DOCSLIB.ORG

Basin-Wide Native Non-Game Fish Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Basin-Wide Native Non-Game Fish Assessment Basin‐wide Native Non‐game Fish Assessment 2011 Annual Report Revised on February 21, 2013 USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Written by Christopher Lemmers (Biological Science Technician) and Maura Santora (Aquatic Biologist) Reviewed by Sarah Muskopf (Acting Forest Aquatic Biologist) and Shana Gross (Forest Ecologist) Approved by Holly Eddinger (Biological Program Leader) Original Version: April 19, 2012 Revised Version: February 21, 2013 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Summary The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) is conducting a fish assessment survey on state and federal lands within the basin to determine species presence, distribution, and relative abundance. These baseline conditions will provide information for future watershed and ecosystem level management decisions. To date 26 streams within the Lake Tahoe basin have been surveyed. In 2011, the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit aquatics field crew, with help from partner agencies, surveyed the Upper Truckee River (UTR) from the mouth at Lake Tahoe upstream 19.3 kilometers. Over 12,500 fish were sampled, 53 non‐native warm water fish were removed, and an estimated 330 invasive crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) and 1,589 native western pearlshell mussels (Margaritifera falcata) were counted. Of the 12 species found, seven native species were documented: Lahontan redside (Richardsonius egregious), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), Tahoe sucker (Catostomus tahoensis), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus), Paiute sculpin (Cottus beldingi), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), and Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi). With the exception of speckled dace and Paiute sculpin, native fish species were a small percentage of fish sampled while non‐native brown and rainbow trout accounted for nearly 25% of the total fish sampled. In general, native species were limited in distribution and relative abundance, with the greatest species diversity found in the lower reaches of the UTR. 2 Introduction Historically, eight fish taxa were known to be native to the Lake Tahoe Basin including: Lahontan redside shiner (Richardsonius egregious), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), Paiute sculpin (Cottus beldingi), Tahoe sucker (Catostomus tahoensis), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus), Lahontan tui chub (Gila bicolor pectinifer), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), and Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) (Miller 1951, Frantz and Cordone 1970, and Vander Zanden et al. 2003). Lake Tahoe’s fishery pre‐1900 was dominated by a single predator, the Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT). Mountain whitefish and LCT were abundant and provided ample food for the Native Americans living around Lake Tahoe. LCT were extirpated from Lake Tahoe by 1939 (Cordone and Frantz 1968, Moyle 2002), and the population of mountain whitefish now occur in very low numbers (Murphy and Knopp 2000). Several factors have contributed to the decline or extinction of native fish and the degradation of fish habitat in the Lake Tahoe Region. Over‐fishing, logging, mining, dams, water diversions, intense grazing, road building, urban development, and the introduction of non‐native fish and other aquatic organisms are believed to have cumulatively contributed to the change in Lake Tahoe’s fish composition and degradation of fish habitat (SNEP 1996, Murphy and Knopp 2000, Cordone and Frantz 1968, Moyle 2002). In aquatic ecosystems modified by human disturbance, non‐native fish species often become dominant and out‐ compete native fish species (Deacon and Minckley 1974; Shepard et al. 1997; Brandenburg and Gido 1999; Schindler 2000; Knapp et al. 2001). During the last 130 years, numerous non‐native species have been introduced intentionally and unintentionally to the Tahoe Basin, altering its biological assemblage. The first series of introductions included nine species of salmonids thought to be suited to Tahoe’s environment. Only rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brown trout (Salmo trutta), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) survived and persist in the basin today. Non‐native salmonids, which dominate streams within the Lake Tahoe basin, have adverse effects on the distribution and abundance of native species in Sierra Nevada streams (Moyle and Vondracek 1985; Moyle and Williams 1990). Non‐native warm water fish have also been introduced into Lake Tahoe streams and near shore environment, including: brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and goldfish (Carassius auratus) (Basinwide Native Non‐ game Fish Assessment 2007‐2010; Kamerath et al. 2008). With the illegal introduction of non‐ native warm water fish and other aquatic species, such as signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus), the aquatic food web has drastically changed. These changes have been negatively correlated with the percent of native fish present (MacRae and Jackson 2001; Betolli et al. 1992; Vander Zanden et al. 2003; Moyle and Nickols 1973; Findlay et al. 2000). 