Laserfiche WebLink
)f .r <br /> <br />RESULTS <br />Fish <br />m~;. <br />_~. <br />~== The results of the, fish sampling are summarized by period and <br />rivex section in Table 1. The unpublished fish length- data, collected <br />by Bosley during, his study of the lower river (Bosley, 1960} is <br />included in the pretreatment figures for sections III and IV. His <br />figures were from gill net catches only. The results of fish samp_ <br />13t~.g will be presented in chronological order, <br />~etreatment <br />-~_ <br />9" The pretreatment fish populations of the New Fork River (sec- <br />tioa ~ and the upper Green River (section II) were typical popula- <br />Lions with all size and age groups represented The larger, mature <br />members of the various species were very noticeable. The Rocky <br />Mountain whitefish Proso ium willia,msoni (Girard) was the domi- <br />nsnt species, followed by the flannelmouth sucker {Catostornus <br />lati Innis Baird and Girard), The speckled dace~Rhinichthys <br />°srus (Girard), the redside shiner Richa.rdsonius balteatus <br />(Richardson), and the sculpin (Cottus ba~di Girard) were numer- <br />ous. Also present, in reduced numbers, were the fathead <br />~_~_ <br />minnow- (Pimephales ~melas Rafinesque), the Utah sucker <br />( Catostomus ardens Jordan and Gilbert ), the brown trout <br />_ {~~ o tr_utta Linnaeus), and the rainbow trout {Salmo air n <br />- _ ~_" ~ d eri <br />47 <br />~~ <br />=-:~ <br />-,-~ <br />:.~ <br />'-~ <br />-- „ <br />':=~ :. <br />_~ <br />.~ <br />~- <br /> <br /> <br />