DOCSLIB.ORG

2009 Bear Lake Comprehensive Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2009 Bear Lake Comprehensive Management Plan Bear Lake Comprehensive Management Plan May 2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES Mike Styler, Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources Richard J. Buehler, Director, Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands Dave Grierson, Planner/Sovereign Lands Coordinator, Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands Jennifer Wiglama, Mineral Lease Analyst, Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands Kelly Allen, Area Sovereign Lands Coordinator, Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands Kevin Wells, GIS Specialist, Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands PLANNING WORKGROUP MEMBERS Elke Brown, Representative, Lakota Estates Home Owners Association Dave and Claudia Cottle, Executive Directors, Bear Lake Watch Richard Droesbeke, Park Manager, Utah Division of Parks & Recreation Blain Hamp, Area Manager, Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands Ken Hansen, Mayor, Garden City Allen Harrison, Executive Director, Bear Lake Regional Commission Judy Holbrook, Tourism Director, Bear Lake Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Mitch Poulsen, Deputy Director, Bear Lake Regional Commission Allen Ruberry, Senior Resources Specialist, Idaho Department of Lands Laraine Schnetzer, Garden City Council Member, Garden City Ken Short, Senior Engineer, Utah Division of Water Resources Scott Tolentino, Fisheries Biologist, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Thomas Weston, Commissioner, Rich County McKay Willis, Mayor, Laketown BIO-WESTSTAFF Christopher Sands, Project Manager, BIO-WEST, Inc. Brandon Albrecht, Fisheries Biologist, BIO-WEST, Inc. Bridget Atkin, Botanist, BIO-WEST, Inc. Aaron Crookston, CAD/GIS Specialist, BIO-WEST, Inc. Sandra Davenport, Environmental Planner, BIO-WEST, Inc. Shannon Herstein, Water Quality Specialist, BIO-WEST, Inc. Sandra Livingston Turner, Managing Editor, BIO-WEST, Inc. Mike Sipos, Wildlife Biologist, BIO-WEST, Inc. Chadd VanZanten, Editor, BIO-WEST, Inc. Special thanks to Sagebrush Consultants, LLC for their contributions to the Cultural Resources Section of this document. Comprehensive Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.................................. 1-1 1.1 Public Trust Doctrine ....................................... 1-1 1.2 Legal Authority ........................................... 1-4 1.3 Purposes of the Comprehensive Management Plan ................. 1-5 1.4 Current Management Responsibilities ........................... 1-6 1.5 History of Planning and Management of Bear Lake .................. 1-7 2.0 PLANNING PROCESS............................................. 2-1 2.1 Planning Process Overview................................... 2-1 2.2 Public Involvement Overview ................................. 2-3 2.2.1 Public Workshops .................................... 2-3 2.2.2Planning Work Group.................................. 2-4 2.2.3Interactive Web Page.................................. 2-4 2.3 Adoption of the Comprehensive Management Plan .................. 2-4 2.4 Amendments to the Comprehensive Management Plan .............. 2-5 2.5 Comprehensive Management Plan Elements...................... 2-7 2.6 Bear Lake Management Classifications........................... 2-7 2.6.1 Class 1: Manage to Protect Existing Recreation Development Uses ................................... 2-7 2.6.2 Class 2: Manage to Protect Potential Recreation Development Options ................................. 2-7 2.6.3Class 3: Manage as Open for Consideration of Any Use.......... 2-8 2.6.4 Class 4: Manage for Resource Inventory and Analysis ........... 2-8 2.6.5 Class 5: Manage to Protect Potential Resource Preservation Options............................................ 2-8 2.6.6 Class 6: Manage to Protect Existing Resource Preservation Uses.................................... 2-8 T-i Bear Lake 3.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS ...........................................3-1 3.1 Public Outreach and Partnerships...............................3-1 3.1.1Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands................3-1 3.1.2Utah Division of Parks and Recreation.......................3-1 3.1.3Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.........................3-1 3.1.4Utah Division of Water Rights.............................3-2 3.1.5Utah Division of Water Resources..........................3-2 3.1.6Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining........................3-2 3.1.7Utah Division of Water Quality ............................3-2 3.1.8U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............................3-2 3.2 Water Resources ..........................................3-3 3.2.1Hydrology...........................................3-3 3.2.2Water Quality........................................3-4 3.2.3Water Rights ........................................3-5 3.3 Recreation and Scenic Resources ..............................3-5 3.3.1Recreation Resources..................................3-5 3.3.2Scenic Resources.....................................3-9 3.4 Natural and Cultural Resources................................3-10 3.4.1Vegetation Resources.................................3-10 3.4.2Fishery Resources ...................................3-12 3.4.3Wildlife Resources....................................3-14 3.4.4Cultural Resources ...................................3-17 3.5 Sovereign Land Management.................................3-19 3.5.1Types of Use .......................................3-20 3.5.2Procedures.........................................3-20 3.5.3Applications........................................3-22 3.5.4Rates.............................................3-22 3.5.5Approvals..........................................3-23 4.