DOCSLIB.ORG

AQU 1 Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AQU 1 Report PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD Lewis River Hydroelectric Project FERC Project Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 CONTENTS 4.0 AQUATIC RESOURCES ...............................................................................AQU 1-1 4.1 REPORT ON LIFE HISTORY, HABITAT REQUIREMENTS, AND DISTRIBUTION OF AQUATIC ANALYSIS SPECIES (AQU 1)........AQU 1-1 4.1.1 Study Objectives............................................................................AQU 1-2 4.1.2 Study Area .....................................................................................AQU 1-3 4.1.3 Methods .........................................................................................AQU 1-3 4.1.4 Key Questions................................................................................AQU 1-4 4.1.5 Results............................................................................................AQU 1-5 4.1.6 Discussion....................................................................................AQU 1-81 4.1.7 Schedule.......................................................................................AQU 1-83 4.1.8 References....................................................................................AQU 1-83 4.1.9 Comments and Responses on Draft Report .................................AQU 1-97 AQU 1 Appendix 1 Fish Distribution Maps AQU 1 Appendix 2 WRIA 27 Fish Distribution and Barriers LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1-1. Aquatic analysis species to be assessed.............................................AQU 1-1 Table 4.1-2. The number of adult spring and fall Chinook collected at the Merwin Dam fish collection facility (1933 to 1953). ......................AQU 1-13 Table 4.1-3. Escapement estimates for adult spring Chinook and fall Chinook in the North Fork Lewis River (1980 to 2000). ...............................AQU 1-14 Table 4.1-4. The current distribution and habitat use type for Chinook salmon in the Lewis River basin. .................................................................AQU 1-15 Table 4.1-5. The number of adult coho collected at the Merwin Dam fish collection facility (1932 to 1969).....................................................AQU 1-21 Table 4.1-6. Escapement estimates for adult coho in the North Fork Lewis River (1980 to 1998) (counts do not include jacks or fish harvested by recreational anglers). ..................................................AQU 1-22 Table 4.1-8. Angler catch of summer run and winter run steelhead in the mainstem Lewis River and North Fork Lewis River (1979-80 through 1994-95). ............................................................................AQU 1-36 Table 4.1-9. The current distribution and habitat use type for winter steelhead in the Lewis River basin. .................................................................AQU 1-37 Table 4.1-10. The current distribution and habitat use type for summer steelhead in the Lewis River basin...................................................AQU 1-38 Table 4.1-11. Number of bull trout collected from the Yale tailrace (Lake Merwin) and transferred to the mouth of Cougar Creek (Yale Lake) or released back into Lake Merwin (1995 through 2000). ....AQU 1-64 Table 4.1-12. The spawning year, peak count, estimated escapement, number of females and the mean fecundity of spawning kokanee in Cougar Creek (1978 to 2000). .........................................................AQU 1-68 April 2004 Final Technical Reports - Page AQU 1-i \\Neoserver\disk1\Projects\Lewis River\Final Tech Reports 04-04\04.0 AQU\AQU 01 Final 032404.doc PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD Lewis River Hydroelectric Project FERC Project Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 Table 4.1-13. Peak kokanee spawner counts in tributaries to Lake Merwin, 1978 to 1982. ...................................................................................AQU 1-69 Table 4.1-14. Summary of sculpin species within the lower Columbia River and tributaries...................................................................................AQU 1-71 Table 4.1-15. Resource utilization by insects in several aquatic habitats 1 (adapted from Merritt et al. 1984)....................................................AQU 1-80 Table 4.1-16. Current WDFW fish production goals for the Lewis River Hatchery Complex. ..........................................................................AQU 1-82 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1-1. Periodicity chart for various life stages of fish species (with known life history information) in the Lewis River basin. ..............AQU 1-7 Figure 4.1-2. Annual peak counts of bull trout spawners observed in Cougar Creek 1979-2000. ...........................................................................AQU 1-62 Figure 4.1-3. Spawning population estimate of bull trout in Swift Reservoir for the years 1994 through 2000. .........................................................AQU 1-63 Page AQU 1-ii - Final Technical Reports April 2004 \\Neoserver\disk1\Projects\Lewis River\Final