DOCSLIB.ORG

Relative Abundance, Distribution, and Life Histories of Fish Species in The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Relative Abundance, Distribution, and Life Histories of Fish Species in The Eastern Washington University EWU Digital Commons EWU Masters Thesis Collection Student Research and Creative Works 2014 Relative Abundance, Distribution, and Life Histories of Fish Species in the Colville River Watershed, Stevens County, Washington Aaron Mettler Eastern Washington University Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.ewu.edu/theses Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Mettler, Aaron, "Relative Abundance, Distribution, and Life Histories of Fish Species in the Colville River Watershed, Stevens County, Washington" (2014). EWU Masters Thesis Collection. 194. http://dc.ewu.edu/theses/194 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research and Creative Works at EWU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in EWU Masters Thesis Collection by an authorized administrator of EWU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Relative Abundance, Distribution, and Life Histories of Fish Species in the Colville River Watershed, Stevens County, Washington. A Thesis Presented to Eastern Washington University Cheney, Washington In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Science in Biology Aaron J. Mettler Spring 2014 THESIS OF AARON J. METTLER APPROVED BY Dr. Allan Scholz, Graduate Study Professor Date Dr. Camille McNeely, Graduate Study Committee Date Dr. Stacy Warren, Graduate Study Committee Date ii MASTER’S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Eastern Washington University, I agree that the JFK Library shall makes copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that copying of this project in whole or in part is allowable only for scholarly purposes. It is understood, however, that any copying or publication of this thesis for commercial purposes, or for financial gain, shall not be allowed without my written permission. Signature Date iii Abstract This was the first study to report on the fish assemblage of the Colville River watershed, Stevens County, Washington. Sixty-nine sites were sampled from May – November of 2013, 19 in the Colville River and 50 in its tributaries: Blue Creek (n=2), Chewelah Creek (n=6), Cottonwood Creek (n=2), Deer Creek (n=2), Gold Creek (n=3),Haller Creek (n=2), Huckleberry Creek (n=3), Jump Off Joe Creek (n=2), Little Pend Oreille River (n=11), Mill Creek (n=8), Paye Creek (n=1), Sheep Creek (n=2), Sherwood Creek (n=2), Stensgar Creek (n=2), Stranger Creek (n=1), and Thomason Creek (n=1). Sites were sampled using backpack electrofishing, seine nets, and minnow traps. A total of 4,314 fish were captured representing six families and 28 species. The species (relative abundance) were: carp (3.5%), peamouth (>0.1%), northern pikeminnow (0.3 %), longnose dace (3.4 %), Umatilla dace (3.8 %), speckled dace (14.7%), redside shiner (13.7%), tench (0.3 %), longnose sucker (1.7 %), bridgelip sucker (>0.1%), largescale sucker (1.2%), lake whitefish (>0.1%), mountain whitefish (0.3 %), westslope cutthroat trout (>0.1%), coastal rainbow trout (8.0%), interior rainbow trout (14.1%), brown trout (8.0%), brook trout (11.0%), prickly sculpin (2.9%), mottled sculpin (2.6%), slimy sculpin (>0.1%), shorthead sculpin (1.1%), torrent sculpin (7.6%), green sunfish (>0.1%), pumpkinseed (1.1%), bluegill (>0.1%), largemouth bass (>0.1%), and yellow perch (0.5%). The stocking record, water quality, and barrier falls were examined to assess the effects they potentially have on species distribution. Stocking was found to aid the distribution of non native trout (salmonids), sunfish (centrachids), and perch (percidae). iv Two water quality parameters were examined, water temperature (°C) and dissolved oxygen (mg/L). Neither was found to effect distribution. However, water temperature appeared to affect relative abundance, with different species relative abundances in the warmer Colville River compared to its cooler tributaries. Tributaries were cooler (average summer temperature= 12.8°C) and contained more salmonids (RA=73.4%) while the maintstem Colville had higher temperatures (average summer temperature= 17.7°C) and contained predominatly cyprinids (RA=71.2%).Waterfalls were examined to test the hypothesis that they were barrier falls to fish migration. I found that total numbers of fish species decreased above each waterfall, however stream size was more of a factor when comparing the average number of species found at each site (p<0.001). Life history data collected include age, diet, and fecundity. Fishes grew similar to that reported by many of the local lakes and streams however species that have a condition factor were found to grow at the average rate reported by Carlander (1969; 1977; 1997). Diet was consistent with reported diets by species. Fecundity of cyprinid species was within the ranged reported for each species. This study documented the presence of Umatilla dace in this watershed and reported on their growth, diet, and fecundity. Growth was found to be faster than reported by COSEWIC (2010) in British Columbia. Diet consisted primarily of trichopterans and detritus. Fecundity ranged from 474 to 2,134 eggs in females 86 to 115 mm in total length and 5 to 15 g in weight. v Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Allan Scholz for providing me the opportunity to study the Colville River Watershed and for all of his guidance and advice he has provided for me throughout my undergraduate and graduate career. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Camille McNeely and Dr. Stacy Warren for their input and advice as well. Special thanks to Jenna Hatem, Bryan Witte, Raymond Ostlie, and Jessica Walston for all of their help in the field and laboratory. I would also like to acknowledge Dana Stroud, Aaron Stroud, and Mark Paluch for their knowledge and input into this thesis. Thanks are also given to Bill Baker and Charles Lee from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Karen Honeycutt from the United State Forest Service, Jerry Cline from the Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge, and Charlie Kessler from the Stevens County Conservation district for all of their support and advice throughout this project. Lastly I would like to specially thank all of the land owners who graciously gave me and my sampling crew permission to sample sites located on their property, without which sampling would have been limited. Fish were collected under a Washington State scientific collector permit (No. 13-020) issued to Dr. Allan Scholz and under IACUC approval from Eastern Washington University. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. VI LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... XI LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... XVI INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 STOCKING HISTORY ......................................................................................................... 1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 3 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) ........................................ 3 United States Forest Service (USFS) ...................................................................... 3 Water Resource Inventory Area 59 (WRIA 59) ..................................................... 4 Summary of previous investigations ....................................................................... 5 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................... 7 MATERIALS & METHODS........................................................................................... 8 Watershed ............................................................................................................... 8 Methods................................................................................................................. 10 Sampling Effort ..................................................................................................... 12 Target Species ....................................................................................................... 13 Minnows ........................................................................................................... 13 Suckers .............................................................................................................. 13 Salmonidae ........................................................................................................ 13 Sculpin .............................................................................................................. 14 HYPOTHESES .................................................................................................................. 15 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 16 Length, Growth, and Condition Factor ................................................................. 16 Age and Growth Analysis ..................................................................................... 17 Back Calculation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wollaston Road
    WOLLASTON LAKE ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Biophysical Environment 4.0 Biophysical Environment 4.1 INTRODUCTION This section provides a description of the biophysical characteristics of the study region. Topics include climate, geology, terrestrial ecology, groundwater, surface water and aquatic ecology. These topics are discussed at a regional scale, with some topics being more focused on the road corridor area (i.e., the two route options). Information included in this section was obtained in full or part from direct field observations as well as from reports, files, publications, and/or personal communications from the following sources: Saskatchewan Research Council Canadian Wildlife Service Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board Reports Saskatchewan Museum of Natural History W.P. Fraser Herbarium Saskatchewan Environment Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre Environment Canada Private Sector (Consultants) Miscellaneous publications 4.