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES..........................................4-1 4.1 Overview................................................4-1 4.2 Goal Category A: Public Outreach and Partnerships..................4-1 4.2.1 Goal A1: Communication and Information Dissemination Between Resource Agencies and Stakeholders Improved............4-1 4.2.2 Goal A2: Cooperation and Coordination with Resource Agencies and Stakeholders Improved .................................4-2 4.2.3 Goal A3: Knowledge of Recreational Visitation, Resource Impacts, and Ecological Processes Increased............................4-2 T-ii Comprehensive Management Plan 4.3 Goal Category B: Water Resources ............................. 4-2 4.3.1 Goal B1: Threats to Water Quality in Bear Lake from Use of Sovereign Lands Diminished........................................ 4-2 4.3.2 Goal B2: Sovereign Lands Management and Water Operations Coordinated............................................ 4-2 4.4 Goal Category C: Recreation and Scenic Resources................. 4-2 4.4.1 Goal C1: Safe and Quality Recreational Opportunities That Minimize Conflicts Provided............................... 4-2 4.4.2 Goal C2: Adequate Recreational Support Facilities to Meet Demand Provided .............................................. 4-3 4.4.3Goal C3: Scenic Resources Protected and Enhanced........... 4-3 4.5 Goal Category D: Natural and Cultural Resources ................... 4-3 4.5.1 Goal D1: Noxious and Invasive Weeds, Pests, and Aquatic Nuisances Managed for Control .............................. 4-3 4.5.2Goal D2: Bear Lake Fishery Protected and Enhanced ........... 4-4 4.5.3 Goal D3: Native Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Areas Protected and Enhanced .......................................... 4-4 4.5.4 Goal D4: Appropriate Vegetation Management on Sovereign Lands Allowed............................................... 4-4 4.5.5 Goal D5: Unnatural Erosion Controlled ...................... 4-4 4.5.6Goal D6: Cultural Resources Protected and Managed........... 4-5 4.6 Goal Category E: Land Management ............................ 4-5 4.6.1 Goal E1: Appropriate and Safe Access to Public Use Areas Provided........................................... 4-5 4.6.2 Goal E2: Special Use Permitting and Leases on Sovereign Lands Facilitated, as Appropriate.................................. 4-5 4.6.3 Goal E3: Sovereign Lands Boundary Settlements Completed ..... 4-6 4.6.4 Goal E4: Minerals Withdrawal on Sovereign Lands at Bear Lake Maintained............................................. 4-6 5.0 REFERENCES CITED............................................. 5-1 APPENDIX A: MAPS Map A: Sovereign Lands Planning Unit Map B: Surrounding Zoning Map C: Sovereign Lands Management Classifications Map D: Surrounding Land Ownership Map E: Sovereign Lands Public Access Locations Map F: Surrounding Vegetation Map G: Sovereign Lands Vegetation Types Map H: Sovereign Lands Substrate Types Map I: Sovereign Lands Fish Spawning Areas T-iii Bear Lake Map J: Surrounding Wildlife Habitat Map K: Sovereign Lands Leases, Permits, and Easements APPENDIX B: PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES APPENDIX C: ISSUE STATEMENTS APPENDIX D: EXISTING LEASES, PERMITS, AND EASEMENTS APPENDIX E: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Summary of acreages for each management classification at Bear Lake. 2-9 Table 3-1. Exposed sovereign lands acreage according to Bear Lake water level......3-7 Table 3-2. Common plant species occurring on Bear Lake sovereign lands according to vegetation community type.........................3-11 Table 3-3. Avian species in the Bear Lake basin designated as either critical or high priority............................................3-16 Table 3-4. Threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species at Bear Lake. .....3-18 Table 5-1. Bear Lake Comprehensive Management Plan Goals and Objectives implementation and monitoring. ...............................5-1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coexistence and Origin of Trophic Ecotypes of Pygmy Whitefish
    doi: 10.1111/jeb.12011 Coexistence and origin of trophic ecotypes of pygmy whitefish, Prosopium coulterii, in a south-western Alaskan lake C. P. GOWELL*†,T.P.QUINN† &E.B.TAYLOR‡ *Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA, USA †School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA ‡Department of Zoology, Biodiversity Research Centre and Beaty Biodiversity Museum, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Keywords: Abstract Coregoninae; Ecologically, morphologically and genetically distinct populations within sin- diet analysis; gle taxa often coexist in postglacial lakes and have provided important fish; model systems with which to investigate ecological and evolutionary pro- morphometrics; cesses such as niche partitioning and ecological speciation. Within the Sal- phylogeography; monidae, these species complexes have been well studied, particularly population genetics; within the Coregonus clupeaformis–C. laveratus (lake and European whitefish, sympatric populations. respectively) group, but the