Tech Reports 04-04\04.0 AQU\AQU 01 Final 032404.doc PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD Lewis River Hydroelectric Project FERC Project Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 4.0 AQUATIC RESOURCES 4.1 REPORT ON LIFE HISTORY, HABITAT REQUIREMENTS, AND DISTRIBUTION OF AQUATIC ANALYSIS SPECIES (AQU 1) During the Lewis River watershed study scoping and planning process, the Aquatics Resource Group (ARG) identified 14 fish species plus macroinvertebrates that would be the focus species for the Lewis River aquatic resources studies (Table 4.1-1). Analysis species were selected to identify and describe the commonly occurring as well as rare and declining species that are representative of the species guilds whose habitat and habitat features may be affected by continued operation of the Lewis River Projects. The ARG also asked for a description of the life history, habitat requirements, and distribution of aquatic analysis species. This report responds to that request. Table 4.1-1. Aquatic analysis species to be assessed. Analysis Species Selection Criteria Chinook Salmon Potential sensitivity to changes in aquatic and riparian habitat quality and connectivity. Strong ecological interactor. Coho Salmon Potential sensitivity to changes in aquatic and riparian habitat quality and connectivity. Strong ecological interactor. Chum Salmon Potential sensitivity to changes in aquatic and riparian habitat quality and connectivity. Strong ecological interactor. Steelhead Trout Potential sensitivity to changes in aquatic and riparian habitat quality and connectivity. Strong ecological interactor. Sea-run Cutthroat Trout Potential sensitivity to changes in aquatic and riparian habitat quality and connectivity. Strong ecological interactor. Pacific Lamprey Special habitat requirements during spawning and rearing stages. Important ecological species. White Sturgeon Long-lived species which may have been affected by construction of dams. May be vulnerable to overharvest. Northern Pikeminnow Top level predator. May have increased in numbers due to construction of dams. Mountain Whitefish Native species with some habitat requirements that differ from other salmonids. Bull Trout Federally listed threatened species. Unique habitat requirements. Top level predator. Kokanee Important introduced sport fish. Planktivore. Interspecific interactions with native fishes may be important. Sculpins Require cool water temperatures. Many species associated with high stream gradients. Benthic species. Threespine Stickleback Present in Yale and Merwin. Interspecific interactions with kokanee fry may be important. Largescale Sucker Juveniles may constitute important prey item for bull trout. Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Changes in these communities may indicate changes in and Zooplankton Guilds ecological conditions. April 2004 Final Technical Reports - Page AQU 1-1 \\Neoserver\disk1\Projects\Lewis River\Final Tech Reports 04-04\04.0 AQU\AQU 01 Final 032404.doc PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD Lewis River Hydroelectric Project FERC Project Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 4.1.1 Study Objectives As described in the Study Plan Document (PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD 1999, as amended), the objective of this study is to research, compile, and summarize existing information on life history, habitat requirements, and distribution of aquatic analysis species currently or historically occurring in the study area. Specific topics to be addressed in this review (as described in the study plan) are as follows. 4.1.1.1 Life History • A biological description including physical descriptions, geographic distributions, average and record sizes, age and growth characteristics, food habits, and predator and prey dynamics. • A general description of life history phases, including a periodicity chart and description of migratory behavior for each phase. • A description of potential life history interactions between hatchery and wild or native fishes. Interactions will include potential competition for habitat and predation. • A statement on Endangered Species Act (ESA) status or other key management goals for the species. 4.1.1.2 Habitat Requirements • A general description of macro and mesohabitat requirements for each life phase including reproductive, early life, and adult. Key macro habitat components will include differentiation between lentic and lotic habitats; pelagic or littoral habitats; and water quality and temperature requirements. Mesohabitat requirements will include differentiation between preference for pools, riffles, turbulent/fast water, etc. • A general description of micro habitat requirements will include
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2008 Annual Report
