DOCSLIB.ORG

For Fluvial Arctic Grayling in the Upper Big Hole River and Its Tributaries During the Development of the Site-Specific Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For Fluvial Arctic Grayling in the Upper Big Hole River and Its Tributaries During the Development of the Site-Specific Plan CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT WITH ASSURANCES FOR FLUVIAL ARCTIC GRAYLING IN THE UPPER BIG HOLE RIVER Between Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service In cooperation with Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service FWS Tracking # TE104415-0 March 30, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................3 II. PURPOSE......................................................................................................................................................4 III. BACKGROUND AND STATUS OF FLUVIAL ARCTIC GRAYLING....................................................5 Life History of Grayling in the Project Area .................................................................................................6 Historical and Present Distribution................................................................................................................10 Current Population Status in the Project Area ...............................................................................................10 Existing Conservation Measures....................................................................................................................12 IV. PROJECT AREA AND PARTICIPATING LANDOWNERS.....................................................................13 V. THREATS, ESA LISTING CRITERIA, AND THE CCAA POLICY.........................................................17 VI. CONSERVATION MEASURES..................................................................................................................22 A. INSTREAM FLOWS...............................................................................................................................22 B. RIPARIAN ZONE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION.............................................................41 C. IDENTIFYING AND REDUCING ENTRAINMENT THREATS ........................................................48 D. REMOVING BARRIERS TO GRAYLING MOVEMENT ...................................................................53 E. NONNATIVE TROUT (AGENCY OVERSIGHT) ................................................................................54 F. SUMMARY AND INTEGRATION OF THE EXPECTED BENEFITS FROM CONSERVATION MEASURES......55 VII. RESTORATION TARGETS FOR GRAYLING POPULATION WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA................................59 VIII. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT ...........................................................................................61 IX. RANKING CRITERIA TO PRIORITIZE CONSERVATION EFFORTS IN THE PROJECT AREA..............................67 X. OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTNERS ........................................................................................................71 A. PARTICIPATING LANDOWNERS .......................................................................................................71 B. MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS ........................................................................................72 C. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION ......................73 D. USDA NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION SERVICE ................................................73 E. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ...................................................................................................74 XI. DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT, PERMIT, AND SITE-SPECIFIC PLANS .....................................75 XII. MONITORING AND REPORTING.............................................................................................................75 XIII. LEVEL OF IMPACTS TO GRAYLING FROM THE AGREEMENT AND TAKE ..................................81 A. COVERED ACTIVITIES - AGRICULTURE AND RANCHING .........................................................81 B. COVERED ACTIVITIES - RESTORATION AND MONITORING .....................................................82 C. NOTIFICATION OF INCIDENTAL TAKE............................................................................................83 XIV. TAKE, REGULATORY ASSURANCES, CHANGED AND UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES...................83 XV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...........................................................................................................................87 XVI. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT...............................................................................87 APPENDIX A. The NRCS Planning Process in Development of Site-Specific Plans ............................................91 APPENDIX B. Derivation of Instream Flow Targets and Description of Hydrologic Conditions..........................94 APPENDIX C. Possible Funding Sources to Implement the Agreement.................................................................97 APPENDIX D. References .......................................................................................................................................101 APPENDIX E. Template Forms for Phase I of Agreement......................................................................................107 APPENDIX F. Template Forms for Phases II and III of Agreement .......................................................................117 APPENDIX G. Example of Fluvial Arctic Grayling Site-Specific