DOCSLIB.ORG

2019 ANNUAL REPORT April 1, 2019 Thru March 31, 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2019 ANNUAL REPORT April 1, 2019 Thru March 31, 2020 REPORT ON THE PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW SPORT REWARD PROGRAM 2019 ANNUAL REPORT April 1, 2019 thru March 31, 2020 Prepared by: Eric Winther Charles M. Barr Craig Miller Chris Wheaton Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Funded By: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 1990-077-00 Contract Number 71866 II Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Report A – Implementation of the Northern Pikeminnow Sport-Reward Fishery in the Columbia and Snake Rivers 3 Acknowledgements 4 Abstract 5 Introduction 6 Methods of Operation 8 Results and Discussion 13 Summary 34 Recommendations 35 References 36 Report B – Northern Pikeminnow Sport-Reward Payments – 2019 39 Abstract 40 Introduction 40 The 2019 Season 40 One-Time $10 Bonus Coupon 41 Participation and Payments 41 Tagged Fish Payments 41 Tag-Loss Bonus Payment 41 Total Accounting 42 2019 Sport Reward Payments Summary 42 2019 Standard Voucher 43 2019 Tag Voucher 44 III Report C – System-wide Predator Control Program: Fisheries and Biological Evaluation 45 ABSTRACT 46 INTRODUCTIONS 47 METHODS 49 Sport Reward Fishery Evaluation and Predation Reduction Estimates 49 Field Procedures 49 Data Analysis 50 Biological Evaluation 53 Field Procedures 53 Laboratory Procedures 54 Data Analysis 55 RESULTS 58 Sport Reward Fishery Evaluation and Predation Reduction Estimates 58 Biological Evaluation 59 DISCUSSION 65 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 71 REFERENCES 72 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Numbers of Northern Pikeminnow tagged and recaptured in the Sport Reward Fishery during 2019 by location and size class ........................................................................ 77 Table 2. Time series of annual exploitation rates (%) of Northern Pikeminnow (≥ 200 mm) in the Sport Reward Fishery by location ............................................................................... 78 Table 3. Time series of annual exploitation rates (%) of Northern Pikeminnow (200–249 mm) in the Sport Reward Fishery by location ......................................................................... 79 Table 4. Time series of annual exploitation rates (%) of Northern Pikeminnow (≥ 250 mm) in the Sport Reward Fishery by location ............................................................................... 80 Table 5. Mean catch per 900-s boat electrofishing (CPUE; and SE) of Northern Pikeminnow (≥ 250 mm FL), Smallmouth Bass (≥ 200 mm FL), and Walleye (≥ 200 mm FL) that were captured during biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs during spring and summer 2019 ....................................................................................................... 81 IV Table 6. Spring and summer abundance index values (mean catch per 900-s boat electrofishing per surface area [ha] divided by 1,000; and SE) for Northern Pikeminnow (≥ 250 mm FL) in the lower Snake River reservoirs, 1991–2019 .................................................. 82 Table 7. Spring and summer abundance index values (mean catch per 900-s boat electrofishing per surface area [ha] divided by 1,000; and SE) for Smallmouth Bass (≥ 200 mm FL) in the lower Snake River reservoirs, 1991–2019 ............................................................. 83 Table 8. Spring and summer abundance index values (mean catch per 900-s boat electrofishing per surface area [ha] divided by 1,000; and SE) for Walleye (≥ 200 mm FL) in the lower Snake River reservoirs, 1991–2019 ............................................................................ 84 Table 9. Number (n) of Northern Pikeminnow, Smallmouth Bass, and Walleye (≥ 200 mm FL) diets examined during biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs during spring and summer 2019 and proportion of samples containing specific prey items .... 85 Table 10. Proportion of diet samples containing specific prey fish families collected from Northern Pikeminnow, Smallmouth Bass, and Walleye during spring and summer biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs, 2019 ................................. 86 Table 11. Annual consumption index values for Smallmouth Bass (≥ 200 mm FL) captured during biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs by season, 1991–2019 .................................................................................................................................... 87 Table 12. Annual predation index values for Smallmouth Bass (≥ 200 mm FL) captured during biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs by season, 1991–2019 ........ 88 Table 13. Number of stock-length (ns) Walleye opportunistically sampled during fisheries evaluation, proportional size distribution (PSD, %), and proportional size distribution of preferred-length fish (PSD – P, %) by location ........................................................... 89 Table 14. Number of stock-length (ns) Walleye, proportional size distribution (PSD, %), and proportional size distribution of preferred-length fish (PSD – P, %) collected during biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs, 1991–2019 ........................ 90 Table 15. Number of stock-length (ns) Smallmouth Bass, proportional size distribution (PSD, %), and proportional size distribution of preferred-length fish (PSD – P, %) collected during biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs, 1991–2019 ........................ 91 Table 16. Number (n) of Northern Pikeminnow diets examined from Dam Angling Fishery catch from Bonneville (tailraces of The Dalles Dam) and The Dalles (tailrace of John Day Dams) reservoirs and proportions containing specific prey items ................................ 92 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Numbers of Northern Pikeminnow tagged and recaptured in the Sport Reward Fishery during 2019 by location and size class ........................................................................ 93 Figure 2. Time series of annual exploitation rates (%) of Northern Pikeminnow (≥ 200 mm) in the Sport Reward Fishery by location ......................................................................... 94 Figure 3. Time series of annual exploitation rates (%) of Northern Pikeminnow (200–249 mm) in the Sport Reward Fishery by location ......................................................................... 