DOCSLIB.ORG

Coldwater Fish/Riparian Corridors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coldwater Fish/Riparian Corridors A Spatially Explicit and Quantitative Vulnerability Assessment of Coldwater Fish Habitat and Riparian Corridors in the Intermountain West Prepared by D. Max Smith and Megan M. Friggens United States Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Albuquerque, New Mexico December 2017 Cover photos: Cottonwood Creek, UT (D. Max Smith), New Mexico jumping mouse (US Forest Service Region 3), Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Photo Craig D. Young) Max Smith is a Research Associate with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Megan Friggens is a Research Ecologist with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station This analysis was prepared in partial fulfillment of agreements between Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) and the Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperative (SRLCC: FWS #15-IA- 011221632-164 and BOR #15-IA-11221632-163). This is one in a series of four assessments produced for focal landscapes within the SRLCC. Data associated with this assessment can be found at the SRLCC Conservation Planning Atlas web portal: https://srlcc.databasin.org. Acknowledgements: We thank the participants of the 2016 and 2017 Adaptation Forum’s held in Durango, CO, and Albuquerque and Taos, NM. Logistical support was provided by David Hawksworth and the Institute for Natural Resources at Portland State University. For further questions or comments, contact: [email protected] 2 Contents Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Focal Resources and Landscapes: ................................................................................................. 5 Vulnerability Assessments: ........................................................................................................... 6 Co-producing Vulnerability Assessments for the SRLCC: Adaptation Forums .......................... 7 Part 1. Literature and Status Review of Focal Resources: Aquatic Resources ................................. 9 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9 Native fish: Status and Habitat Requirements ............................................................................ 18 Threats to Native Fishes.............................................................................................................. 21 Riparian Corridors: Background and Status ............................................................................... 22 Climate Change Related Issues and Threats ............................................................................... 24 Part 2. Vulnerability Assessment for Fish and Riparian Focal Resources ..................................... 30 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 30 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 37 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 79 References ....................................................................................................................................... 81 3 Purpose A major challenge of managing rapidly changing landscapes is translating broad concepts into specific, tangible actions. Vulnerability assessments are a key step toward identifying effective management strategies and prioritizing specific management actions to conserve and restore natural resources. As part of the effort to utilize landscape conservation planning and design for the Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperative (SRLCC), the RMRS developed a vulnerability assessment approach that: 1) covers a diverse set of focal resource targets; 2) incorporates input from science and working group members and other stakeholders; 3) compliments the overarching principles guiding science and management planning within the LCCs (Box 1). Our approach borrows from other successful assessments strategies and used adaptation forums to facilitate stakeholder input. As part of this work, RMRS has produced a series of state of knowledge syntheses and developed spatially explicit vulnerability assessment products including maps, datasets and training materials. It is the objective of this project that these products provide the SRLCC stakeholders with the capacity to identify shared conservation priorities and goals. All data and associated webinar and workshop information is available online to facilitate additional analyses and assessments identified by users. The following report contains the synthesis and analysis component of this project. In the first half of this report, you will find a review of background information and ongoing activities for streams, native fish and riparian ecosystems within two SRLCC focal areas: The Four Corners and Upper Rio Grande (see https://southernrockieslcc.org/geographical-areas for more information). The second half of this report presents the methods and results of our vulnerability assessment. Box 1. Coordinating with the LCC Strategic Plan The vulnerability assessment process and its products contribute to multiple objectives outlined within the LCC Network Strategic Plan. 1. Vulnerability Assessments identify the relative vulnerability of focal targets to climate change thereby providing mechanisms for prioritizing science and management needs. 2. When conducted for multiple time periods or climate scenarios, measures of vulnerability may also identify urgency. 