DOCSLIB.ORG

Alaska Pipeline Project Draft Resource Report 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alaska Pipeline Project Draft Resource Report 3 Draft Resource Report 3 – Rev 0 Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife Resources FERC DOCKET NO. PF09-11-000 USAG-UR-SGREG-000013 December 2011 DRAFT ALASKA PIPELINE PROJECT USAG-UR-SGREG-000013 DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 3 DECEMBER 2011 FISH, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE REVISION 0 RESOURCES FERC Docket No. PF09-11-000 Notes: Yellow highlighting is used throughout this draft Resource Report to highlight selected information that is pending or subject to change in the final report. DRAFT ALASKA PIPELINE PROJECT USAG-UR-SGREG-000013 DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 3 DECEMBER 2011 FISH, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE REVISION 0 RESOURCES FERC Docket No. PF09-11-000 PAGE 3-I TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.0 RESOURCE REPORT 3 – FISH, WILDLIFE, AND VEGETATION ............................... 3-1 3.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 AQUATIC RESOURCES .................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1 Inland Freshwater Fisheries ................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1.1 Coldwater Anadromous Fisheries ............................................ 3-3 3.2.1.2 Coldwater Resident Fisheries ................................................. 3-10 3.2.1.3 Seasonal Fish Distribution ...................................................... 3-17 3.2.1.4 Sensitive Fish Species ........................................................... 3-23 3.2.2 Marine Fisheries ................................................................................... 3-24 3.2.2.1 Existing Marine Environment .................................................. 3-24 3.2.2.2 Marine Fishes ......................................................................... 3-25 3.2.3 Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................................... 3-26 3.2.3.1 Marine Essential Fish Habitat ................................................. 3-27 3.2.3.2 Freshwater Essential Fish Habitat .......................................... 3-27 3.2.4 Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation ............................. 3-31 3.2.4.1 Inland Freshwater Fisheries Impacts and Mitigation .............. 3-31 3.2.4.2 Marine Fisheries Impacts and Mitigation ................................ 3-39 3.3 VEGETATION .................................................................................................. 3-40 3.3.1 General Description of Vegetation Resources ...................................... 3-40 3.3.1.1 Arctic Tundra Ecoregion ......................................................... 3-40 3.3.1.2 Intermontane Boreal Ecoregion .............................................. 3-43 3.3.2 Terrestrial Plant Communities .............................................................. 3-45 3.3.2.1 Vegetation Classification and Identification ............................ 3-45 3.3.2.2 Invasive Species Surveys ....................................................... 3-48 3.3.3 Unique, Sensitive, and Protected Vegetation Communities ................. 3-49 3.3.4 Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation ............................. 3-51 3.3.4.1 Vegetation Impacts ................................................................. 3-51 3.4 WILDLIFE AND TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES ............................................... 3-53 3.4.1 General Ecological Provinces and Habitats .......................................... 3-53 3.4.1.1 Beaufort Sea and Stefansson Sound Ecosystem ................... 3-55 3.4.1.2 Beaufort Coastal Plain Ecoregion ........................................... 3-57 3.4.1.3 Brooks Foothills Ecoregion ..................................................... 3-58 3.4.1.4 Brooks Range Ecoregion ........................................................ 3-59 3.4.1.5 Intermontane Boreal Forest Ecoregion ................................... 3-60 3.4.2 Wildlife Resources ................................................................................ 3-61 3.4.2.1 Marine Mammals .................................................................... 3-61 3.4.2.2 Terrestrial Mammals ............................................................... 3-65 3.4.3 Avian Resources ................................................................................... 3-78 3.4.3.1 Beaufort Coastal Plain Bird Species ....................................... 3-78 3.4.3.2 Brooks Foothills Ecoregion Bird Species ................................ 3-85 3.4.3.3 Brooks Range Ecoregion Bird Species .................................. 3-85 3.4.3.4 Intermontane Boreal Forest Bird Species ............................... 3-85 3.4.3.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ......................................................................... 3-95 3.4.4 Amphibians ........................................................................................... 3-95 DRAFT ALASKA PIPELINE PROJECT USAG-UR-SGREG-000013 DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 3 DECEMBER 2011 FISH, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE REVISION 0 RESOURCES FERC Docket No. PF09-11-000 PAGE 3-II 3.4.5 Terrestrial and Aquatic Invertebrates .................................................... 3-95 3.4.6 Sensitive Wildlife Resources and Habitat Areas ................................... 3-96 3.4.6.1 BLM Sensitive and “Watch” List Species ................................ 3-96 3.4.6.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ................................ 3-98 3.4.6.3 National Wildlife Refuges ..................................................... 3-100 3.4.6.4 Alaska Game Management Units ......................................... 3-100 3.4.7 Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation ........................... 3-101 3.4.7.1 Marine Mammal Species ...................................................... 3-101 3.4.7.2 Terrestrial Species ................................................................ 3-103 3.4.7.3 Avian Species ....................................................................... 