DOCSLIB.ORG

Download the Full Report ISAB 2019-1 Predationmgmt3may.Pdf PDF 3.5 MB

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download the Full Report ISAB 2019-1 Predationmgmt3may.Pdf PDF 3.5 MB Cover design by Eric Schrepel, Technical and Web Data Specialist Cover photos of Caspian tern and California sea lion by Tony Grover, northern pikeminnow courtesy of Steve Williams (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission), and northern pike by Ralph Behrens, www.flickr.com/photos/rbehre/27413420361 Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, and National Marine Fisheries Service 851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97204 Kurt D. Fausch, Ph.D., (ISAB Vice-chair) Professor Emeritus of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado Stanley Gregory, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon William Jaeger, Ph.D., Professor of Applied Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon Cynthia Jones, Ph.D., Eminent Scholar and Professor of Ocean, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences; Director of the Center for Quantitative Fisheries Ecology; and A.D. and Annye L. Morgan Professor of Sciences, Old Dominion University, Virginia Alec G. Maule, Ph.D., (ISAB Chair) Fisheries Consultant and former head of the Ecology and Environmental Physiology Section, United States Geological Survey, Columbia River Research Laboratory Peter Moyle, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology and associate director of the Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis Katherine W. Myers, Ph.D., Research Scientist (Retired), Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle Thomas P. Quinn, Ph.D., Professor, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle Steve Schroder, Ph.D., Fisheries Consultant and Fisheries Research Scientist (Retired), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington Carl J. Schwarz, Ph.D., Professor of Statistics and Actuarial Science at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada Thomas Turner, Ph.D., Professor of Biology and Associate Dean for Research at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico ISAB Ad Hoc Member James N. Sanchirico, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis ISAB Ex Officios and Manager Michael Ford, Ph.D., Director of the Conservation Biology Program, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington Nancy Leonard, Ph.D., Program Performance Manager, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon Zach Penney, Ph.D., Fisheries Science Manager, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon Erik Merrill, J.D., Independent Science Manager, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon A Review of Predation Impacts and Management Effectiveness for the Columbia River Basin (ISAB Predation Management Report) Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 II. Review Process ............................................................................................................................................... 10 A. Sources of information ............................................................................................................................... 10 B. Key past ISAB findings, assumptions, and observations ............................................................................. 12 III. Summary Answers to Council Questions ....................................................................................................... 15 IV. Impacts of predators and effectiveness of predator control ........................................................................ 24 A. Ecosystem perspectives .............................................................................................................................. 24 Food Webs .................................................................................................................................................. 26 Relative Vulnerability of Salmonids to Different Predators ........................................................................ 28 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 28 Methodological considerations .............................................................................................................. 29 Temporal and spatial considerations ...................................................................................................... 29 Considerations related to the reporting of predation ............................................................................ 29 Relative vulnerability of salmonids to predators: “straw dog” tables .................................................... 30 Multiple Species and Complex Interactions................................................................................................ 33 Landscape Context ...................................................................................................................................... 34 Dam Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Flow Modification ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Temperature and Water Quality ................................................................................................................ 36 Riverine Habitat .......................................................................................................................................... 37 Hatchery Releases ....................................................................................................................................... 38 Estuarine Habitat ........................................................................................................................................ 38 Future Concerns .......................................................................................................................................... 