phenomenon has been less well documented in the other whitefish genera, Prosopium and Stenodus. Here, we examined the morphology, feeding biology and genetic structure of three putative forms of the pygmy whitefish, Prosopium coulterii (Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1892), first reported from Chignik Lake, south-western Alaska, over 40 years ago. Field collections and morphological analyses resolved a shal- low water (< 5 m depth) low gill raker count form (< 15 first arch gill rakers), a deepwater (> 30 m), low gill raker form and a deepwater, high gill raker count (> 15 gill rakers) form. The two low gill raker count forms fed almost exclusively on benthic invertebrates (mostly chironomids), while the deepwater, high gill raker count form fed almost exclusively on zooplank- ton; differences in diet were also reflected in differences both in d13C and d15N stable isotopes.
    [Show full text]
  • User Manual V2.3 July 21St, 2015
    FishGen User Manual v2.3 July 21st, 2015 FishGen.net is a final repository for genetic information of fish species that are of conservation and management importance to federal, state and tribal agencies in the United States and Canada. The repository currently houses salmon and steelhead genetic data as part of Genetic Stock Identification and Parentage Based Tagging projects in the Columbia River basin and throughout the Pacific Coast of North America. FishGen.net was developed by Resource Data, Inc. (RDI) for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game with funding from the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund and the Bonneville Power Administration. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. 2 Questions/Help ............................................................................................................ 4 Home Page .................................................................................................................. 5 Request Account Page ................................................................................................ 6 Uploading Genetic Markers ......................................................................................... 7 Uploading Microsatellite Markers .......................................................................... 8 Uploading SNP Markers ........................................................................................ 11 Uploading Taqman SNP markers ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Version 2020-04-20 Bear Lake Whitefish (Prosopium Abyssicola
    Version 2020-04-20 Bear Lake Whitefish (Prosopium abyssicola) Species Status Statement. Distribution Bear Lake whitefish is one of four fish species naturally found only in Bear Lake, which straddles the Utah-Idaho border. This species has also never been transplanted elsewhere, and occurs nowhere else in the world (Sigler and Sigler 1987). Table 1. Utah counties currently occupied by this species. Bear Lake Whitefish RICH Abundance and Trends Prior to 1999, there was simply no reliable method for fishery biologists to differentiate Bear Lake whitefish from Bonneville whitefish at lengths less than approximately 10 inches outside of their respective spawning seasons (Tolentino and Thompson 2004). Therefore, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) monitored both species combined as the “whitefish complex”. In 1999, Ward (2001) along with UDWR biologists (Tolentino and Thompson 2004) finally described a reliable method to distinguish the two whitefish species in Bear Lake. From 1999-2018 the UDWR has monitored gill net catch rates and composition of Bonneville and Bear Lake whitefish separately (Tolentino 2007). The population of Bear Lake whitefish has appeared to remain stable from 1999-2017, comprising an average of 26% of the whitefish species caught in survey nets each year. Statement of Habitat Needs and Threats to the Species. Habitat Needs Bear Lake whitefish spend a majority of their life near the bottom of the lake’s deep waters. For most of each year, they live at depths ranging from 130 to 200 feet (Thompson 2003, Tolentino 2007). However, during the months of February and March the adult fish move into rocky, somewhat shallower areas (20-100 feet) to spawn (Tolentino and Albrecht 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CWU Comparative Osteology Collection, List of Specimens
    CWU Comparative Osteology Collection, List of Specimens List updated November 2019 0-CWU-Collection-List.docx Specimens collected primarily from North American mid-continent and coastal Alaska for zooarchaeological research and teaching purposes. Curated at the Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Central Washington University, under the direction of Dr. Pat Lubinski, [email protected]. Facility is located in Dean Hall Room 222 at CWU’s campus in Ellensburg, Washington. Numbers on right margin provide a count of complete or near-complete specimens in the collection. Specimens on loan from other institutions are not listed. There may also be a listing of mount (commercially mounted articulated skeletons), part (partial skeletons), skull (skulls), or * (in freezer but not yet processed). Vertebrate specimens in taxonomic order, then invertebrates. Taxonomy follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System online (www.itis.gov) as of June 2016 unless otherwise noted. VERTEBRATES: Phylum Chordata, Class Petromyzontida (lampreys) Order Petromyzontiformes Family Petromyzontidae: Pacific lamprey ............................................................. Entosphenus tridentatus.................................... 1 Phylum Chordata, Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) unidentified shark teeth ........................................................ ........................................................................... 3 Order Squaliformes Family Squalidae Spiny dogfish ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Unique Fish of Bear Lake