3-113 3.5 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES .......... 3-116 3.5.1 Federally Listed, Proposed Threatened and Endangered, or Candidate Species ............................................................................................... 3-116 3.5.1.1 Polar Bear ............................................................................. 3-117 3.5.1.2 Bowhead Whale ................................................................... 3-121 3.5.1.3 Ringed Seal .......................................................................... 3-122 3.5.1.4 Bearded Seal ........................................................................ 3-123 3.5.1.5 Pacific Walrus ....................................................................... 3-125 3.5.1.6 Spectacled Eider .................................................................. 3-127 3.5.1.7 Steller’s Eider ....................................................................... 3-130 3.5.1.8 Yellow-Billed Loon ................................................................ 3-131 3.5.1.9 Eskimo Curlew ...................................................................... 3-133 3.5.2 Special Status Species ....................................................................... 3-133 3.5.2.1 BLM-Sensitive Species ......................................................... 3-133 3.5.2.2 State-Sensitive Species ........................................................ 3-134 3.5.3 Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation ........................... 3-134 3.5.3.1 Polar Bear ............................................................................. 3-135 3.5.3.2 Bowhead Whale ................................................................... 3-136 3.5.3.3 Ringed Seal .......................................................................... 3-137 3.5.3.4 Bearded Seal ........................................................................ 3-138 3.5.3.5 Pacific Walrus ....................................................................... 3-138 3.5.3.6 Spectacled Eider .................................................................. 3-138 3.5.3.7 Steller’s Eider ....................................................................... 3-140 3.5.3.8 Yellow-Billed Loon ................................................................ 3-141 3.5.3.9 Eskimo Curlew ...................................................................... 3-143 3.6 CUMLATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................................. 3-143 3.7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 3-143 DRAFT ALASKA PIPELINE PROJECT USAG-UR-SGREG-000013 DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 3 DECEMBER 2011 FISH, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE REVISION 0 RESOURCES FERC Docket No. PF09-11-000 PAGE 3-III LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1-1 Resource Report 3 Filing Requirements Checklist ....................................... 3-2 Table 3.2.1-1 Coldwater Anadromous Fish Species Occurring in the Project Area ........... 3-5 Table 3.2.1-2 Coldwater Resident Fish Species Expected Occurrence in the Project Area ............................................................................................................ 3-11 Table 3.2.1-3 BLM Sensitive and ...................................................................................... 3-24 Table 3.2.3-1 Freshwater Essential Fish Habitat Crossed by the Project ........................ 3-29 Table 3.2.4-1 Preliminary List of Waterbodies with the Potential to Develop Frost Bulbs
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Polystichum Aleuticum) Field Survey at Atka Island, Alaska
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service INTRA-SERVICE BIOLOGICAL OPINION For 2016 Aleutian Shield Fern (Polystichum aleuticum) Field Survey at Atka Island, Alaska To the Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office Prepared by: Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office Anchorage, Alaska July 25, 2016 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 2. Description of the Proposed Action .......................................................................................1 Project Overview ...........................................................................................................1 Minimization Measures .................................................................................................3 Action Area ....................................................................................................................3 5. Status of the Species ..............................................................................................................4 6. Environmental Baseline .........................................................................................................6 7. Effects of the Action on Listed Species .................................................................................7 8. Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................7 9. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2016/061206 Al 21 April 2016 (21.04.2016) P O P C T
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2016/061206 Al 21 April 2016 (21.04.2016) P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: (74) Agent: BAUER, Christopher; PIONEER HI-BRED IN C12N 15/82 (2006.01) A01N 65/00 (2009.01) TERNATIONAL, INC., 7100 N.W. 62nd Avenue, John C07K 14/415 (2006.01) ston, Iowa 5013 1-1014 (US). (21) International Application Number: (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every PCT/US2015/055502 kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, (22) Date: International Filing BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, 14 October 2015 (14.10.201 5) DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, (25) Filing Language: English HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IR, IS, JP, KE, KG, KN, KP, KR, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, MG, (26) Publication Language: English MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, OM, (30) Priority Data: PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SA, SC, 62/064,810 16 October 20 14 ( 16.10.20 14) US SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW. (71) Applicants: PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC. [US/US]; 7100 N.W.