3 Although several of Lake Tahoe’s tributary streams are still known to contain native fish, information about the historical and current status of native non‐game fish communities in the Lake Tahoe basin was almost non‐existent before this survey. The most recent comprehensive document about fisheries was compiled by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in 1971 called “Fisheries of the Lake Tahoe and its Tributary Waters” (TRPA 1971). However, most of the information pertained to sport fisheries, while information pertaining to native non‐game species was presumed in most cases. This lack of current native species status and distribution triggered the initiation of the Basin‐wide Native Non‐game Fish Assessment (referred to as Fish Assessment) in 2007. Most inlet streams on the west and north shore of Lake Tahoe have been surveyed in the Fish Assessment. More recently, surveys have focused on the south shore of Lake Tahoe and in perennial streams where LTBMU projects are being planned. Originally, field crews were trained to record only the fish species found, but in 2011 two other aquatic species were noted when detected: Western pearlshell mussel (Margaritifera falcata) and signal crayfish. Western pearlshell mussel will likely be listed on the next update of the USFS Region 5 Sensitive Species List, which is currently in review. Also, local river restoration activities have started relocating current populations when old channel sections are be dewatered. Signal crayfish are a non‐ native aquatic species which alter the aquatic ecosystem by preying on fish and other native aquatic dependent species. Western pearlshell mussel is a freshwater mussel native to western North America. The mussels are long‐lived species (individuals may live for ~100 years) (Bauer 1992, Hastie et al. 2000a, b). Like most freshwater mussels, Western pearshell mussel has an obligate parasitic larval stage on fishes. After completing larval development, juvenile mussels drop from their fish hosts onto the river bed and become minute (~60‐μm) free‐living bivalves. Many historical populations throughout its range appear to have been severely reduced in size from dense beds to a few isolated individuals in flow refugia at many historical sites (Vannote and Minshall 1982, Hovingh 2004, Strayer et al. 2004, Howard 2008, 2010). In recent years, it was discovered that the Upper Truckee River (UTR) is home to one of the only known populations of Western pearshell mussel in the Lake Tahoe Basin. However, the extent and distribution of this species in the UTR and other streams in the Tahoe Basin is not well documented. Currently, this species is only known to occur in the lower and middle reaches of the UTR. Signal crayfish is a crustacean from the Columbia River, Oregon, and were introduced into Lake Tahoe in 1916 by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) officials (Riegel, 1959) and have spread from the lake into its tributaries. While their ecology has been studied in Lake Tahoe and nearby Donner Lake (e.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • California's Freshwater Fishes: Status and Management
    California’s freshwater fishes: status and management Rebecca M. Quiñones* and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California at Davis, One Shields Ave, Davis, 95616, USA * correspondence to [email protected] SUMMARY Fishes in Mediterranean climates are adapted to thrive in streams with dy- namic environmental conditions such as strong seasonality in flows. Howev- er, anthropogenic threats to species viability, in combination with climate change, can alter habitats beyond native species’ environmental tolerances and may result in extirpation. Although the effects of a Mediterranean cli- mate on aquatic habitats in California have resulted in a diverse fish fauna, freshwater fishes are significantly threatened by alien species invasions, the presence of dams, and water withdrawals associated with agricultural and urban use. A long history of habitat degradation and dependence of salmonid taxa on hatchery supplementation are also contributing to the decline of fish- es in the state. These threats are exacerbated by climate change, which is also reducing suitable habitats through increases in temperatures and chang- es to flow regimes. Approximately 80% of freshwater fishes are now facing extinction in the next 100 years, unless current trends are reversed by active conservation. Here, we review threats to California freshwater fishes and update a five-tiered approach to preserve aquatic biodiversity in California, with emphasis on fish species diversity. Central to the approach are man- agement actions that address conservation at different scales, from single taxon and species assemblages to Aquatic Diversity Management Areas, wa- tersheds, and bioregions. Keywords: alien fishes, climate change, conservation strategy, dams Citation: Quiñones RM, Moyle PB (2015) California’s freshwater fishes: status and man- agement.