    Unique Fish of Bear Lake Bear Lake is estimated to be over 28,000 years old. For at least 8,000 years, the lake was permanently isolated from the Bear River by earthquake activity. This isolation resulted in unique water chemistry and the evolution of five species of fish that are found nowhere else in the world. BEAR LAKE CUTTHROAT TROUT- The only trout native to Bear Lake evolved as a predator in a large lake system. It was originally called a “Bluenose” because of the brilliant azure, blue coloration of the head during the winter, but typically it is silvery with a few black spots and faint red slashes under the lower jaw. They spawn in the streams during the springs, but spend the majority of their life in the lake. The Bear Lake cutthroat feed primarily on Bonneville Cisco, Bear Lake Sculpin, and insects on the lake surface. They are most catchable during the winter and may live ten years and grow to 15 pounds. BONNEVILLE CISCO – This fish is a long, slender, pearly silver, thin fish. It rarely grows beyond nine inches. It has a dusky blue back and a band along its flanks at spawning time. The snout is sharply pointed. It is noted for its mid winter spawning along the rocky beach on the east side of Bear Lake in mid January where it is found in large numbers. It is a prolific fish that is an important forage for the predatory species in Bear Lake. BEAR LAKE WHITEFISH AND BONNEVILLE WHITE FISH – These fish are indistinguishable beyond 10 inches in length.
    [Show full text]
  • Ostracode Endemism in Bear Lake, Utah and Idaho
    The Geological Society of America Special Paper 450 2009 Ostracode endemism in Bear Lake, Utah and Idaho Jordon Bright Department of Geology, Box 4099, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA ABSTRACT Bear Lake, Utah and Idaho, is one of only a few lakes worldwide with endemic ostracode species. In most lakes, ostracode species distributions vary systemati- cally with depth, but in Bear Lake, there is a distinct boundary in the abundances of cosmopolitan and endemic valves in surface sediments at ~7 m water depth. This boundary seems to coincide with the depth distribution of endemic fi sh, indicating a biological rather than environmental control on ostracode species distributions. The cosmopolitan versus endemic ostracode species distribution persisted through time in Bear Lake and in a neighboring wetland. The endemic ostracode fauna in Bear Lake implies a complex ecosystem that evolved in a hydrologically stable, but not invariant, environmental setting that was long lived. Long-lived (geologic time scale) hydrologic stability implies the lake persisted for hundreds of thousands of years despite climate variability that likely involved times when effective moisture and lake levels were lower than today. The hydrologic budget of the lake is dominated by snowpack meltwater, as it likely was during past climates. The fractured and karstic bedrock in the Bear Lake catchment sustains local stream fl ow through the dry summer and sustains stream and ground- water fl ow to the lake during dry years, buffering the lake hydrology from climate variability and providing a stable environment for the evolution of endemic species. INTRODUCTION also contains four endemic fi sh species (Sigler and Sigler, 1996), which, excluding the Great Lakes basin (Smith, 1981; Smith and Bear Lake, Utah and Idaho, is an interesting lake for sev- Todd, 1984; Reed et al., 1998), is the largest number of endemic eral reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Bear Lake and Its Future
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@USU Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Faculty Honor Lectures Lectures 5-1-1962 Bear Lake and its Future William F. Sigler Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/honor_lectures Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Sigler, William F., "Bear Lake and its Future" (1962). Faculty Honor Lectures. Paper 22. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/honor_lectures/22 This Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Lectures at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Honor Lectures by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I I' l ! t ,I I The author is deeply indebted to Lois Cox for her help throughout the paper. - TWENTY-SIXTH FACULTY HONOR LECTURE i BEAR LAKE , AND ITS FUTURE by WILLIAM F. SIGLER Professor of Wildlife Resources I THE FACULTY ASSOCIATION UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY LOGAN UTAH 1962 TO DINGLE TO MONTPELIER .. I NORTH FORK ST. ST. CHARLES ·SCOUT CAMP :NEBECKER LAKOTA SWAN CREEK EDEN CREEK SCOUT CAMP HUNT GARDEN C"-IT_Y_-........ TO LOGA ~ SOUTH EDEN CREEk _____...---'71 / t LAKETOWN BEAR LAKE UTAH - IDAHO MAXIMUM ELEVATION - 5923.6 FT. ABOVE SEA LEVEL SCALE I INCH = 4 MILES SURFACED ROADS SHORELINE DISTANCE - 4 e M ILES IMPROVED ROADS SURFACE AREA - 109 SQ. MILES DIRT ROADS BEAR LAKE AND ITS FUTURE by William F. Sigler ven in such a wide-ranging and eternally changing field as biology, Ea few statements about certain aspects can be made with a mini­ mum likelihood of their being refuted.