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY Both proposed routes straddle two different ecozones. The southern portion is located in the Wollaston Lake Plain landscape area within the Churchill River Upland ecoregion of the Boreal Shield ecozone. The northern portion is located in the Nueltin Lake Plain landscape area within the Selwyn Lake Upland ecoregion of the Taiga Shield ecozone (Figure 4.1). (SKCDC, 2002a; Acton et al., 1998; Canadian Biodiversity, 2004; MDH, 2004). Wollaston Lake lies on the Precambrian Shield in northern Saskatchewan and drains through two outlets. The primary Wollaston Lake discharge is within the Hudson Bay Drainage Basin, which drains through the Cochrane River, Reindeer Lake and into the Churchill River system which ultimately drains into Hudson Bay. The other drainage discharge is via the Fond du Lac River to Lake Athabasca, and thence to the Arctic Ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Fish Consumption Advice by a Participatory Approach for The
    Associations Between Omega-3 fatty Acids, Selenium Content, and Mercury Levels in Wild-harvested Fish from the Dehcho Region, Northwest Territories, Canada Ellen S. Reyes1, Juan J. Aristizabal Henao2, Katherine M. Kornobis3, Rhona M. Hanning1, Shannon E. Majowicz1, Karsten Liber4, Ken D. Stark2, George Low5, Heidi K. Swanson3, Brian D. Laird1 1School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada; 2Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada; 3Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada; 4Toxicology Centre, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada; 5Aboriginal Aquatic Resources and Ocean Management, Hay River, NWT, Canada INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Fish provide a rich variety of important nutrients [e.g. omega-3 fatty acids (n-3 FAs) and Table 1. Total Mercury and Selenium Concentrations by Fish Species Table 2. Fatty Acid Composition by Fish Species selenium (Se)]. The intake of n-3 FAs from fish consumption promotes healthy growth Mercury Selenium Total Omega-3 Fatty Acids EPA+DHA Omega-6 to Omega-3 Ratios and development in infants and children (SanGiovanni & Chew, 2005), supports optimal Fish Range Range Fish Range Mean ± SD Range Mean ± SD n Mean ± S.D. (ppm) n Mean ± S.D. (ppm) n Range Mean ± SD cognitive health in older adults (Dangour & Uauy, 2008), and reduces the risk of Species (ppm) (ppm) Species (mg/100g) (mg/100g) (mg/100g) (mg/100g) cardiovascular disease (Calder, 2004). The intake of the essential
    [Show full text]
  • An Inventory of Fish in Streams in Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science An Inventory of Fish in Streams at Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003 Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2013/717.N ON THE COVER National Park staff conducting a snorkel fish survey in Kotsuck Creek, Mount Rainier National Park, 2002. Photograph courtesy of Mount Rainier National Park. An Inventory of Fish in Streams at Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003 Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2013/717.N Barbara A. Samora, Heather Moran, Rebecca Lofgren National Park Service North Coast and Cascades Network Inventory and Monitoring Program Mount Rainier National Park Tahoma Woods Star Rt. Ashford, WA. 98304 April 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Longnose Sucker (Catostomus Catostomus) Pennsylvania
    Longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) Pennsylvania Endangered State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled) Global Rank: G5 (secure) What it looks like: The longnose sucker has a cylindrical body with a distinctive horizontal mouth and a long, rounded snout. Its color varies from olive to gray above and white or cream below; breeding males are darker, and females may be green to gold above. Both sexes have red lateral stripes. Where it lives: Longnose suckers prefer cold, clear waters, living on the bottom of streams and lakes, and down to depths of 180 meters in the Great Lakes. They feed on aquatic insects, mainly Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998 benthic species; a study of longnose suckers taken from the Missouri River in North Dakota found that the largest portion of their stomach contents was made up of midge larvae. Why it is rare: The longnose is the most widespread sucker species in North America, ranging from coast to coast and north into Canada. Pennsylvania is at the southern edge of the species’ range, and the populations documented here, mainly in the Youghiogheny River system, may represent relicts from when glacial action altered the river northward course to connect it with the Ohio River drainage. This population has suffered from the effects of severe acidification Conservation considerations: caused by mine drainage. The longnose sucker’s requirement for cold, North American State/Province Conservation Status c lear water makes it particularly sensitive to Map by NatureServe (August 2007) human alteration of streamflow and turbidity. It may have mixed reactions to dam construction; in a study of Missouri River fish State/Province species, the turbid conditions upstream of a Status Ranks d am made longnose suckers less abundant, but SX – presumed extirpated the clear conditions downstream allowed them SH – possibly extirpated S1 – critically imperiled t o become one of the dominant species.