95 V Figure 4. Time series of annual exploitation rates (%) of Northern Pikeminnow (≥ 250 mm) in the Sport Reward Fishery by location ......................................................................... 96 Figure 5. Mean catch per 900-s boat electrofishing (CPUE; and SE) of Northern Pikeminnow (≥ 250 mm FL), Smallmouth Bass (≥ 200 mm FL), and Walleye (≥ 200 mm FL) that were captured during biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs during spring and summer 2019 ....................................................................................................... 97 Figure 6. Spring and summer abundance index values (mean catch per 900-s boat electrofishing per surface area [ha] divided by 1,000; and SE) for Northern Pikeminnow (≥ 250 mm FL) in the lower Snake River reservoirs, 1991–2019 .................................................. 98 Figure 7. Spring and summer abundance index values (mean catch per 900-s boat electrofishing per surface area [ha] divided by 1,000; and SE) for Smallmouth Bass (≥ 200 mm FL) in the lower Snake River reservoirs, 1991–2019 ............................................................. 99 Figure 8. Spring and summer abundance index values (mean catch per 900-s boat electrofishing per surface area [ha] divided by 1,000; and SE) for Walleye (≥ 200 mm FL) in the lower Snake River reservoirs, 1991–2019 .......................................................................... 100 Figure 9. Number (n) of Northern Pikeminnow, Smallmouth Bass, and Walleye (≥ 200 mm FL) diets examined during biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs during spring and summer 2019 and proportion of samples containing specific prey items .. 101 Figure 10. Proportion of diet samples containing specific prey fish families collected from Northern Pikeminnow, Smallmouth Bass, and Walleye during spring and summer biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs, 2019 ............................... 102 Figure 11. Annual consumption index values for Smallmouth Bass (≥ 200 mm FL) captured during biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs by season, 1991–2019 .................................................................................................................................. 103 Figure 12. Annual predation index values for Smallmouth Bass (≥ 200 mm FL) captured during biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs by season, 1991–2019 ...... 104 Figure 13. Number of stock-length (ns) Walleye opportunistically sampled during fisheries evaluation, proportional size distribution (PSD, %), and proportional size distribution of preferred-length fish (PSD – P, %) by location ......................................................... 105 Figure 14. Number of stock-length (ns) Walleye, proportional size distribution (PSD, %), and proportional size distribution of preferred-length fish (PSD – P, %) collected during biological evaluation in the lower Snake River reservoirs, 1991–2019 ...................... 106 Figure 15. Number of stock-length (ns) Smallmouth
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Intramural Sports Indoor Cricket Rules
    Intramural Sports Indoor Cricket Rules NC State University Recreation uses a modified version of the Laws of Cricket as established by the World Indoor Cricket Federation. The rules listed below represent the most important aspects of the game with which to be familiar. University Recreation follows all rules and guidelines stated by the World Indoor Cricket Federation not stated below. Rule 1: The Pitch A. Indoor Cricket will be played on a basketball court. B. The pitch is the 10-yard-long strip between wickets. Lines will be painted on the pitch to denote specific areas of play (creases, wide ball, no ball lines). Refer to Figure 1 for specific dimensions. Figure 1. Cricket pitch dimensions 16” C. Boundaries will be denoted by the supervisor on site and agreed upon by both captains prior to the beginning of the match. D. The exclusion zone is an arc around the batting crease. No players are allowed in the exclusion zone until the batsman hits the ball or passes through the wickets. If a player enters the exclusion zone, a no ball will be called. Rule 2: Equipment A. Each batsman on the pitch must use a cricket bat provided by the team or Intramural Sports. B. Cricket balls will be provided by Intramural Sports. The umpires will evaluate the condition of the balls prior to the start of each match. These balls must be used for all Intramural Sport Tape Ball Cricket matches. C. Intramural Sports will provide (2) wickets, each consisting of three stumps and two bails to be used in every Intramural Sport Tape Ball Cricket match.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Burner, L. C, J. A. North, R. A. Farr, and T. A. Rien. 2000
    WHITE STURGEON MITIGATIONMITIGATION AND RESTORATIORESTORATIONN IN THE COLUMBIA ANDAND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAUPSTREAMM FROM BONNEVILLE DADAM.M. ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT APRIL 1998 - MARCH 1999 Edited by: David L. Ward Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife In Cooperation With: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission University of Idaho Prepared For: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 86-50 Contract Number DE-AI79-86BP63584 CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY by David L. Ward 3 REPORT A. Evaluate the success of developing and implementing a management plan for enhancing production of white sturgeon in reservoirs between Bonneville and McNary dams. by Lisa C. Burner, John A. North, Ruth A. Farr, and Thomas A. Rien 6 REPORT B. Evaluate the success of developing and implementing a management plan for white sturgeon in reservoirs between Bonneville and McNary dams in enhancing production. Describe the life history and population dynamics of subadult and adult white sturgeon upstream of McNary Dam and downstream from Bonneville Dam. by John D. DeVore, Brad W. James, Dennis R. Gilliland, and Brad J. Cady 41 REPORT C. Describe reproduction and early life history characteristics of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams. Define habitat requirements for spawning and rearing white sturgeons and quantify the extent of habitat available in the Columbia River between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams. by Kevin M. Kappenman, Darren G.