Plan..................................................................129 ii I. INTRODUCTION A Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (Agreement/CCAA) is an agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and any non-Federal entity whereby non-Federal property owners who voluntarily agree to manage their lands or waters to remove threats to species at risk of becoming threatened or endangered receive assurances against additional regulatory requirements should that species be subsequently listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The conservation goal of this Agreement is to secure and enhance a population of fluvial (river-dwelling) Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) (grayling) within the upper reaches of their historic range in the Big Hole River drainage. Under this Agreement, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) will hold an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival Permit issued to it by USFWS once this Agreement is executed, and will issue Certificates of Inclusion to non-Federal property owners within the Project Area who agree to comply with all of the stipulations of the Agreement and develop an approved site-specific plan. Site-specific plans will be developed with each landowner by an interdisciplinary technical team made up of individuals representing MFWP, USFWS, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (MDNRC) (collectively, the Agencies). The conservation guidelines of the Agreement will be met by implementing conservation measures that: 1) Improve streamflows 2) Improve and protect the function of riparian habitats 3) Identify and reduce or eliminate entrainment threats for grayling 4) Remove barriers to grayling migration These objectives will be met through development of site-specific plans intended to address in detail, these issues. 3 Figure 1. Proposed Project Area Within Native Range of Fluvial Arctic Grayling in Montana. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to encourage non-Federal landowners to voluntarily implement proactive conservation measures that benefit grayling in the upper Big Hole River Project Area in Beaverhead and Deer Lodge Counties, Montana, (Figures 1-3) by providing them with assurances that their land and water management activities will not be required to change beyond the remedies identified in their site-specific plan should grayling become listed as threatened or endangered. This planning effort will help alleviate private property concerns, as well as generate support from private landowners which will improve habitat conditions for grayling throughout the Project Area. The conservation goal of this Agreement is to secure and enhance populations of grayling within the historic range of the species in the upper reaches of the Big Hole River drainage, and is consistent with the USFWS “Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances Final Policy” (64 FR 32726, June 17, 1999) and the regulations that implement the policy (69 FR 24084, May 3, 2004). Most of the habitat occupied by Arctic grayling in the Big Hole River is on or adjacent to non-Federal lands. The decline of grayling in the system has been primarily linked to agricultural activities on these lands, so the active involvement of non-Federal landowners is viewed as critical to the conservation of the species in the Big Hole. However, the occurrence or expansion of grayling in waters on their properties is a concern to private landowners because of potential regulatory restrictions on farm or ranch operations should grayling be listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA in the future. These restrictions may affect landowner willingness to participate in efforts to conserve the species. 4 The complexity of water use, water rights and water conveyance for agricultural purposes in the upper Big Hole drainage requires an approach where the majority of water users and landowners are engaged in basin-wide solutions to land and water uses that affect grayling. Changes in the operations of one landowner may affect the operations of one or more neighboring landowners,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Big Hole River Fluvial Arctic Grayling
    FLUVIAL ARCTIC GRAYLING MONITORING REPORT 2003 James Magee and Peter Lamothe Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Dillon, Montana Submitted To: Fluvial Arctic Grayling Workgroup And Beaverhead National Forest Bureau of Land Management Montana Chapter, American Fisheries Society Montana Council, Trout Unlimited Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service June 2004 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following individuals and organizations contributed valuable assistance to the project in 2003. Scott Lula, Greg Gibbons, Zachary Byram, Tracy Elam, Tim Mosolf, and Dick Oswald of Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP), provided able field assistance. Ken Staigmiller (FWP) collected samples for disease testing. Ken McDonald (FWP), provided administrative support, chaired the Fluvial Arctic Grayling Workgroup, reviewed progress reports and assisted funding efforts. Bob Snyder provided support as Native Species Coordinator. Dick Oswald (FWP) provided technical advice and expertise. Bruce Rich (FWP) provided direction as regional fisheries supervisor. Jim Brammer, Dennis Havig, Dan Downing, and Chris Riley (USFS) assisted with funding, provided housing for FWP technicians, and assisted with fieldwork. Bill Krise, and Ron Zitzow, Matt Toner, and the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bozeman Fish Technology Center maintained the brood reserve stock and transported grayling to the upper Ruby River. Jack Boyce, Mark Kornick and Jim Drissell, and crew of Big Springs Hatchery assisted with egg takes at Axolotl and Green Hollow II brood lakes, and transported eyed grayling eggs for RSI use in the upper Ruby River and to Bluewater State Fish Hatchery for rearing reaches. Gary Shaver, Bob Braund, and Dave Ellis from Bluewater State Hatchery raised and transported grayling to the Ruby River and the Missouri Headwaters restoration reaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Montana Arctic
    Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Montana Arctic Grayling Restoration August 2007 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING among: MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS (FWP) U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS) MONTANA COUNCIL TROUT UNLIMITED (TU) MONTANA CHAPTER AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY (AFS) YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK (YNP) MONTANA ARCTIC GRAYLING RECOVERY PROGRAM (AGRP) USDA NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS) MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION (DNRC) concerning MONTANA ARCTIC GRAYLING RESTORATION BACKGROUND Montana’s Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus is a unique native species that comprises an important component of Montana’s history and natural heritage. Fluvial (river dwelling) Arctic grayling were once widespread in the Missouri River drainage, but currently wild grayling persist only in the Big Hole River, representing approximately 4% of their native range in Montana. Native lacustrine/adfluvial populations historically distributed in the Red Rock drainage and possibly the Big Hole drainage have also been reduced in abundance and distribution. Arctic grayling have a long history of being petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Most recently (in April 2007) the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that listing of Arctic grayling in Montana under ESA was not warranted because it does not constitute a distinct population segment as defined by the ESA. On May 15th 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity announced its 60-day Intent to Sue the USFWS regarding the recent grayling decision. The Montana Arctic Grayling Recovery Program (AGRP) was formed in 1987 following declines in the Big Hole River Arctic grayling population, and over concerns for the Red Rock population.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruby River Access Sites Secured by Bruce Farling Hen the Topic of Stream Access Families, There Would Be No Formal Fishing Ago
    SPRING TROUT LINE 2016 Newsletter from the Montana Council of Trout Unlimited Ruby River access sites secured by Bruce Farling hen the topic of stream access families, there would be no formal fishing ago. Because of budget constraints, and the Ruby River is raised access sites for 40-plus river miles below some caused by limits imposed by Win Montana it’s often related the Vigilante Fishing Access Site a couple the Legislature, as well as demands at to absentee landowner James Cox miles downstream of the Ruby River Dam. some of the other 330 sites in FWP’s Kennedy from Atlanta and his 15-year Three county bridge popular fishing access legal and political efforts to prevent the rights-of-way provide site program, the public from accessing this great fishery. the only other points department didn’t However, not all stories about stream of access on the lower have adequate funding access coming from the Ruby Valley river. But the bridges to renew the leases for are as distressing as the Kennedy tale. have limited parking. the previous agreed Recently we can thank some civic-minded Plus, Mr. Kennedy upon price. The ranchers and, in part, Montana TU and has contested bridge Doornbos, Barnosky three of its chapters for a bit of good access in court and and Guillame families, news about the Ruby. made getting to the however, graciously Since the mid-1990s, three long- river at those spots agreed to lease the time ranching families in the valley have physically difficult access sites at a much- been leasing portions of their properties with his fencing schemes.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2021 Meeting Minutes
    Big Hole Watershed Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes June 16th, 2021 – 7:00 pm at the Divide Grange Zoom option also provided In Attendance In-person: Pedro Marques, BHWC; Tana Nulph, BHWC; Ben LaPorte, BHWC; Jarrett Payne, MFWP; Jim Hagenbarth, Rancher/BHWC; Max Hanson, UM/BHWC Intern; Paul Cleary, Resident/BHWC; Sandy Cleary, Resident; Matt Norberg, DNRC; Betty Bowler, Resident; Tom Bowler, Resident; Hans Humbert, Rancher/BHWC; Randy Smith, Rancher/BHWC; Jim Dennehy, Butte-Silver Bow Water Dept./BHWC; Thomas Woolf, MFWP; Scott Reynolds, Resident; Steve Luebeck, Sportsman/BHWC; and John Reinhardt, Rancher/BHWC. Zoom: Charley (no last name given); Chris Edgington, MTU; and Paul Siddoway. Meeting Minutes BHWC monthly meetings are now held at the Divide Grange with a virtual (Zoom) option provided thanks to Southern Montana Telephone Company, who donated the internet service. Meeting minutes and recordings are available at https://bhwc.org/monthly-meetings/ (scroll down for meeting minutes archive). Printed copies are available during in-person meetings. Contact Tana Nulph, BHWC Associate Director, at [email protected] or (406) 267-3421 to suggest additions or corrections. Reports Streamflow/Snowpack Report as of June 16, 2021 – Matt Norberg, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation • Streamflows: Streamflows in the Big Hole River have generally been below to well below average since the start of April. The bulk of the snowpack has melted off and the river peaked earlier and lower than normal. Daily average flows for this time of year are well below normal Big Hole Watershed Committee, 2021 Page 1 levels with most of the gages reporting streamflow’s well below the 25th percentile with some even below the 10th percentile.