39 B. Socioeconomic considerations for control of northern pike and other invasive species ........................... 41 i Social dimensions of harvest incentives to control invasive species .......................................................... 41 Management goals and objectives ............................................................................................................. 42 Incentive approaches .................................................................................................................................. 42 Outreach ..................................................................................................................................................... 43 C. Piscivorous fish ........................................................................................................................................... 44 Native Northern Pikeminnow ..................................................................................................................... 44 Northern Pikeminnow Management Program ....................................................................................... 46 Program results and effectiveness.......................................................................................................... 48 Invasive Northern Pike ................................................................................................................................ 53 Distribution and biology ......................................................................................................................... 53 Risk of invasion downstream .................................................................................................................. 54 Successful eradication of pike ................................................................................................................. 56 Efforts to suppress pike where they cannot be eradicated .................................................................... 57 Conclusions: Lake Roosevelt northern pike suppression ........................................................................ 58 Ecological impacts of northern pike ....................................................................................................... 59 Conclusions: ecological impacts ............................................................................................................. 60 Genetic methods for detection and potential control of invasive northern pike in the Columbia Basin ................................................................................................................................................................ 61 Monitoring and early detection of pike via eDNA .............................................................................. 61 Genetic study of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Literature Cited
    LITERATURE CITED Abercrombie, M., C. J. Hichman, and M. L. Johnson. 1962. A Dictionary of Biology. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Adkisson, C. S. 1996. Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra). In The Birds of North America, No. 256 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Covelo, CA. Albert, S. K., N. Luna, and A. L. Chopito. 1995. Deer, small mammal, and songbird use of thinned piñon–juniper plots: preliminary results. Pages 54–64 in Desired future conditions for piñon–juniper ecosystems (D. W. Shaw, E. F. Aldon, and C. LaSapio, eds.). Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR–RM–258. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Aldrich, J. W. 1946. New subspecies of birds from western North America. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 59:129–136. Aldrich, J. W. 1963. Geographic orientation of American Tetraonidae. Journal of Wildlife Management 27:529–545. Allen, R. K. 1984. A new classification of the subfamily Ephemerellinae and the description of a new genus. Pan–Pacific Entomologist 60(3): 245–247. Allen, R. K., and G. F. Edmunds, Jr. 1976. A revision of the genus Ametropus in North America (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 49:625–635. Allen, R. P. 1958. A progress report on the wading bird survey. National Audubon Society, unpubl. rep., Tavernier, FL. American Ornithologists’ Union. 1931. Check–list of North American birds. 4th ed. American Ornithologists’ Union, Lancaster, PA.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Selected California Fisheries for 2013
    FISHERIES REVIEW CalCOFI Rep., Vol. 55, 2014 REVIEW OF SELECTED CALIFORNIA FISHERIES FOR 2013: COASTAL PELAGIC FINFISH, MARKET SQUID, GROUNDFISH, HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES, DUNGENESS CRAB, BASSES, SURFPERCH, ABALONE, KELP AND EDIBLE ALGAE, AND MARINE AQUACULTURE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Marine Region 4665 Lampson Ave. Suite C Los Alamitos, CA 90720 [email protected] SUMMARY ings of northern anchovy were 6,005 t with an ex-vessel In 2013, commercial fisheries landed an estimated revenue of greater than $1.0 million. When compared 165,072 metric tons (t) of fish and invertebrates from to landings in 2012, this represents a 141% and 191% California ocean waters (fig. 1). This represents an increase in volume and value, respectively. Nearly all increase of almost 2% from the 162,290 t landed in 2012, (93.6%; 5,621.5 t) of California’s 2013 northern anchovy but still an 11% decrease from the 184,825 t landed catch was landed in the Monterey port area. Landings of in 2011, and a 35% decline from the peak landings of jack mackerel remained relatively low with 892 t landed; 252,568 t observed in 2000. The preliminary ex-vessel however, this represents a 515% increase over 2012 land- economic value of commercial landings in 2013 was ings of 145 t. $254.7 million, increasing once again from the $236 mil- Dungeness crab ranked as California’s second largest lion generated in 2012 (8%), and the $198 million in volume fishery with 14,066 t landed, an increase from 2011 (29%). 11,696 t landed in 2012, and it continued to dominate as Coastal pelagic species (CPS) made up four of the the highest valued fishery in the state with an ex-vessel top five volume fisheries in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Annual Report