    [Show full text]
  • Stepwise Implementation of a Predation Index, Predator Control Fisheries, and Evaluation Plan in the Columbia River Basin
    DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEM-WIDE PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM: STEPWISE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND EVALUATION PLAN IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN 2004 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 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 00004477 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 REPORT A 9 Acknowledgments 10 Abstract . 11 Introduction 12 Methods Of Operation 13 Fishery Operation Boundaries And Season. 13 Registration Stations 13 Reward System . 14 Angler Sampling 15 Returning Anglers . 16 Non Returning Anglers . 16 Northern Pikeminnow Handling Procedures Biological Sampling 16 Pit Tag Detection 17 Northern Pikeminnow Processing. 17 Results And Discussion 18 Northern Pikeminnow Harvest . 18 Incidental Catch/Harvest By Species 21 Returning Anglers. 21 Non-Returning Angler Catch And Harvest Estimates. 22 Fork Length Data. 24 Angler Effort. 24 Catch Per Angler Day . 27 Angler Totals. 30 Tag Recovery. 32 Summary 35 Recommendations For The 2005 Season. 36 References 37 Appendices. 40 i REPORT B 42 Introduction 43 Catch And Payments 43 Tagged Fish Payments 43 Accounting 43 2003 Sport Reward Payments Summary 44 REPORT C 45 Summary 46 Introduction 49 Methods 49 Fishery Evaluation, Predation Estimates, Tag Loss, And Age Validation 49 Field And Laboratory Procedures 49 Data Analysis 51 Biological Evaluation 54 Field And Laboratory Procedures 54 Data Analysis 55 Results 57 Fishery Evaluation, Predation Estimates, Tag Loss, And Age Validation 57 Biological Evaluation 65 Discussion 82 Acknowledgments 95 References 96 Appendix A.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Guide to Scoring
    SUMMARY GUIDE TO SCORING Wickets In the bowler’s analysis, if the method of dismissal is one that the bowler gets credit for (see the Wickets ready reckoner), As bowlers progress through their overs, you must keep a progressive total of their runs, sundries and wickets. mark a red X in the analysis (or blue or black if you don’t have a red pen). Over 1 6 runs scored = 0-6 Over 2 7 runs scored = 6+7 = 0-13 Partnership details Over 3 5 runs scored = 13+5 = 0-18 Partnership details are required at the fall of a wicket to assist in maintaining club records. You should record at least: Over 4 Maiden (no runs) = 18+0 = M1 Over 5 1 wicket and 3 runs = 18+3 =1-21 z team total at the fall of wicket z out batter’s name Sundries ready reckoner z not out batter’s name and current score Bye (b) Leg bye (L) Wide (W) No ball ( ) z total runs scored by that partnership. Counted as run to batter No No No No Counted as ball faced Yes Yes No Yes Wickets ready reckoner Counted on total score Yes Yes Yes Yes Counted as run against bowler No No Yes Yes How out Credited Bowler’s Out off no Counted as legal delivery Yes Yes No No column to bowler? analysis ball? Rebowled No No Yes Yes Bowled bowled Yes X No Caught ct. fielder’s name Yes X No Byes LBW lbw Yes X No 1, 2 3 4 If batters run byes, they are recorded (depending on how many) in the Byes section and on the score.