    [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]
  • Hypomesus Nipponensis) Stock Trajectory in Lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura
    Open Journal of Marine Science, 2015, 5, 210-225 Published Online April 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojms http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojms.2015.52017 Factors Affecting Japanese Pond Smelt (Hypomesus nipponensis) Stock Trajectory in Lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura Ashneel Ajay Singh1, Noriyuki Sunoh2, Shintaro Niwa2, Fumitaka Tokoro2, Daisuke Sakamoto1, Naoki Suzuki1, Kazumi Sakuramoto1* 1Department of Ocean Science and Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan 2Freshwater Branch Office, Ibaraki Fisheries Research Institute, Ibaraki, Japan Email: *[email protected] Received 5 February 2015; accepted 26 March 2015; published 30 March 2015 Copyright © 2015 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract The Japanese pond smelt (Hypomesus nipponensis) stock has been observed to fluctuate quite ri- gorously over the years with sustained periods of low catch in Lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura of the Ibaraki prefecture, Japan which would adversely affect the socioeconomic livelihood of the lo- cal fishermen and fisheries industry. This study was aimed at determining the factors affecting the stock fluctuation of the pond smelt through the different years in the two lakes. Through explora- tory analysis it was found that the pond smelt had significant relationship with total phosphorus (TP) level in both lakes. The global mean land and ocean temperature index (LOTI) was also found to be indirectly related to the pond smelt stock in lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura at the latitude band of 24˚N to 90˚N (l).
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas of Rare Endemic Vascular Plants of the Arctic
    Atlas of Rare Endemic Vascular Plants of the Arctic Technical Report No. 3 About CAFF Theprogram for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) of the Arctic Council was established lo address the special needs of Arctic ecosystems, species and thcir habitats in the rapid ly developing Arctic region. Itwas initiated as one of'four programs of the Arctic Environmental Protcction Strategy (AEPS) which was adopted by Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, lceland, Norway, Russia, Swcdcn and the United States through a Ministeria! Declaration at Rovaniemi, Finland in 1991. Other programs initi­ ated under the AEPS and overlaken hy the Are.tie Council are the ArcticMonitoring and assessment Programme (AMAP), the program for Emergency Prevention, Preparcd­ ness and Response (EPPR) and the program for Protection of the Arctic Marine Envi­ ronment (PAME). Sinceits inaugural mccti.ng in Ottawa, Canada in 1992, the CAFF program has provided scientists, conscrvation managers and groups, and indigenous people of the north with a distinct forum in which lo tackle a wide range of Arctic conservation issues at the cir­ cumpolar level. CAFF's main goals, which are achieved in keeping with the concepts of sustainable developrnertt and utilisation, are: • to conserve Arctic Jlora and fauna, thcir diversity and thcir habitats; • to protect the Arctic ecosystems from threats; • to improve conservation management laws, reg ulations and practices for the Arclic; • to integrale Arctic interests into global conservation fora. CAFF operates rhrough a system of Designated Agencies and National Representatives responsible for CAFF in thcir rcspcctivc countries. CAFF also has an International Work­ ing Group wh.ith has met annually to assess progrcss and to develop Annual WorkPlans.