3. Vulnerability Assessments identify how and why resources may be vulnerable to climate change thereby providing starting points for management planning, conservation, and monitoring. 4. Vulnerability Assessments consider measures of uncertainty and identify areas needing additional research. Background In 2016, the Rocky Mountain Research Station began to develop vulnerability assessment products for SRLCC focal resources. The objectives of the vulnerability assessment project were multiple: 4 1. Summarize current status, potential climate change impacts, and other issues facing SRLCC Focal Resources in the Upper Rio Grande and Four Corners Geographic Focus Areas. 2. Identify climate change impacts and other issues facing natural and cultural resources in the southern tier of SRLCC (includes the Upper Rio Grande and Four Corners Geographic Focus Areas). 3. Develop a Vulnerability Assessments approach to allow integration with other assessments and Landscape Conservation Design (LCD) efforts of BLM, FS, CNHP and other partners. 4. Apply Vulnerability Assessments approach to quantify vulnerability of SRLCC Focal Resources and Geographic Focus Area select targets. Focal Resources and Landscapes: Prior to the involvement of RMRS, SRLCC staff and steering committee members identified five focal resources, native fish, stream flow, elk and mule deer, sagebrush ecosystems, and cultural resources, and three focal landscapes, the Green River Basin, the Four Corners, and the Upper Rio Grande (https://southernrockieslcc.org/geographical-areas). The assessments conducted by RMRS regard focal resources in the Four Corners and Upper Rio Grande (Fig. 1). After receiving feedback from a series of Adaptation Forums in 2016 (see below), we refined the focal resources targets to include riparian areas and pinyon-juniper habitats. We also dropped cultural resources from the current effort (now addressed through another project: https: //southernrockieslcc.org/issue /cultural-resources). Figure 1. Southern Rockies Landscape Cooperative (SRLCC) boundaries and focal areas addressed this assessment. 5 Vulnerability Assessments: Vulnerability assessments are a critical component in adaptive management planning and risk analysis. An assessment of vulnerability can identify relative impacts from disturbance and the source of those impacts, thereby facilitating the identification and prioritization of management strategies. Vulnerability is a key concept for assessing climate impacts to natural resources and has been adopted by the Forest Service and other agencies as a primary mechanism for developing effective adaptation options to manage natural resources under climate change (e.g. USDA Forest Service 2011). Climate change and related vulnerability assessments (hereafter VA) are initiated during the planning phase of conservation projects to provide information on relative impacts and priority needs within a target system. VA are amendable to multiple data sources and incorporate a variety of analysis methods thereby providing a framework for creating diverse data products that might be useful for planning efforts. Thus, the utility of VA can extend beyond initial efforts to identify climate change impacts. We developed a vulnerability assessment framework based on the core principles common to many climate change vulnerability assessments (Box 2). Box 2. Primary Elements of a VA Exposure: The magnitude of climatic or ecological changes within target landscape Sensitivity: The response of targets to exposure Adaptive Capacity: The potential of target to cope with exposure As commonly applied to climate change issues, VA provide
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2016 Arizona Shade Tree Planting Prioritization ATLAS
    2016 Shade Tree Planting Prioritization 1 Urban and Community Forestry 2016 Arizona Shade Tree Planting Prioritization ATLAS Planning Maps for the Department of Forestry and Fire Management 2016 Shade Tree Planting Prioritization Atlas About the 2016 Shade Tree Planting Prioritization Atlas This collection of maps summarizes the results of the 2016 Shade Tree Planting Prioritization analysis of the Urban and Community Forestry Program (UCF) at the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management (DFFM). The purpose of the analysis was to assess existing urban forests in Arizona’s communities and identify shade tree planting needs. The spatial analysis, based on U.S. Census Block Group polygons, generated seven sub-indices for criteria identified by an expert panel: population density, lack of canopy cover, low-income, traffic proximity, sustainability, air quality, and urban heat effect. The seven sub-indices were combined into one Shade Tree Planting Priority Index and further summarized into a Shade Tree Planting Priority Ranking. The resulting reports, maps, and GIS data provide compiled information that can be easily used for identifying areas for strategic shade tree planting within a community or across Arizona’s major cities and towns. These maps provide limited detail for conveying the scale and depth of the analysis results which – for more detailed use – are best explored through the analysis report, interactive maps, and the GIS data available through the UCF Program webpage at https://forestryandfire.az.gov/forestry-community-forestry/urban-community-forestry/projects. Note: At the time of publication, two known analysis area errors have been identified. A few of Safford’s incorporated easements were not captured correctly.