    [Show full text]
  • Acipenser Brevirostrum
    AR-405 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORTNOSE STURGEON Acipenser brevirostrum Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration November 1, 2010 Acknowledgements i The biological review of shortnose sturgeon was conducted by a team of scientists from state and Federal natural resource agencies that manage and conduct research on shortnose sturgeon along their range of the United States east coast. This review was dependent on the expertise of this status review team and from information obtained from scientific literature and data provided by various other state and Federal agencies and individuals. In addition to the biologists who contributed to this report (noted below), the Shortnose Stugeon Status Review Team would like to acknowledge the contributions of Mary Colligan, Julie Crocker, Michael Dadswell, Kim Damon-Randall, Michael Erwin, Amanda Frick, Jeff Guyon, Robert Hoffman, Kristen Koyama, Christine Lipsky, Sarah Laporte, Sean McDermott, Steve Mierzykowski, Wesley Patrick, Pat Scida, Tim Sheehan, and Mary Tshikaya. The Status Review Team would also like to thank the peer reviewers, Dr. Mark Bain, Dr. Matthew Litvak, Dr. David Secor, and Dr. John Waldman for their helpful comments and suggestions. Finally, the SRT is indebted to Jessica Pruden who greatly assisted the team in finding the energy to finalize the review – her continued support and encouragement was invaluable. Due to some of the similarities between shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon life history strategies, this document includes text that was taken directly from the 2007 Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Report (ASSRT 2007), with consent from the authors, to expedite the writing process.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins
    Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY AND LOWER MAINSTEM ................................ 2-1 2.1 Subbasin Description.................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.2 History ................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.3 Physical Setting.................................................................................................... 2-7 2.1.4 Fish and Wildlife Resources ................................................................................ 2-8 2.1.5 Habitat Classification......................................................................................... 2-20 2.1.6 Estuary and Lower Mainstem Zones ................................................................. 2-27 2.1.7 Major Land Uses................................................................................................ 2-29 2.1.8 Areas of Biological Significance ....................................................................... 2-29 2.2 Focal Species............................................................................................................. 2-31 2.2.1 Selection Process............................................................................................... 2-31 2.2.2 Ocean-type Salmonids
    [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]
  • NORTH AMERICAN GREEN STURGEON (Acipenser Medirostris) AS an ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES UNDER the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
    PETITION TO LIST THE NORTH AMERICAN GREEN STURGEON (Acipenser medirostris) AS AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY WATERKEEPERS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PETITIONERS JUNE 2001 NOTICE OF PETITION Environmental Protection Information Center P.O. Box 397 Garberville, CA 95542 (707) 923-2931 Contact: Cynthia Elkins Center for Biological Diversity P.O. Box 40090 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 841-0812 Contact: Jeff Miller WaterKeepers Northern California Presidio Building 1004 San Francisco, CA 94129 (415) 561.2299 ext. 14 Contact: Jonathan Kaplan Petitioners Environmental Protection Information Center (“EPIC”), Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”), and WaterKeepers Northern California (“WaterKeepers”) formally request that the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) list the North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) as an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544. In the alternative, petitioners formally request that NMFS list the North American green sturgeon as a threatened species under the ESA. In either case, petitioners request that green sturgeon critical habitat be designated concurrent with the listing designation. This petition is filed under §553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA” - 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559), §1533(b)(3) of the ESA, and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(b). This petition sets in motion a specific administrative process as defined by §1533(b)(3) and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(b), placing mandatory response requirements on NMFS. Because A. medirostris is an anadromous fish, NMFS has jurisdiction over this petition. A Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between NMFS and the U.
    [Show full text]
  • ACL Knock out Rules
    ACL Knock Out Rules 1. All matches will be played with the ACL approved "Hard Tennis" cricket balls that are provided by ACL. The games will be played as per the MCC Laws of Cricket with some exceptions. The exceptions and other tournament rules are as follows: The tournament will be played as a knockout game. 2. Each game shall be played between two teams of 11 players each. 3. Each game shall have a maximum of TWELVE 6-ball overs per inning. 4. Minimum 5 bowlers should be used in the game. Only 2 Bowlers can bowl a maximum of 3 overs. 5. The overs shall all be bowled from one end of the pitch, as determined by the umpires. 6. There will be no LBWs. However, leg byes will be permitted as long as there is no deliberate padding by the batsman – umpires call is final. 7. Each team will be permitted to register a maximum of 15 players (15 allowed as per standard roster plus up to max 3 more players by paying $20 per player), although only 11 can bat or bowl in any one game. All 15 players should be registered and should have signed the waiver form and should not have played in any other team in this tournament. The teams should submit the playing 11 at the beginning of the match. However, a team can get individual trophy for max 15 players. 8. To play in semifinal or final, a player should have played (in playing 11) minimum 1 match in earlier rounds (QF or earlier rounds) this applies for substitute player too.
    [Show full text]