    [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]
  • Upper Peninsula Fish Species List
    Upper Peninsula Fish Species List Rivers (fish caught in MDNR inland surveys 1998-99) blacknose dace *longnose dace bluntnose minnow longnose sucker brassy minnow mottled sculpin *brook trout northern pike brook trout (Assinia) northern redbellied dace brook trout (Iron River) *pumpkinseed *brown bullhead *rainbow trout brown trout *rock bass burbot *spottailed shiner central mudminnow *walleye chinook salmon (Michigan) *white sucker coho salmon (Michigan) *yellow perch creek chub johnny darter log perch *also found in lakes 27 species if different (strains) of fish are included. 25 species if the (strains) are not included. 12 species (including strains) are found in inland RIVERS only. Inland Lakes (fish caught in MDNR inland surveys 1998-99) black crappie northern pike bluegill *pumpkinseed bowfin *rainbow trout *brook trout *rock bass *brown bullhead smallmouth bass common carp splake common shiner *spottailed shiner gizzard shad *walleye golden shiner walleye (Gogebic) green sunfish *white sucker lake trout *yellow perch largemouth bass *longnose sucker muskellunge *also found in rivers 25 total inland lake species including 10 also found in rivers and one (strain) of walleye. 15 species were found only in inland lakes; including the (strain). 37 species or strains of fish were found in ~80 surveys conducted on inland lakes, streams and rivers by the MDNR in 1998-99. Fish Common to Lakes Michigan, Huron and Superior (Information from the Wisconsin Sea Grant Program) alewife pink salmon bloater rainbow smelt *brook trout rainbow trout *brown trout round goby *burbot round whitefish *common carp ruffe chinook salmon sculpin coho salmon sea lamprey emerald shiner *smallmouth bass freshwater drum stickleback lake herring *walleye lake sturgeon white bass *lake trout white perch lake whitefish *white sucker *longnose sucker *yellow perch *muskellunge *northern pike *pumpkinseed *also found in inland waters 33 Great Lakes fish species These species lists may not be complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution, Abundance, and Genetic Population Structure of Wood River Sculpin, Cottus Leiopomus
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 68 Number 4 Article 10 12-31-2008 Distribution, abundance, and genetic population structure of Wood River sculpin, Cottus leiopomus Kevin A. Meyer Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nampa, Idaho, [email protected] Daniel J. Schill Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Matthew R. Campbell Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Christine C. Kozfkay Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Recommended Citation Meyer, Kevin A.; Schill, Daniel J.; Campbell, Matthew R.; and Kozfkay, Christine C. (2008) "Distribution, abundance, and genetic population structure of Wood River sculpin, Cottus leiopomus," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 68 : No. 4 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol68/iss4/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 68(4), © 2008, pp. 508–520 DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, AND GENETIC POPULATION STRUCTURE OF WOOD RIVER SCULPIN, COTTUS LEIOPOMUS Kevin A. Meyer1,3, Daniel J. Schill1, Matthew R. Campbell2, and Christine C. Kozfkay2 ABSTRACT.—The Wood River sculpin Cottus leiopomus is endemic to the Wood River Basin in central Idaho and is a nongame species of concern because of its limited distribution. However, status and genetic population structure, 2 factors often central to the conservation and management of species of concern, have not been assessed for this species.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Assessment U.S. Forest Service
    Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Assessment U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit FY 2010 By Richard Vacirca, LTBMU Forest Aquatic Biologist Contributors: Kendal Bell–Enders and Rosealea Bond, LTBMU Aquatic Field Crew; & Craig Oehrli, LTBMU Hydrologist Executive Summary Stream crossings by roads can pose serious threats to fishery ecosystems. The cumulative effect of culverts, fords, and other structures throughout a stream channel can significantly change the streams geomorphology and impair fish passage by blocking valuable spawning and rearing habitat. In the summer of 2010 the LTMBU evaluated 112 road/stream crossings. Of these, 61 had full assessments completed and 51 were partial assessments due to factors such as no flow, no structure, the crossing was a bridge, or the crossing was on a decommissioned road. Of the full assessments, 53 were on Forest Service system roads and 8 assessments were on CA and NV highways (Table1). Table 1: Total crossings inventory summary Assessment Type FS HWY Total Full Crossing Assessments 53 8 61 Partial Crossing Assessments 49 2 51 Inaccessible Sites 0 0 0 Total 102 10 112 FS = Crossings on Forest Service System roads HWY = Crossing is on CA/NV Highway or county road. Approximately 82% (50 of 61) of the full assessment on all road crossings do not meet the criteria for fish passage (RED), and are barriers for at least one life stage of salmonid or sculpin. Only 11% of the fully assessed crossings met the passage criteria (GREEN) to fish for both juvenile and adult salmonid life stages. The remaining 7% of fully assessed crossings were undetermined (GREY) for salmonid or sculpin and are candidates for further evaluation (Table 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Inland Fish