    [Show full text]
  • CATALINA CALIFORNIA QUAIL (Callipepla Californica Catalinensis) Paul W
    II SPECIES ACCOUNTS Andy Birch PDF of Catalina California Quail account from: Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. California Bird Species of Special Concern CATALINA CALIFORNIA QUAIL (Callipepla californica catalinensis) Paul W. Collins Criteria Scores Population Trend 0 Santa Range Trend 0 Barbara County Population Size 7.5 Range Size 10 Ventura Endemism 10 County Population Concentration 10 Threats 0 Los San Miguel Is. Santa Cruz Is. Angeles County Anacapa Is. Santa Rosa Is. Santa Barbara Is. Santa Catalina Is. San Nicolas Is. San Clemente Is. Current Year-round Range Historic Year-round Range County Boundaries Kilometers 20 10 0 20 Current and historic (ca. 1944) year-round range of the Catalina California Quail. Birds from Santa Catalina Island (perhaps brought by Native Americans) later introduced successfully to Santa Rosa (1935–1940) and Santa Cruz (late 1940s) islands, but unsuccessfully to San Nicolas Island (1962); quail from mainland populations of C. c. californica introduced unsuccessfully to Santa Cruz (prior to 1875) and San Clemente (late 19th century, 1913) islands. Catalina California Quail Studies of Western Birds 1:107–111, 2008 107 Studies of Western Birds No. 1 SPECIAL CONCERN PRIORITY HISTORIC RANGE AND ABUNDANCE Currently considered a Bird Species of Special IN CALIFORNIA Concern (year round), priority 3. This subspecies Grinnell and Miller (1944) described the Catalina was not included on prior special concern lists California Quail as a “common to abundant” (Remsen 1978, CDFG 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta Robusta): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project May 3, 2005 David E. Rees, Jonathan A. Ptacek, and William J. Miller Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-1275 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. (2005, May 3). Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank those people who promoted, assisted, and supported this species assessment for the Region 2 USDA Forest Service. Ryan Carr and Kellie Richardson conducted preliminary literature reviews and were valuable in the determination of important or usable literature. Laura Hillger provided assistance with report preparation and dissemination. Numerous individuals from Region 2 national forests were willing to discuss the status and management of this species. Thanks go to Greg Eaglin (Medicine Bow National Forest), Dave Gerhardt (San Juan National Forest), Kathy Foster (Routt National Forest), Clay Spease and Chris James (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest), Christine Hirsch (White River National Forest), as well as Gary Patton and Joy Bartlett from the Regional Office. Dan Brauh, Lory Martin, Tom Nesler, Kevin Rogers, and Allen Zincush, all of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, provided information on species distribution, management, and current regulations. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES David E. Rees studied fishery biology, aquatic ecology, and ecotoxicology at Colorado State University where he received his B.S.
    [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]
  • Tennessee Fish Species
    The Angler’s Guide To TennesseeIncluding Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesFish Published by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Cover photograph Paul Shaw Graphics Designer Raleigh Holtam Thanks to the TWRA Fisheries Staff for their review and contributions to this publication. Special thanks to those that provided pictures for use in this publication. Partial funding of this publication was provided by a grant from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Authorization No. 328898, 58,500 copies, January, 2012. This public document was promulgated at a cost of $.42 per copy. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is available to all persons without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age, dis- ability, or military service. TWRA is also an equal opportunity/equal access employer. Questions should be directed to TWRA, Human Resources Office, P.O. Box 40747, Nashville, TN 37204, (615) 781-6594 (TDD 781-6691), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office for Human Resources, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203. Contents Introduction ...............................................................................1 About Fish ..................................................................................2 Black Bass ...................................................................................3 Crappie ........................................................................................7
    [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]
  • Snakeheadsnepal Pakistan − (Pisces,India Channidae) PACIFIC OCEAN a Biologicalmyanmar Synopsis Vietnam
    Mongolia North Korea Afghan- China South Japan istan Korea Iran SnakeheadsNepal Pakistan − (Pisces,India Channidae) PACIFIC OCEAN A BiologicalMyanmar Synopsis Vietnam and Risk Assessment Philippines Thailand Malaysia INDIAN OCEAN Indonesia Indonesia U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1251 SNAKEHEADS (Pisces, Channidae)— A Biological Synopsis and Risk Assessment By Walter R. Courtenay, Jr., and James D. Williams U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1251 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES G. GROAT, Director Use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. Copyrighted material reprinted with permission. 2004 For additional information write to: Walter R. Courtenay, Jr. Florida Integrated Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 7920 N.W. 71st Street Gainesville, Florida 32653 For additional copies please contact: U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286 Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Walter R. Courtenay, Jr., and James D. Williams Snakeheads (Pisces, Channidae)—A Biological Synopsis and Risk Assessment / by Walter R. Courtenay, Jr., and James D. Williams p. cm. — (U.S. Geological Survey circular ; 1251) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN.0-607-93720 (alk. paper) 1. Snakeheads — Pisces, Channidae— Invasive Species 2. Biological Synopsis and Risk Assessment. Title. II. Series. QL653.N8D64 2004 597.8’09768’89—dc22 CONTENTS Abstract . 1 Introduction . 2 Literature Review and Background Information . 4 Taxonomy and Synonymy .