    Document ID #P113359 Report covers work performed under BPA contract #26763 Report was completed under BPA contract #34772 REPORT ON THE PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN EXPERIMENTAL NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Russell Porter Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission In Cooperation with: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Department of Agriculture Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 199007700 Contract Number 00026763 Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Report A – Sport Reward Fishery in the Columbia and Snake Rivers 10 Abstract 11 Introduction 12 Methods of Operation 13 Fishery Operation 13 Boundaries and Season 13 Registration Stations 14 Reward System 14 Angler Sampling 15 Returning Anglers 16 Non-Returning Anglers 16 Northern Pikeminnow Handling Procedures 17 Biological Sampling 17 PIT Tag Detection 17 Northern Pikeminnow Processing 18 Results and Discussion 18 Northern Pikeminnow Harvest 18 Harvest by Week 19 Harvest by Fishing Location 20 Harvest by Registration Station 21 Harvest by Species/Incidental Catch 22 Angler Effort 24 Effort by Week 25 Effort by Fishing Location 27 Effort by Registration Station 27 Catch Per Angler Day (CPUE) 28 CPUE by Week 29 CPUE by Fishing Location 30 CPUE by Registration Station 30 Angler Totals 31 Tag Recovery 34 Northern
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography of Literature on Mountain Whitefish, Prosopium Williamsoni
    Bibliography of literature on mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni September, 2001 Colden V. Baxter Ph.d candidate, Fisheries Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 References: Baxter, C. V. 2002. Fish movement and assemblage dynamics in a Pacific Northwest riverscape. Ph.D. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Baxter, G. T., and J. R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming fishes. Begout Anras, M. L., P. M. Cooley, R. A. Bodaly, L. Anras, and R. J. P. Fudge. 1999. Movement and habitat use by lake whitefish during spawning in a boreal lake: integrating acoustic telemtry and geographic information systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128: 939-952. Bergersen, E. P. 1973. Fish production and movements in the lower Logan River, Utah. Pages 183 pp. Department of Wildlife Resources. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Bergstedt, L. C., and E. P. Bergersen. 1997. Health and movements of fish in response to sediment sluicing in the Wind River, Wyoming. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 312-319. Brown, C. J. D. 1952. Spawning habits and early development of the mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni, in Montana. Copeia : 109-113. Brown, L. G. 1972. Early life history of the mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni (Girard) in the Logan River, Utah. Pages 47 pp. Department of Wildlife Resources. Utah State University, Logan Utah. Davies, R. W., and G. W. Thompson. 1976. Movements of mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) in the Sheep River watershed, Alberta. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33: 2395-2401. Dill, W. A., and L. Shapalov. 1939. An unappreciated California game fish, the Rocky Mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoniI.
    [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]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a System-Wide Predator Control Program: Northern Squawfish Management Program
    Development of a System-wide Predator Control Program Northern Squawfish Management Program - Implementation Annual Report 1997 October 1998 DOE/BP-24514-8 This Document should be cited as follows: Young, Franklin, "Development of a System-wide Predator Control Program; Northern Squawfish Management Program - Implementation", 1997 Annual Report, Project No. 199007700, 100 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-24514-8) Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208 This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The views in this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of BPA. DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEMWIDE PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM: STEPWISE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND EVALUATION PLAN IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN SECTION I: IMPLEMENTATION 1997 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Franklin R. Young Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority In Cooperation With Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Reservation Prepared
    [Show full text]
  • Prosopium Williamsoni) Population in the Big Lost River
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 12-2009 The Effect of Irrigation Diversions on the Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) Population in the Big Lost River Patrick Allen Kennedy Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation Kennedy, Patrick Allen, "The Effect of Irrigation Diversions on the Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) Population in the Big Lost River" (2009). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 512. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/512 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EFFECT OF IRRIGATION DIVERSIONS ON THE MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH (PROSOPIUM WILLIAMSONI) POPULATION IN THE BIG LOST RIVER by Patrick Allen Kennedy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Watershed Science Approved: _________________________ _________________________ Dr. Tamao Kasahara Dr. Brett Roper Major Professor Committee Member _________________________ _________________________ Dr. James Haefner Dr. Byron Burnham Committee Member Dean of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2009 ii Copyright © Patrick Kennedy 2009 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT The Effect of Irrigation Diversions on the Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) Population in the Big Lost River by Patrick Allen Kennedy, Master of Science Utah State University, 2009 Major Professors: Dr. Tamao Kasahara and Dr. Brett Roper Department: Watershed Sciences Management agencies documented a decline in the mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) population on the Big Lost River, and unscreened diversions were recognized as a potential factor for this decline.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Tahoe Fish Species
    Description: o The Lohonton cutfhroot trout (LCT) is o member of the Solmonidqe {trout ond solmon) fomily, ond is thought to be omong the most endongered western solmonids. o The Lohonton cufihroot wos listed os endongered in 1970 ond reclossified os threotened in 1975. Dork olive bdcks ond reddish to yellow sides frequently chorocterize the LCT found in streoms. Steom dwellers reoch l0 inches in length ond only weigh obout I lb. Their life spon is less thon 5 yeors. ln streoms they ore opportunistic feeders, with diets consisting of drift orgonisms, typicolly terrestriol ond oquotic insects. The sides of loke-dwelling LCT ore often silvery. A brood, pinkish stripe moy be present. Historicolly loke dwellers reoched up to 50 inches in length ond weigh up to 40 pounds. Their life spon is 5-14yeors. ln lokes, smoll Lohontons feed on insects ond zooplonkton while lorger Lohonions feed on other fish. Body spots ore the diognostic chorocter thot distinguishes the Lohonion subspecies from the .l00 Poiute cutthroot. LCT typicolly hove 50 to or more lorge, roundish-block spots thot cover their entire bodies ond their bodies ore typicolly elongoted. o Like other cufihroot trout, they hove bosibronchiol teeth (on the bose of tongue), ond red sloshes under their iow (hence the nome "cutthroot"). o Femole sexuol moturity is reoch between oges of 3 ond 4, while moles moture ot 2 or 3 yeors of oge. o Generolly, they occur in cool flowing woier with ovoiloble cover of well-vegetoted ond stoble streom bonks, in oreos where there ore streom velocity breoks, ond in relotively silt free, rocky riffle-run oreos.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution, Abundance, and Genetic Population Structure of Wood River Sculpin, Cottus Leiopomus
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 68 Number 4 Article 10 12-31-2008 Distribution, abundance, and genetic population structure of Wood River sculpin, Cottus leiopomus Kevin A. Meyer Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nampa, Idaho, [email protected] Daniel J. Schill Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Matthew R. Campbell Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Christine C. Kozfkay Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Recommended Citation Meyer, Kevin A.; Schill, Daniel J.; Campbell, Matthew R.; and Kozfkay, Christine C. (2008) "Distribution, abundance, and genetic population structure of Wood River sculpin, Cottus leiopomus," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 68 : No. 4 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol68/iss4/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 68(4), © 2008, pp. 508–520 DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, AND GENETIC POPULATION STRUCTURE OF WOOD RIVER SCULPIN, COTTUS LEIOPOMUS Kevin A. Meyer1,3, Daniel J. Schill1, Matthew R. Campbell2, and Christine C. Kozfkay2 ABSTRACT.—The Wood River sculpin Cottus leiopomus is endemic to the Wood River Basin in central Idaho and is a nongame species of concern because of its limited distribution. However, status and genetic population structure, 2 factors often central to the conservation and management of species of concern, have not been assessed for this species.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Whitefish Chances for Survival: Better 4 Prosopium Williamsoni
    Mountain Whitefish chances for survival: better 4 Prosopium williamsoni ountain whitefish are silvery in color and coarse-scaled with a large and the mackenzie and hudson bay drainages in the arctic. to sustain whatever harvest exists today. mountain whitefish in California and Nevada, they are present in the truckee, should be managed as a native salmonid that is still persisting 1 2 3 4 5 WHITEFISH adipose fin, a small mouth on the underside of the head, a short Carson, and Walker river drainages on the east side of in some numbers. they also are a good indicator of the dorsal fin, and a slender, cylindrical body. they are found the sierra Nevada, but are absent from susan river and “health” of the Carson, Walker, and truckee rivers, as well as eagle lake. lake tahoe and other lakes where they still exist. Whitefish m Mountain Whitefish Distribution