    [Show full text]
  • Coexistence of Resident and Anadromous Pond Smelt, Hypomesus Nipponensis, in Lake Ogawara
    33 Coexistence of resident and anadromous pond smelt, Hypomesus nipponensis, in Lake Ogawara SATOSHIKATAYAMA Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, 981-8555, Japan (katayama@bios. tohoku. ac.jp) SUMMARY. Pond smelt, Hypomesus nipponensis, inhabit fresh, brackish, and oceanic waters, and support substantial commercial fisheries in Japanese lakes. Pond smelt in Lake Ogawara, northern Japan, display a bimodal body length distribution during the spawning season, despite being 0+ fish. Analyses of otolith microstructure and microchemistry were utilized to discriminate anadromous from resident individuals, and revealed that individuals smaller than 60 mm SL were resident, those between 60-80 mm were mixed resident and anadromous, and those larger than 80 mm were anadromous. Intensive research on the reproductive ecology identified spawning localities in the lake and inflowing rivers. Although only anadromous fish spawned in inflowing rivers, spawners in the lake were a mixture of anadromous and resident individuals, suggesting that anadromous and resident spawning groups share a common spawning ground. These fish spawn during almost the same period from mid March to early May. Therefore, reproductive isolation does not appear to occur, and genetic differentiation has not been found through isozyme and mtDNA analyses. The anadromous and resident life history styles appear to be ecological variations within a single population. Lastly, qualitative and quantitative contributions of migratory and non-migratory pond smelts to the next generation were examined and heterogeneity in the life history of this population was discussed. KEYWORDS: residence, anadromy, pond smelt, alternative life history styles INTRODUCTION throughout the year and all over the take. 2,3) Anadromous migration has been studied mainly for salmonids.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Chapter 2. Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Inventory By Lyman K. Thorsteinson .............................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 3 Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Species By Milton S. Love, Mancy Elder, Catherine W. Mecklenburg Lyman K. Thorsteinson, and T. Anthony Mecklenburg .................................................................. 41 Pacific and Arctic Lamprey ............................................................................................................. 49 Pacific Lamprey………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………49 Arctic Lamprey…………………………………………………………………………………….……………………….55 Spotted Spiny Dogfish to Bering Cisco ……………………………………..…………………….…………………………60 Spotted Spiney Dogfish………………………………………………………………………………………………..60 Arctic Skate………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………….66 Pacific Herring……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………..70 Pond Smelt……………………………………….………………………………………………………………………….78 Pacific Capelin…………………………….………………………………………………………………………………..83 Arctic Smelt………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….91 Chapter 2. Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Inventory By Lyman K. Thorsteinson1 Abstract Introduction Several other marine fishery investigations, including A large number of Arctic fisheries studies were efforts for Arctic data recovery and regional analyses of range started following the publication of the Fishes of Alaska extensions, were ongoing concurrent to this study. These (Mecklenburg and others, 2002). Although the results of included
    [Show full text]
  • DELTA SMELT Hypomesus Transpacificus USFWS: Threatened CDFG: Threatened
    LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC DRAFT SOLANO HCP JULY 2 012 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY NATURAL COMMUNITY AND SPECIES ACCOUNTS DELTA SMELT Hypomesus transpacificus USFWS: Threatened CDFG: Threatened Species Account Status and Description. The delta smelt was listed as a threatened species by the Department of Fish and Game on December 9, 1993 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on March 5, 1993. The delta smelt originally was classified as the same species as the pond smelt (Hypomesus olidus), but Hamada (1961) and Moyle (1976, 1980) recognized the delta smelt as a distinct species (Federal Register 1993). The delta smelt is the only smelt endemic to California and the only true native estuarine species found in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary (known as the Delta) (Moyle et al. 1989, Stevens et al. 1990, Wang 1986). Photo courtesy of California Dept of Fish and Game Adult delta smelt are slender-bodied fish from the Osmeridae family (smelts). They were described by Moyle (2002) as being about 60-70 millimeters (2.36-2.76 inches) in standard length, but may grow as large as 120 millimeters (4.73 inches). They have a steely-blue sheen on the sides that gives them a translucent appearance. Occasionally one chromatophore may lie between the mandibles, but usually none is present. Its mouth is small, with a maxilla that does not extend past the mid-point of the eye. The eyes are relatively large, with the orbit width contained about 3.5-4 times in the head length. The upper and lower jaws have small, pointed teeth.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on the Natural History of Juneau, Alaska
    Notes on the Natural History of Juneau, Alaska Observations of an Eclectic Naturalist Volume 2 Animals L. Scott Ranger Working version of Jul. 8, 2020 A Natural History of Juneau, working version of Jul. 8, 2020 Juneau Digital Shaded-Relief Image of Alaska-USGS I-2585, In the Public Domain Natural History of Juneau, working version of Jul. 8, 2020 B Notes on the Natural History of Juneau, Alaska Observations of an Eclectic Naturalist Volume 2: Animals L. Scott Ranger www.scottranger.com, [email protected] Production Notes This is very much a work under construction. My notes are composed in Adobe InDesign which allows incredible precision of all the elements of page layout. My choice of typefaces is very specific. Each must include a complete set of glyphs and extended characters. For my etymologies the font must include an easily recognized Greek and the occasional Cyrillic and Hebrew. All must be legible and easily read at 10 points. Adobe Garamond Premier Pro is my specifically chosen text typeface. I find this Robert Slimbach 1989 revision of a typeface created by Claude Garamond (c. 1480–1561) to be at once fresh and classic. Long recognized as one of the more legible typefaces, I find it very easy on the eye at the 10 point size used here. I simply adore the open bowls of the lower case letters and find the very small counters of my preferred two- storied “a” and the “e” against its very open bowl elegant. Garamond’s ascenders and decenders are especially long and help define the lower case letters with instant recognition.
