potential impacts of the shale oil operation. <br />