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT JEFFERSON RIVER AT THREE FORKS, MONTANA Prepared by U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, OMAHA, NEBRASKA December 1971 Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, Nebraska 1. Name of Action: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: The proposed project would consist of the construction of an earth filled levee and a drainage collector ditch approximately lU ,700 feet in length along the northwest side of a small community. The location is at Three Forks in Gallatin County, Montana. 3. a. Environmental Impacts; Flood protection would be provided for a flood having a frequency of occurrence of once in a 100 years. A 28 acre loss of alternate land use would be required for levee alignment. A possibilit would exist for pollutants from adjacent land to accumulate in the collector ditch. A potential would exist for the collector ditch to develop aquatic growth. Five hundred feet of shelterbelt would be lost to levee construction. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Construction would effect the removal of 28 acres of land from alternative land use; collector ditch could act as a collector of pollutants; and construction of the levee would necessitate the removal of 500 feet of shelterbelt. Alternatives; Floodplain zoning, evacuation, flood proofing, reservoir construction, channel improvement, and ”no development” were considered. 5• Comments Received: City of Three Forks Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, USDI Montana Department of Fish Bureau of Reclamation, USDI and Game Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI Montana Department of Health Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Montana Highway Commission Bureau of Mines, USDI Soil Conservation Service, USDA Montana Water Resources Board National Park Service, USDI 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Fish Conservation
    Yellowstone SScience Native Fish Conservation @ JOSH UDESEN Native Trout on the Rise he waters of Yellowstone National Park are among the most pristine on Earth. Here at the headwaters of the Missouri and Snake rivers, the park’s incredibly productive streams and lakes support an abundance of fish. Following the last Tglacial period 8,000-10,000 years ago, 12 species/subspecies of fish recolonized the park. These fish, including the iconic cutthroat trout, adapted and evolved to become specialists in the Yellowstone environment, underpinning a natural food web that includes magnificent animals: ospreys, bald eagles, river otters, black bears, and grizzly bears all feed upon cutthroat trout. When the park was established in 1872, early naturalists noted that about half of the waters were fishless, mostly because of waterfalls which precluded upstream movement of recolonizing fishes. Later, during a period of increasing popularity of the Yellowstone sport fishery, the newly established U.S. Fish Commission began to extensively stock the park’s waters with non-natives, including brown, brook, rainbow, and lake trout. Done more than a century ago as an attempt to increase an- gling opportunities, these actions had unintended consequences. Non-native fish caused serious negative impacts on native fish populations in some watersheds, and altered the parks natural ecology, particularly at Yellowstone Lake. It took a great deal of effort over many decades to alter our native fisheries. It will take a great deal more work to restore them. As Aldo Leopold once said, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic com- munity.
    [Show full text]
  • BIG HOLE National Battlefield
    BIG HOLE National Battlefield Historical Research Management Plan & Bibliography of the ERCE WAR, 1877 F 737 .B48H35 November 1967 Historical Research Management Plan BIG HOLE NATI ONAL for .BATILEFIELD LI BRP..RY BIG HOLE Na tional Battlefield & Bibliog raphy of the N E Z PERCE WAR, 1877 By AUBREY L. HAINES DIVISION OF HISTORY Office of Archeology and Historic Preservatio.n November 1967 U.S. Department of the Interior NATI ONAL PARK SERVICE HISTORICAL RESEARCH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG HOLE NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD November 1968 Recommended Superintendent Date Reviewed Division of History Date Approved Chief, Office of Archeology Date and Historic Preservation i TABLE OF CONTENTS Historical Research Management Plan Approval Sheet I. The Park Story and Purpose . • • • 1 A. The Main His torical Theme ••••••• 1 B. Sub sidiary Historical Theme • • • • • 1 1 c. Relationship of Historical Themes to Natural History and Anthropology • • • • • • • • 12 D. Statement of Historical Significance •• 14 E. Reasons for Establishment of the Park • • • • • 15 II. Historical Resources of the Battlefield 1 7 A. Tangible Resources • • • • 17 1. Sites and Remains 1 7 a. Those Related to the Main Park Theme • • . 1 7 b. Those Related to Subsidiary Themes • 25 2. Historic Structures 27 B. Intangible Resources • 2 7 c. Other Resources 2 8 III.Status of Research •• 2 9 A. Research Accomplished 29 H. Research in Progress • • • • • 3o c. Cooperation with Non-Service Institutions 36 IV. Research Needs ••••••••••••••••• 37 A. Site Identification and Evaluation Studies 37 H. General Background Studies and Survey Histories 40 c. Studies for Interpretive Development • • • • • 4 1 D. Development Studies • • • • • • • • • 4 1 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper and North Fork Big Hole River Watershed Restoration Plan