    [Show full text]
  • Spawning and Early Life History of Mountain Whitefish in The
    SPAWNING AND EARLY LIFE HISTORY OF MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH IN THE MADISON RIVER, MONTANA by Jan Katherine Boyer A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fish and Wildlife Management MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana January 2016 © COPYRIGHT by Jan Katherine Boyer 2016 All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank my advisor, Dr. Christopher Guy, for challenging me and providing advice throughout every stage of this project. I also thank my committee members, Dr. Molly Webb and Dr. Tom McMahon, for guidance and suggestions which greatly improved this research. My field technicians Jordan Rowe, Greg Hill, and Patrick Luckenbill worked hard through fair weather and snowstorms to help me collect the data presented here. I also thank Travis Horton, Pat Clancey, Travis Lohrenz, Tim Weiss, Kevin Hughes, Rick Smaniatto, and Nick Pederson of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for field assistance and advice. Mariah Talbott, Leif Halvorson, and Eli Cureton of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service assisted with field and lab work. Richard Lessner and Dave Brickner at the Madison River Foundation helped to secure funding for this project and conduct outreach in the Madison Valley. The Channels Ranch, Valley Garden Ranch, Sun West Ranch, and Galloup’s Slide Inn provided crucial land and river access. I also thank my fellow graduate students both for advice on project and class work and for being excellent people to spend time with. Ann Marie Reinhold, Mariah Mayfield, David Ritter, and Peter Brown were especially helpful during the early stages of this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Management Plan for Black Hills Streams 2015 – 2019
    Fisheries Management Plan for Black Hills Streams 2015 – 2019 South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Wildlife Division Gene Galinat Greg Simpson Bill Miller Jake Davis Michelle Bucholz John Carreiro Dylan Jones Stan Michals Fisheries Management Plan for Black Hills Streams, 2015-2019 Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 II. Resource Descriptions ........................................................................................................... 4 Black Hills Fish Management Area ...................................................................................... 4 III. Management of Black Hills Fish Management Area Stream Fisheries ...................... 7 Classification of Trout Streams ............................................................................................. 7 Regulations .............................................................................................................................. 7 Stocking .................................................................................................................................... 8 Fish Surveys ............................................................................................................................ 8 Angler Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 9 Habitat and Angler Access ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Colorado Regulations
    DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Wildlife CHAPTER 1 - FISHING 2 CCR 406-1 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] _________________________________________________________________________ ARTICLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS #100 - DEFINITIONS See also 33-1-102, C.R.S and Chapter 0 of these regulations for other applicable definitions. A. "Artificial flies and lures" means devices made entirely of, or a combination of, natural or synthetic non-edible, non-scented (regardless if the scent is added in the manufacturing process or applied afterward), materials such as wood, plastic, silicone, rubber, epoxy, glass, hair, metal, feathers, or fiber, designed to attract fish. This definition does not include anything defined as bait in #100.B below. B. "Bait" means any hand-moldable material designed to attract fish by the sense of taste or smell; those devices to which scents or smell attractants have been added or externally applied (regardless if the scent is added in the manufacturing process or applied afterward); scented manufactured fish eggs and traditional organic baits, including but not limited to worms, grubs, crickets, leeches, dough baits or stink baits, insects, crayfish, human food, fish, fish parts or fish eggs. C. "Chumming" means placing fish, parts of fish, or other material upon which fish might feed in the waters of this state for the purpose of attracting fish to a particular area in order that they might be taken, but such term shall not include fishing with baited hooks or live traps. D. "Game fish" means all species of fish except prohibited nongame, endangered and threatened species, which currently exist or may be introduced into the state and which are classified as game fish by the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Index 1 INDEX
    Index 1 INDEX A Blue Spring 76, 106, 110, 115 Bluff Spring Trail 184 Adeii Eechii Cliffs 124 Blythe 198 Agate House 140 Blythe Intaglios 199 Agathla Peak 256 Bonita Canyon Drive 221 Agua Fria Nat'l Monument 175 Booger Canyon 194 Ajo 203 Boundary Butte 299 Ajo Mountain Loop 204 Box Canyon 132 Alamo Canyon 205 Box (The) 51 Alamo Lake SP 201 Boyce-Thompson Arboretum 190 Alstrom Point 266, 302 Boynton Canyon 149, 161 Anasazi Bridge 73 Boy Scout Canyon 197 Anasazi Canyon 302 Bright Angel Canyon 25, 51 Anderson Dam 216 Bright Angel Point 15, 25 Angels Window 27 Bright Angel Trail 42, 46, 49, 61, 80, 90 Antelope Canyon 280, 297 Brins Mesa 160 Antelope House 231 Brins Mesa Trail 161 Antelope Point Marina 294, 297 Broken Arrow Trail 155 Apache Junction 184 Buck Farm Canyon 73 Apache Lake 187 Buck Farm Overlook 34, 73, 103 Apache-Sitgreaves Nat'l Forest 167 Buckskin Gulch Confluence 275 Apache Trail 187, 188 Buenos Aires Nat'l Wildlife Refuge 226 Aravaipa Canyon 192 Bulldog Cliffs 186 Aravaipa East trailhead 193 Bullfrog Marina 302 Arch Rock 366 Bull Pen 170 Arizona Canyon Hot Springs 197 Bush Head Canyon 278 Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 216 Arizona Trail 167 C Artist's Point 250 Aspen Forest Overlook 257 Cabeza Prieta 206 Atlatl Rock 366 Cactus Forest Drive 218 Call of the Canyon 158 B Calloway Trail 171, 203 Cameron Visitor Center 114 Baboquivari Peak 226 Camp Verde 170 Baby Bell Rock 157 Canada Goose Drive 198 Baby Rocks 256 Canyon del Muerto 231 Badger Creek 72 Canyon X 290 Bajada Loop Drive 216 Cape Final 28 Bar-10-Ranch 19 Cape Royal 27 Barrio