    NatureMapping for Fish and Streams A citizen’s guide to stream monitoring and restoration Washington Department of FISH AND WILDLIFE Outreach and Education TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number Introduction 1 NatureMapping 1 Stream Safety and Etiquette 1 How to Use This Manual 1 Fish and Their Needs 2 Salmon 3 The Salmon Life Cycle 3 Other Fish 4 Data Collection 6 Fish Surveys 6 Habitat Surveys 9 Stream Bugs 9 Redd Identification 12 Step by Step Survey Instructions 13 Data Input Form 14 Appendix 1 - Anadromous Fish 15 Appendix 2 - Inland Fish 19 Appendix 3 - Critical Stocks 22 Glossary 23 January 1997 Produced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Outreach and Education Funded by the Shewmaker Bequest Scholarship Written by Adam Couto Contributors: Chuck Baranski, Jim Byrd, Kent Dimmitt, Steve Jenks, Mike O’Malley, Lynn Palensky, Darrell Pruett, Carol Smith, Kathleen South, Margaret Tudor, Bill Tweit, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the North West Indian Fisheries Commision. Introduction Introduction NatureMapping ...is a joint outreach program (developed by the NATUREMAPPING for STREAMS Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Stream Safety and Etiquette University of Washington Gap Analysis Project) to 1. Always ask permission to enter private property. Your promote biodiversity studies through citizen and school- ability to monitor and enhance fish habitat depends on based data collection. The objective is to empower the goodwill of the landowner. citizens to plan and manage resources for a community 2. Watch for redds (salmon egg nests), particularly from within a watershed. September through January. Redds can be hard to see, and eggs are easily killed by a poorly placed foot.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names for Fish and Wildlife Species Found in Idaho
    APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN IDAHO. How to Read the Lists. Within these lists, species are listed phylogenetically by class. In cases where phylogeny is incompletely understood, taxonomic units are arranged alphabetically. Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks (GRanks and SRanks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species rangewide (GRank) and statewide (SRank). Rangewide ranks are assigned by NatureServe and statewide ranks are assigned by the Idaho Conservation Data Center. GX or SX Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH or SH Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20–40 years. A species could become SH without such a 20–40 year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The SH rank is reserved for species for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. G1 or S1 Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G2 or S2 Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G3 or S3 Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Reserves Program Guidance (Final EIS) on September 6, 2002
    N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E SA Implementation andDesignation Aquatic ReserveProgram Photo b y Ca rol Cloen Guidance September 2005 Acknowledgements Technical Reviewers of Site Evaluation Criteria and Ecological Framework Dr. James W. Barry, California Department of Parks and Recreation Dr. Mike Beck, The Nature Conservancy Dr. Megan Dethier, University of Washington Dr. David Fluharty, University of Washington Dr. Ron Hilborn, University of Washington Wayne Palsson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Dr. Julia Parrish, University of Washington Kit Rawson, Tulalip Tribe Dr. Mary Ruckelshaus, National Marine Fisheries Service Other Contributors Marc Daily Carol Piening Jay Udelhoven Helen Berry Tom Mumford Scott Pearson John Gammon DNR Regional Review David Roberts Scott Robinson Rex Thompson Editor / Report Production Jane Chavey All contributors are DNR staff unless otherwise indicated. Copies of this report may be obtained from the Aquatic Reserves Program Manager or copied from the web page. Contact Information Aquatic Reserve Program Manager Phone: 360-902-1100 E-mail: [email protected] Webpage: www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/aqr/reserves DOUG SUTHERLAND Commissione r of Public Lands November 4, 2005 Dear Reader, Washington’s aquatic environment is an invaluable public resource that is treasured by the people of the state. The 2.4 million acres of state-owned aquatic lands is managed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to foster water- dependent use, public access, renewable resources, and environmental protection. Established in September 2002, the Aquatic Reserves Program is part of the Department’s efforts to conserve significant state-owned aquatic lands through preservation, restoration, and enhancement.
    [Show full text]