    Big Hole River, Montana Watershed Restoration Plan Part I: Upper & North Fork Big Hole Watershed Produced by: Big Hole Watershed Committee November 1, 2012 Big Hole Watershed Committee PO Box 21 Divide, Montana 59727 website: bhwc.org Produced with Funds and Support from: Montana Department of Environmental Quality 319 Program Helena, Montana Big Hole River Watershed Restoration Plan - November 1, 2012 Part I: Upper & North Fork Big Hole River Watershed Page | 2 Table of Contents Tables ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Project Area .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 Watershed Restoration Planning ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Fishing Regulations
    MONTANA FISHING REGULATIONS 20March 1, 2018 — F1ebruary 828, 2019 Fly fishing the Missouri River. Photo by Jason Savage For details on how to use these regulations, see page 2 fwp.mt.gov/fishing With your help, we can reduce poaching. MAKE THE CALL: 1-800-TIP-MONT FISH IDENTIFICATION KEY If you don’t know, let it go! CUTTHROAT TROUT are frequently mistaken for Rainbow Trout (see pictures below): 1. Turn the fish over and look under the jaw. Does it have a red or orange stripe? If yes—the fish is a Cutthroat Trout. Carefully release all Cutthroat Trout that cannot be legally harvested (see page 10, releasing fish). BULL TROUT are frequently mistaken for Brook Trout, Lake Trout or Brown Trout (see below): 1. Look for white edges on the front of the lower fins. If yes—it may be a Bull Trout. 2. Check the shape of the tail. Bull Trout have only a slightly forked tail compared to the lake trout’s deeply forked tail. 3. Is the dorsal (top) fin a clear olive color with no black spots or dark wavy lines? If yes—the fish is a Bull Trout. Carefully release Bull Trout (see page 10, releasing fish). MONTANA LAW REQUIRES: n All Bull Trout must be released immediately in Montana unless authorized. See Western District regulations. n Cutthroat Trout must be released immediately in many Montana waters. Check the district standard regulations and exceptions to know where you can harvest Cutthroat Trout. NATIVE FISH Westslope Cutthroat Trout Species of Concern small irregularly shaped black spots, sparse on belly Average Size: 6”–12” cutthroat slash— spots
    [Show full text]
  • Knowing Yellowstone
    Knowing Yellowstone Science in America’s First National Park Jerry Johnson, Editor Cover Photo: A Storm Ripping Through the Valley, Trey Ratcliff DESIGN/LAYOUT/PRODUCTION – Monica Chodkiewicz ISBN 978-1-58979-522-8 Published by Taylor Trade Publishing An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 http://www.rlpgtrade.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Distributed by National Book Network Copyright © 2010 by Jerry Johnson All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America Knowing Yellowstone Science in America’s First National Park Jerry Johnson, Editor iv Knowing Yellowstone: Science in America’s First National Park Acknowledgments: Many people are involved in the evolution and eventual publication of a book. The authors of the chapters that follow willingly took time from busy field seasons and research programs to deliver their highly technical work in a format accessible to those who are not immersed in the world of doing science. I thank them for their good work. Several individuals supported this project from the start.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Viability of Arctic Grayling in the Gibbon River, Yellowstone National Park
    North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:1582–1590, 2010 [Article] Ó Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2010 DOI: 10.1577/M10-083.1 Population Viability of Arctic Grayling in the Gibbon River, Yellowstone National Park 1 AMBER C. STEED* Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit and Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Post Office Box 173460, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA ALEXANDER V. ZALE U.S. Geological Survey, Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, and Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Post Office Box 173460, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA TODD M. KOEL Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Program, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Post Office Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming 82190, USA STEVEN T. KALINOWSKI Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Post Office Box 172460, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA Abstract.—The fluvial Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus is restricted to less than 5% of its native range in the contiguous United States and was relisted as a category 3 candidate species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 2010. Although fluvial Arctic grayling of the lower Gibbon River, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, were considered to have been extirpated by 1935, anglers and biologists have continued to report catching low numbers of Arctic grayling in the river. Our goal was to determine whether a viable population of fluvial Arctic grayling persisted in the Gibbon River or whether the fish caught in the river were downstream emigrants from lacustrine populations in headwater lakes. We addressed this goal by determining relative abundances, sources, and evidence for successful spawning of Arctic grayling in the Gibbon River.
    [Show full text]