    Document ID #P113359 Report covers work performed under BPA contract #26763 Report was completed under BPA contract #34772 REPORT ON THE PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN EXPERIMENTAL NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Russell Porter Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission In Cooperation with: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Department of Agriculture Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 199007700 Contract Number 00026763 Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Report A – Sport Reward Fishery in the Columbia and Snake Rivers 10 Abstract 11 Introduction 12 Methods of Operation 13 Fishery Operation 13 Boundaries and Season 13 Registration Stations 14 Reward System 14 Angler Sampling 15 Returning Anglers 16 Non-Returning Anglers 16 Northern Pikeminnow Handling Procedures 17 Biological Sampling 17 PIT Tag Detection 17 Northern Pikeminnow Processing 18 Results and Discussion 18 Northern Pikeminnow Harvest 18 Harvest by Week 19 Harvest by Fishing Location 20 Harvest by Registration Station 21 Harvest by Species/Incidental Catch 22 Angler Effort 24 Effort by Week 25 Effort by Fishing Location 27 Effort by Registration Station 27 Catch Per Angler Day (CPUE) 28 CPUE by Week 29 CPUE by Fishing Location 30 CPUE by Registration Station 30 Angler Totals 31 Tag Recovery 34 Northern
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST and BIOGEOGRAPHY of FISHES from GUADALUPE ISLAND, WESTERN MEXICO Héctor Reyes-Bonilla, Arturo Ayala-Bocos, Luis E
    ReyeS-BONIllA eT Al: CheCklIST AND BIOgeOgRAphy Of fISheS fROm gUADAlUpe ISlAND CalCOfI Rep., Vol. 51, 2010 CHECKLIST AND BIOGEOGRAPHY OF FISHES FROM GUADALUPE ISLAND, WESTERN MEXICO Héctor REyES-BONILLA, Arturo AyALA-BOCOS, LUIS E. Calderon-AGUILERA SAúL GONzáLEz-Romero, ISRAEL SáNCHEz-ALCántara Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada AND MARIANA Walther MENDOzA Carretera Tijuana - Ensenada # 3918, zona Playitas, C.P. 22860 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur Ensenada, B.C., México Departamento de Biología Marina Tel: +52 646 1750500, ext. 25257; Fax: +52 646 Apartado postal 19-B, CP 23080 [email protected] La Paz, B.C.S., México. Tel: (612) 123-8800, ext. 4160; Fax: (612) 123-8819 NADIA C. Olivares-BAñUELOS [email protected] Reserva de la Biosfera Isla Guadalupe Comisión Nacional de áreas Naturales Protegidas yULIANA R. BEDOLLA-GUzMáN AND Avenida del Puerto 375, local 30 Arturo RAMíREz-VALDEz Fraccionamiento Playas de Ensenada, C.P. 22880 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Ensenada, B.C., México Facultad de Ciencias Marinas, Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanológicas Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Carr. Tijuana-Ensenada km. 107, Apartado postal 453, C.P. 22890 Ensenada, B.C., México ABSTRACT recognized the biological and ecological significance of Guadalupe Island, off Baja California, México, is Guadalupe Island, and declared it a Biosphere Reserve an important fishing area which also harbors high (SEMARNAT 2005). marine biodiversity. Based on field data, literature Guadalupe Island is isolated, far away from the main- reviews, and scientific collection records, we pres- land and has limited logistic facilities to conduct scien- ent a comprehensive checklist of the local fish fauna, tific studies.
    [Show full text]
  • CHARACTERISTICS of FISH ASSEMBLAGES and RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES for STREAMS of the UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN, IDAHO and WESTERN WYOMING, 1993-95 by Terry R
    CHARACTERISTICS OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES FOR STREAMS OF THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN, IDAHO AND WESTERN WYOMING, 1993-95 By Terry R. Maret U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4087 Boise, Idaho 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services 230 Collins Road Box 25286 Boise, ID 83702-4520 Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Information regarding the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is available on the Internet via the World Wide Web. You may connect to the NAWQA home pages using the universal resource locator (URL) at: http://wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/nawqa/nawqa_home.html or http://wwwidaho.wr.usgs. gov/nawqa/usnk_home.html FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Describe current water-quality conditions for a (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the large part of the Nation's freshwater streams, rivers, earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ and aquifers. tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- Describe how water quality is changing over time. ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and Improve understanding of the primary natural and trends is an important part of this overall mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Redacted for Privacy Ivan Pratt