    [Show full text]
  • Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. July 22, 2021 Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015 Effective March 17, 2021 The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states and federally recognized Indian tribes to adopt water quality standards in order to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's Waters" (CWA, 1988). The attached WQS document is in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with the exception of the following provisions. Navajo Nation’s previously approved criteria for these provisions remain the applicable for CWA purposes. The “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015” (NNSWQS 2015) made changes amendments to the “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2007” (NNSWQS 2007). For federal Clean Water Act permitting purposes, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) must approve these changes to the NNSWQS 2007 which are found in the NNSWQS 2015. The USEPA did not approve of three specific changes which were made to the NNSWQS 2007 and are in the NNSWQS 2015. (October 15, 2020 Letter from USEPA to Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency). The three specific changes which USEPA did not accept are: 1) Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat Designated Use - Suspended Solids Changes (NNSWQS 2015 Section 207.E) The suspended soils standard for aquatic and wildlife habitat designated use was changed to only apply to flowing (lotic) surface waters and not to non-flowing (lentic) surface waters.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018
    The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018 Prepared by: Rich Kirn, Fisheries Program Manager Reviewed by: Brian Chipman, Will Eldridge, Jud Kratzer, Bret Ladago, Chet MacKenzie, Adam Miller, Pete McHugh, Lee Simard, Monty Walker, Lael Will ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This project was made possible by fishing license sales and matching Dingell- Johnson/Wallop-Breaux funds available through the Federal Sportfish Restoration Act. Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 II. Life History and Ecology ................................................................... 2 III. Management History ......................................................................... 7 IV. Status of Existing Fisheries ............................................................. 13 V. Management of Trout Habitat .......................................................... 17 VI. Management of Wild Trout............................................................. 34 VII. Management of Cultured Trout ..................................................... 37 VIII. Management of Angler Harvest ................................................... 66 IX. Trout Management Plan Goals, Objectives and Strategies .............. 82 X. Summary of Laws and Regulations .................................................. 87 XI. Literature Cited ............................................................................... 92 I. Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • 321 Cmr: Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
    321 CMR: DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 321 CMR 5.00: COLDWATER FISH RESOURCES Section 5.01: Introduction and Purpose 5.02: Definitions 5.03: Criteria and Procedure for Designating Coldwater Fish Resources 5.04: Requests that the Division Evaluate the CFR Status of a Waterbody 5.01: Introduction and Purpose Certain species of fish are sensitive to increases in temperature and require coldwater to fulfill one or more of their life stage requirements. Since the 1940's, the Division has documented the presence of coldwater fish resources (CFRs) in the Commonwealth where these fish occur. In the 1990's, the Division established a list of CFRs to facilitate the tracking and effective monitoring, management and protection of these resources by the Division, other state agencies, and local regulatory authorities, including conservation commissions and planning boards. Under the Department of Environmental Protection's Water Management Act regulations at 310 CMR 36.00: Massachusetts Water Resources Management Program, an applicant proposing a water withdrawal that may affect a CFR designated by the Division pursuant to 321 CMR 5.00 will be required to minimize any impact on the CFR. The Division has not assessed all of the waterbodies in the Commonwealth to determine their status as a CFR. 321 CMR 5.00 codifies the criteria, procedures and related definitions used by the Division to designate waterbodies as CFRs. 321 CMR 5.00 also provides notice of where the Division's current list of CFRs is available for review by regulatory authorities
    [Show full text]
  • A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado a Users Guide to the Classification Project
    A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado A Users Guide to the Classification Project September 1, 1999 By Gwen Kittel, Erika VanWie, Mary Damm, Reneé Rondeau Steve Kettler, Amy McMullen and John Sanderson Clockwise from top: Conejos River, Conejos County, Populus angustifolia-Picea pungens/Alnus incana Riparian Woodland Flattop Wilderness, Garfield County, Carex aquatilis Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation South Platte River, Logan County, Populus deltoides/Carex lanuginosa Riparian Woodland California Park, Routt County, Salix boothii/Mesic Graminoids Riparian Shrubland Joe Wright Creek, Larimer County, Abies lasiocarpa-Picea engelmannii/Alnus incana Riparian Forest Dolores River, San Miguel County, Forestiera pubescens Riparian Shrubland Center Photo San Luis Valley, Saguache County, Juncus balticus Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation (Photography by Gwen Kittel) 2 Prepared by: Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Bldg. Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 [email protected] This report should be cited as follows: Kittel, Gwen, Erika VanWie, Mary Damm, Reneé Rondeau, Steve Kettler, Amy McMullen, and John Sanderson. 1999. A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado: User Guide to the Classification Project. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 80523 For more information please contact: Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 254 General Service Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. (970)