    [Show full text]
  • COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Bull Trout Salvelinus Confluentus in Canada
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus South Coast British Columbia populations Western Arctic populations Upper Yukon Watershed populations Saskatchewan - Nelson Rivers populations Pacific populations in Canada South Coast British Columbia populations - SPECIAL CONCERN Western Arctic populations - SPECIAL CONCERN Upper Yukon Watershed populations - DATA DEFICIENT Saskatchewan - Nelson Rivers populations - THREATENED Pacific populations - NOT AT RISK 2012 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. iv + 103 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Jennifer Gow for writing the status report on the Bull Trout, Salvelinus confluentus, in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Dr. John Post, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur L’omble à tête plate (Salvelinus confluentus) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Bull Trout — Picture courtesy of J.D. McPhail and D.L. McPhail. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2013. Catalogue No. CW69-14/659-2013E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-22290-5 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2012 Common name Bull Trout - South Coast British Columbia populations Scientific name Salvelinus confluentus Status Special Concern Reason for designation This freshwater fish exists in five large river systems in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation in Salmonid Life Histories: Patterns and Perspectives
    United States Department of Agriculture Variation in Salmonid Life Forest Service Histories: Patterns and Pacific Northwest Research Station Perspectives Research Paper PNW-RP-498 Mary F. Willson February 1997 Author MARY F. WILLSON is a research ecologist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 2770 Sherwood Lane, Juneau, AK 98801. Abstract Willson, Mary F. 1997. Variation in salmonid life histories: patterns and perspectives. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-498. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 50 p. Salmonid fishes differ in degree of anadromy, age of maturation, frequency of repro- duction, body size and fecundity, sexual dimorphism, breeding season, morphology, and, to a lesser degree, parental care. Patterns of variation and their possible signif- icance for ecology and evolution and for resource management are the focus of this review. Keywords: Salmon, char, Oncorhynchus, Salmo, Salvelinus, life history, sexual dimor- phism, age of maturation, semelparity, anadromy, phenology, phenotypic variation, parental care, speciation. Summary Salmonid fishes differ in degree of anadromy, age of maturation, frequency of reproduction, body size and fecundity, sexual dimorphism, breeding season, morphology, and to a lesser degree, parental care. The advantages of large body size in reproductive competition probably favored the evolution of ocean foraging, and the advantages of safe breeding sites probably favored freshwater spawning. Both long-distance migrations and reproductive competition may have favored the evolution of semelparity. Reproductive competition has favored the evolution of secondary sexual characters, alternative mating tactics, and probably nest-defense behavior. Salmonids provide good examples of character divergence in response to ecological release and of parallel evolution. The great phenotypic plasticity of these fishes may facilitate speciation.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Knowledge, Biological Characteristics & Movements Of
    Local Knowledge, Biological Characteristics & Movements of Fish in the Travaillant Lake System Photo by L. Harris Prepared for: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Prepared by: Kimberly Howland1, Les Harris2 and Janet Winbourne2 1Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 501 University Cresc., Winnipeg, MB R3L 0N1 2Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board, P. O. Box 2240, Inuvik, NT, X0E 0T0 Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] March 2004 Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES................................................................................................ 8 MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................ 9 Study Area.................................................................................................................. 9 Collection of Local Knowledge on Fish Movements and Habitat Use .......................... 9 Fish Capture, Tagging and Biological Sampling ........................................................ 10 Tag Recovery............................................................................................................ 12 Lab Analyses of Biological Information.....................................................................
    [Show full text]