    [Show full text]
  • WHY IS BEAR LAKE SO BLUE? and Other Commonly Asked Questions
    WHY IS BEAR LAKE SO BLUE? and other commonly asked questions by Jim Davis and Mark Milligan CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................2 WHERE IS BEAR LAKE? ...................................................................................................................4 WHY IS THERE A BIG, DEEP LAKE HERE? ..............................................................................6 WHY IS BEAR LAKE SO BLUE? ................................................................................................... 10 WHAT IS THE SHORELINE LIKE? ............................................................................................. 12 WHEN WAS BEAR LAKE DISCOVERED AND SETTLED? ................................................. 15 HOW OLD IS BEAR LAKE? ............................................................................................................16 WHEN DID THE BEAR RIVER AND BEAR LAKE MEET? ................................................ 17 WHAT LIVES IN BEAR LAKE? ..................................................................................................... 20 DOES BEAR LAKE FREEZE? .........................................................................................................24 WHAT IS THE WEATHER AT BEAR LAKE? .......................................................................... 26 WHAT DID BEAR LAKE LOOK LIKE DURING THE ICE AGE? .........................................28 WHAT IS KARST?.............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Call Numbers for Salmonidae
    CALL NUMBERS FOR SALMONIDAE Use this chart for the special breakdown of QL638.S2. The names in boldface represent authorized Library of Congress subject headings. Works on ciscoes, salmon, trout, and whitefish using these common names but covering species within one genus will be classed under the specific genus. Made-up example: Title: Guide to trouts. Subjects: Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), and Apache trout (O. apache). Class under: Oncorhynchus (.S25) Works on ciscoes, salmon, trout, and whitefish covering species which belong to more than one genus but which fall collectively under one of these common names will be classed under the Cutter for the common name. Made-up example: Title: Guide to trouts. Subjects: Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Class under: “trout” (.S216) The fishes are arranged by scientific (Latin) nomenclature. Only the most current standard scientific (Latin) name is given. Obsolete and debated scientific names are numerous. Adjustments to taxonomical classification are not uncommon, including reclassification to a different genus. The previous or alternative versions of common (vernacular) names are shown. Be aware that some market names (those used commercially) are scientifically incorrect. For brevity, this table excludes some species and races, particularly under Coregonus and Salvelinus. ARLIS Call Numbers for Salmonidae under QL638 Salmonidae Salmonidae (in general or two or more genuses) .S2 Coregonidae
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Utah Fishing Guidebook
    Utah Fishing • Utah Fishing CONTACT US CONTENTS HOW TO USE THIS GUIDEBOOK 2019 1. Review the general rules, starting on page 8. These rules explain the licenses you Turn in a poacher 3 How to use this guidebook need, the fishing methods you may use, and when you can transport and possess fish. Phone: 1-800-662-3337 4 Know the laws 2. Check general season dates, daily limits and possession limits, starting on page 19. Email: [email protected] 5 Keep your license on your Online: wildlife.utah.gov/utip phone or tablet 3. Look up a specific water in the section that starts on page 25. (If the water you’re look- ing for is not listed there, it is subject to the general rules.) Division offices 7 License and permit fees 2019 8 General rules: Licenses and Offices are open 8 a.m.–5 p.m., permits Monday • Utah Fishing through Friday. 8 Free Fishing Day WHAT’S NEW? 8 License exemptions for youth Salt Lake City Free Fishing Day: Free Fishing Day will be quagga mussels on and in boats that have 1594 W North Temple groups and organizations held on June 8, 2019. This annual event is a only been in Lake Powell for a day or two. For Box 146301 9 Discounted licenses for great opportunity to share fishing fun with a details on what’s changed at Lake Powell and Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301 disabled veterans friend or family member. For more informa- how you can help protect your boat, please see 801-538-4700 10 Help conserve native tion, see page 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater And
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]