    [Show full text]
  • 3 March 1999
    NAVAJO NATION SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 2007 (Photograph of the Little Colorado River near Grand Falls on January 4, 2005) Prepared by: Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Program Post Office Box 339 Window Rock, Arizona 86515 (928) 871-7690 Passed by Navajo Nation Resources Committee on May 13, 2008 Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2007 Navajo Nation EPA Water Quality Program TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS - GENERAL PROVISIONS § 101 TITLE ................................................................................................................................ 1 § 102 AUTHORITY .................................................................................................................... 1 § 103 PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................... 1 § 104 DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................... 1 § 105 SEVERABILITY............................................................................................................... 6 PART II SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS § 201 ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY ..................................................................................... 7 § 202 NARRATIVE SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ...................................... 7 § 203 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 9 § 204 NARRATIVE
    [Show full text]
  • The Fish Communities of the Toronto Waterfront: Summary and Assessment 1989 - 2005
    THE FISH COMMUNITIES OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT: SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT 1989 - 2005 SEPTEMBER 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the many technical staff, past and present, of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources who diligently collected electrofishing data for the past 16 years. The completion of this report was aided by the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA). 1 Jason P. Dietrich, 1 Allison M. Hennyey, 1 Rick Portiss, 1 Gord MacPherson, 1 Kelly Montgomery and 2 Bruce J. Morrison 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4, Canada 2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Unit, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, ON, K0K 2T0, Canada © Toronto and Region Conservation 2008 ABSTRACT Fish community metrics collected for 16 years (1989 — 2005), using standardized electrofishing methods, throughout the greater Toronto region waterfront, were analyzed to ascertain the current state of the fish community with respect to past conditions. Results that continue to indicate a degraded or further degrading environment include an overall reduction in fish abundance, a high composition of benthivores, an increase in invasive species, an increase in generalist species biomass, yet a decrease in specialist species biomass, and a decrease in cool water Electrofishing in the Toronto Harbour thermal guild species biomass in embayments. Results that may indicate a change in a positive community health direction include no significant changes to species richness, a marked increase in diversity in embayments, a decline in non-native species in embayments and open coasts (despite the invasion of round goby), a recent increase in native species biomass, fluctuating native piscivore dynamics, increased walleye abundance, and a reduction in the proportion of degradation tolerant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Coldwater Fish: Whitefish and Smelt - Anthony J
    FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE – Vol. III – Coldwater Fish: Whitefish and Smelt - Anthony J. Novotny COLDWATER FISH: WHITEFISH AND SMELT Anthony J. Novotny Fisheries Research Biologist, Marinka International, 1919 E. Calhoun, Seattle, WA 98112-2644,USA Keywords: aquaculture, brackish waters, cages, capture fisheries, coregonids, floating net pens, fresh water, gill-netting, hatchery, lakes, net value, non-inland waters, osmerids, ponds, pond culture, pumped water, rivers, seining, smelts, traps, whitefish. Contents 1. Introduction 2. World Production of Smelt in Fresh and Brackish Waters by Capture 2.1. World Smelt Production by Capture in Inland Fresh Waters - 1984-1997 2.2. World Freshwater Smelt Production by Capture in Fresh and Brackish Waters, other than Inland Waters - 1984-1997 3. World Production of the Whitefish (whitefish) in Fresh and Brackish Waters by Capture and Aquaculture 3.1. World Production of Wild Whitefish (whitefish) in Fresh and Brackish Waters by Capture: 1984-1997 3.2. World Aquaculture Production of the Whitefish (whitefish) 3.2.1. Whitefish Aquaculture Technology 3.2.2. Production of the Cultured Whitefish 3.2.3. Value of Farmed Whitefish Appendix Glossary Bibliography Biographical sketch Summary The production of fresh and brackish water whitefish and smelts by either capture or culture between 1984 and 1997, represents an average of less than 0.5% of all world wide freshwater fish production. While the total world freshwater fish production has increased each year during this period, the production of whitefish and smelt has declined.WhitefishUNESCO and smelt are products – of EOLSSnorthern hemisphere cold and temperate climate countries. Production of smelt is by capture fisheries, and the production of whitefish is by SAMPLEcapture fisheries and aquaculture.
    [Show full text]