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarsArchive@OSU AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Alfred Warren Hanson for the Doctor of Philosophy (Name) (Degree) in Zoology presented on/8 1q72 (Major) /71date Title:LIFE CYCLE AND HOST SPECIFICITY OF DICLIDOPHORA sp. (MONOGENEA-DICLIDOPHORIDAE),A PARASITE OF EMBIOTOCID FISHES Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy Ivan Pratt The life cycle of a monogenean, Diclidophora sp. , was studied with special attention to the time required for developmental stages to occur.Eggs are produced by adult worms at the rate of one every 13. 5 minutes and require 32 days tohatchwhen incubated at 12. 5°C and 30.90/00salinity.Rate of development and hatching success are strongly dependent on incubation temperature and salinity. Growth and development of the larval stages are similar to other known species of the family 1T)c1idophoridae.The presence in the oncomiracidium of a precocious set of attachment clampsand the premature loss of larval hooks distinguish it from related species. Oncorniracidia survive approximately 36 hours if no host fish is reached. Larvae attach to the inner lateral borders of primary lamellae of the host fish gill.A second set of clamps is added before the 36th day, the third set soon after the 44th day, and the last pair by the 58th day.Sexual maturity is reached by the 153rd day after hatching. Experimental infections were maintained on redtail surfperch for 203 days. Naturally infected redtail surfperch, silver surfperch and walleye surfperch were collected.Rates of infection with Di clidoph- ora were 38.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a System-Wide Predator Control Program: Northern Squawfish Management Program
    Development of a System-wide Predator Control Program Northern Squawfish Management Program - Implementation Annual Report 1997 October 1998 DOE/BP-24514-8 This Document should be cited as follows: Young, Franklin, "Development of a System-wide Predator Control Program; Northern Squawfish Management Program - Implementation", 1997 Annual Report, Project No. 199007700, 100 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-24514-8) Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208 This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The views in this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of BPA. DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEMWIDE PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM: STEPWISE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND EVALUATION PLAN IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN SECTION I: IMPLEMENTATION 1997 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Franklin R. Young Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority In Cooperation With Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Reservation Prepared
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L
    PERSPECTIVE Goodbye to “Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L. Rypel | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA. E-mail: [email protected] Parsa Saffarinia | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Caryn C. Vaughn | University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of Biology, Norman, OK Larry Nesper | University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Anthropology, Madison, WI Katherine O’Reilly | University of Notre Dame, Department of Biological Sciences, Notre Dame, IN Christine A. Parisek | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA | The Nature Conservancy, Science Communications, Boise, ID Peter B. Moyle | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA Nann A. Fangue | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Miranda Bell- Tilcock | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA David Ayers | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Solomon R. David | Nicholls State University, Department of Biological Sciences, Thibodaux, LA While sometimes difficult to admit, perspectives of European and white males have overwhelmingly dominated fisheries science and management in the USA. This dynamic is exemplified by bias against “rough fish”— a pejorative ascribing low- to- zero value for countless native fishes. One product of this bias is that biologists have ironically worked against conservation of diverse fishes for over a century, and these problems persist today.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resource Information
    APPENDIX C Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resource Information Appendix C1 Resource Agency Coordination Appendix C2 Marine Biological Resources Report APPENDIX C1 RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION 1 The ICF terrestrial biological team coordinated with relevant resource agencies to discuss 2 sensitive biological resources expected within the terrestrial biological study area (BSA). 3 A summary of agency communications and site visits is provided below. 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: On July 30, 2020, ICF held a conference 5 call with Greg O’Connell (Environmental Scientist) and Corianna Flannery (Environmental 6 Scientist) to discuss Project design and potential biological concerns regarding the 7 Eureka Subsea Fiber Optic Cables Project (Project). Mr. O’Connell discussed the 8 importance of considering the western bumble bee. Ms. Flannery discussed the 9 importance of the hard ocean floor substrate and asked how the cable would be secured 10 to the ocean floor to reduce or eliminate scour. The western bumble bee has been 11 evaluated in the Biological Resources section of the main document, and direct and 12 indirect impacts are avoided. The Project Description describes in detail how the cable 13 would be installed on the ocean floor, the importance of the hard bottom substrate, and 14 the need for avoidance. 15 Consultation Outcomes: 16 • The Project was designed to avoid hard bottom substrate, and RTI Infrastructure 17 (RTI) conducted surveys of the ocean floor to ensure that proper routing of the 18 cable would occur. 19 • Ms. Flannery will be copied on all communications with the National Marine 20 Fisheries Service 21 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: On August 7, 2020, ICF held a conference 22 call with Greg O’Connell to discuss a site assessment and survey approach for the 23 western bumble bee.
    [Show full text]