    [Show full text]
  • Pyramid Lake Northern Paiute Fishing: the Ethnographic Record
    Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 176-186 (1981). Pyramid Lake Northern Paiute Fishing: The Ethnographic Record CATHERINE S. FOWLER JOYCE E. BATH HE importance of fishing to the ethno­ 1930's as part of his general ethnographic Tgraphic subsistence regimes of lake- investigations of the Nevada Northern Paiute. and river-based Northern Paiute groups has Park also made material culture collections been suggested by several writers but not fully that included fishing gear for the Peabody documented. For example, in the context of Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology and the Culture Element Distribution surveys, for the American Museum of Natural History. Stewart (1941:370-371) affirms that fish These objects, as well as others from collec­ were taken by most groups using specialized tions made in 1875 by Stephen Powers and in gear such as nets, baskets, weirs, platforms, 1916 by Samuel Barrett, were recently harpoons, and gorge and composite hooks. studied and photographed as part of a project Curtis (1926:71) notes the use of dip nets, gill to make Park's data more readily available.' nets, bident spears, gorges, and weirs. And Taken together, these materials significantly Wheat (1967) describes in detail the manufac­ expand our knowledge of Northern Paiute ture and use of the single-barbed harpoon. fishing techniques, and by implication, sug­ However, only Speth (1969) has attempted to gest that fishing and other lacustrine, riverine, place Northern Paiute fishing in its broader and marsh-oriented subsistence pursuits were social and technological contexts, and her vitally important in the economic systems of paper is concerned exclusively with fishing at several Northern Paiute groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Forage Fish Management Plan
    Oregon Forage Fish Management Plan November 19, 2016 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program 2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 (541) 867-4741 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/ Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Federal action to protect Forage Fish (2016)............................................................................................ 7 The Oregon Marine Fisheries Management Plan Framework .................................................................. 7 Relationship to Other State Policies ......................................................................................................... 7 Public Process Developing this Plan .......................................................................................................... 8 How this Document is Organized .............................................................................................................. 8 A. Resource Analysis ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Paiute and Western Shoshone Land Use in Northern Nevada: a Class I Ethnographic/Ethnohistoric Overview
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management NEVADA NORTHERN PAIUTE AND WESTERN SHOSHONE LAND USE IN NORTHERN NEVADA: A CLASS I ETHNOGRAPHIC/ETHNOHISTORIC OVERVIEW Ginny Bengston CULTURAL RESOURCE SERIES NO. 12 2003 SWCA ENVIROHMENTAL CON..·S:.. .U LTt;NTS . iitew.a,e.El t:ti.r B'i!lt e.a:b ~f l-amd :Nf'arat:1.iern'.~nt N~:¥G~GI Sl$i~-'®'ffl'c~. P,rceP,GJ r.ei l l§y. SWGA.,,En:v,ir.e.m"me'Y-tfol I €on's.wlf.arats NORTHERN PAIUTE AND WESTERN SHOSHONE LAND USE IN NORTHERN NEVADA: A CLASS I ETHNOGRAPHIC/ETHNOHISTORIC OVERVIEW Submitted to BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Nevada State Office 1340 Financial Boulevard Reno, Nevada 89520-0008 Submitted by SWCA, INC. Environmental Consultants 5370 Kietzke Lane, Suite 205 Reno, Nevada 89511 (775) 826-1700 Prepared by Ginny Bengston SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 02-551 December 16, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................v List of Tables .................................................................v List of Appendixes ............................................................ vi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................1 CHAPTER 2. ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW .....................................4 Northern Paiute ............................................................4 Habitation Patterns .......................................................8 Subsistence .............................................................9 Burial Practices ........................................................11
    [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]