Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"' <br /> <br />Colorado squawfish weights ranged from 525-1,670 9 in <br />1992. Weights ranged from 380-2,951 g from 1977-1990. <br />The mean weight (1,094.8 g) of Colorado squawfish before <br />the dam was completed (1977-1984 data) was not <br />significantly different (P>.10) than the mean weight <br />(1,407.7 g) of Colorado squawfish after the dam was <br />finished (l985-1992 data). The 1977-l984 mode weight <br />(992 g) was smaller than the 1985-92 mode wt (1,280 g). <br /> <br />The 1992 length frequency distribution was similar to the <br />length distribution for 1977-90. The 1977-92 length <br />frequency was skewed to the left with fish < 350 rom <br />under-represented in the sample. <br /> <br />Six Colorado squawfish implanted with transmitters in <br />1992 moved throughout the large pool below Taylor Draw <br />Dam during September and November. <br /> <br />B. Shortcomings <br /> <br />1. The lack of juvenile hatchery-reared Colorado <br />squawfish prevented adequate determination of the <br />presence, abundance, growth, and habitat use of <br />hatchery-reared Colorado squawfish in the White <br />River. <br /> <br />2. The small sample size of large, wild adult Colorado <br />squawfish hindered adequate determination of the <br />presence, abundance, and distribution of Colorado <br />squawfish in the White River. <br /> <br />3. Colorado squawfish scales have not been aged as of <br />October 1992. <br /> <br />4. The 6 Colorado squawfish implanted with radio <br />transmitters only moved within the large pool below <br />Taylor Draw Dam. This lack of movement prevented a <br />full evaluation of movements, home range <br />preference, and seasonal habitat use of the <br />Colorado squawfish in the White River below Taylor <br />Draw Dam. <br /> <br />IX. Status of Data Submission (where applicable): Species <br />composition data from the 1992 study will be sent to the Utah <br />Division of wildlife Resources. PIT tag and radio telemetry <br />data will be sent to the CRFP in Grand Junction, Colorado. <br /> <br />X. FY 92 Budget - Goal 1 <br /> a. Funds Provided: $15,500 ~ <br /> ~ <br /> b. Funds Expended: $15,500 ~ ~ <br /> c. Difference: $ 0 i'> <br /> d. Explanation for any major discrepancy: NA ?C::> <br /> <br />4 <br />