throughout western North america. While mountain whitefish are regarded aBundanCe: mountain whitefish are still common in populations in sierra Nevada rivers and tributaries have California, but they are now divided into isolated popula- been fragmented by dams and reservoirs, and are generally as a single species throughout their wide range, a thorough genetic analysis tions. they were once harvested in large numbers by Native scarce in reservoirs. a severe decline in the abundance of americans and commercially harvested in lake tahoe. mountain whitefish in sagehen and prosser Creeks followed would probably reveal distinct population segments. the lahontan population there are still mountain whitefish in lake tahoe, but they the construction of dams on each creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L
    PERSPECTIVE Goodbye to “Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L. Rypel | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA. E-mail: [email protected] Parsa Saffarinia | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Caryn C. Vaughn | University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of Biology, Norman, OK Larry Nesper | University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Anthropology, Madison, WI Katherine O’Reilly | University of Notre Dame, Department of Biological Sciences, Notre Dame, IN Christine A. Parisek | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA | The Nature Conservancy, Science Communications, Boise, ID Peter B. Moyle | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA Nann A. Fangue | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Miranda Bell- Tilcock | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA David Ayers | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Solomon R. David | Nicholls State University, Department of Biological Sciences, Thibodaux, LA While sometimes difficult to admit, perspectives of European and white males have overwhelmingly dominated fisheries science and management in the USA. This dynamic is exemplified by bias against “rough fish”— a pejorative ascribing low- to- zero value for countless native fishes. One product of this bias is that biologists have ironically worked against conservation of diverse fishes for over a century, and these problems persist today.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names for Fish and Wildlife Species Found in Idaho
    APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN IDAHO. How to Read the Lists. Within these lists, species are listed phylogenetically by class. In cases where phylogeny is incompletely understood, taxonomic units are arranged alphabetically. Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks (GRanks and SRanks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species rangewide (GRank) and statewide (SRank). Rangewide ranks are assigned by NatureServe and statewide ranks are assigned by the Idaho Conservation Data Center. GX or SX Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH or SH Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20–40 years. A species could become SH without such a 20–40 year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The SH rank is reserved for species for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. G1 or S1 Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G2 or S2 Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G3 or S3 Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation.
    [Show full text]
  • Burner, L. C, J. A. North, R. A. Farr, and T. A. Rien. 2000
    WHITE STURGEON MITIGATIONMITIGATION AND RESTORATIORESTORATIONN IN THE COLUMBIA ANDAND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAUPSTREAMM FROM BONNEVILLE DADAM.M. ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT APRIL 1998 - MARCH 1999 Edited by: David L. Ward Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife In Cooperation With: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission University of Idaho Prepared For: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 86-50 Contract Number DE-AI79-86BP63584 CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY by David L. Ward 3 REPORT A. Evaluate the success of developing and implementing a management plan for enhancing production of white sturgeon in reservoirs between Bonneville and McNary dams. by Lisa C. Burner, John A. North, Ruth A. Farr, and Thomas A. Rien 6 REPORT B. Evaluate the success of developing and implementing a management plan for white sturgeon in reservoirs between Bonneville and McNary dams in enhancing production. Describe the life history and population dynamics of subadult and adult white sturgeon upstream of McNary Dam and downstream from Bonneville Dam. by John D. DeVore, Brad W. James, Dennis R. Gilliland, and Brad J. Cady 41 REPORT C. Describe reproduction and early life history characteristics of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams. Define habitat requirements for spawning and rearing white sturgeons and quantify the extent of habitat available in the Columbia River between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams. by Kevin M. Kappenman, Darren G.
    [Show full text]