DOCSLIB.ORG

Rainbow Trout Stocking in Inland Lakes and Streams: an Annotated Bibliography and Literature Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Rainbow Trout Stocking In Inland Lakes and Streams: An Annotated Bibliography and Literature Review S. J. Kerr and T. A. Lasenby Fisheries Section Fish and Wildlife Branch Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources August 2000 This publication should be cited as follows: Kerr, S. J. and T. A. Lasenby. 2000. Rainbow trout stocking in inland lakes and streams: An annotated bibliography and literature review. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 220 p. + appendices Printed in Ontario, Canada (0.3 k P. R. 00 28 09) MNR 51436 ISBN 0-7794-0194-8 Copies of this publication are available from: Fish and Wildlife Branch Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources P. O. Box 7000 300 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario. K9J 8M5 Cette publication spécialisée n’est disponible qu’en anglais Cover drawing by Ruth E. Grant, Brockville, Ontario. Preface This bibliography and literature review is the third in a set of reference documents developed in conjunction with a review of fish stocking policies and guidelines in the Province of Ontario. It has been prepared to summarize information pertaining to the current stage of knowledge regarding rainbow trout stocking into inland waters in a form which can readily be utilized by field staff and stocking proponents. Material cited in this bibliography includes papers published in scientific journals, magazines and periodicals as well as “gray” literature such as file reports from Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) field offices. Unpublished literature was obtained by soliciting information (i.e., unpublished data and file reports) from field biologists throughout Ontario. Most published information was obtained from a literature search at the MNR corporate library in Peterborough. Twenty-one major fisheries journals were reviewed as part of this exercise. These included Aquaculture (1972-1998), California Fish and Game (1917-1999), Copeia (1913-1999), Environmental Biology of Fishes (1976-1999), Fishery Bulletin (1963-1999), Fisheries Management (1975-1984), Journal of Freshwater Ecology (1981-1999), New York Fish and Game Journal (1954-1985), North American Journal of Fisheries Management (1981-1999), Journal of the Fisheries Reseach Board of Canada/Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (1950-1999), Progressive Fish Culturist (1940-1999) and the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (1929-1999). Searches were also made of other publications including Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Transactions of the Annual North American Fish and Wildlife Conference, Transactions of the Annual Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, United States Department of the Interior Fisheries Technical Papers, FAO Fisheries Technical Papers and Circulars, and reports published under the Canadian Technical Report Series of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Some material was obtained by a search on the Fish and Fisheries Worldwide database (1971- present) via the Internet. Information from over 540 sources has been assembled. Abstracts from published papers have been included wherever possible. In cases where abstracts were not available, an attempt has been made to extract pertinent material from the document to provide a synopsis of the findings. In some cases, we were unable to obtain a copy of the document but have simply included the citation. (i) Table of Contents Preface ……………………………….…………………………………………………………………….. i Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii History of Rainbow Trout Stocking in Ontario Inland Waters…………………………………………….. 1 Synthesis of Selected Literature …………………………………………………………………………… 3 Annotated Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………….. 21 Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………... 209 Subject Key ………………………………………………………………………………………..…… 211 Subject Index ………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 213 Appendix 1. Rainbow trout and Kamloops trout stocking in inland lakes and streams of Ontario from provincial fish culture stations, 1900-1999. Appendix 2. Contribution of stocked rainbow trout to the recreational fisheries of various North American waterbodies. (ii) History of Rainbow Trout Stocking in Ontario Inland Waters History of Rainbow Trout Stocking in Ontario Inland Waters Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are considered a naturalized species in Ontario waters. Their native range consisted of the eastern Pacific Ocean and the coastal drainage of western North America from Mexico to Alaska (MacCrimmon 1971). Although exact dates may be questionable, the earliest introductions of rainbow trout involved the Great Lakes and tributary streams. In the Lake Ontario watershed, the first plants were in New York state in 1878. By 1884 rainbow trout had moved to the Ontario side of the lake. The first Canadian plantings of rainbow trout are believed to have occurred in the late 1920s and early 1930s in Bronte Creek and the Humber River. In the Ontario waters of the Lake Erie watershed, the first plantings of rainbow trout fry (3,000) were made in 1882 with stock from the Northville Hatchery, Michigan, being planted in a small Lake St. Clair tributary (MacCrimmon 1971). There is some confusion about rainbow trout introductions to the Lake Superior watershed. MacCrimmon (1971) reported that the Ontario government planted rainbow trout near Sault Ste. Marie in 1883. Conversely, Lawrie and Rahrer (1973) state that rainbow trout were first stocked as eyed eggs in 1895 by the U.S. Fish Commission and that spawning populations had developed on both sides of the lake within 10 years. Spawning populations of rainbow trout in Lake Huron, believed to have spread downstream from Lake Superior, had developed by 1930. One of the earliest records of rainbow trout stocking in inland waters of Ontario was in 1918 when 20,000 fish were released in Brough’s Creek, a Lake Simcoe tributary, and in Lake Simcoe at the narrows near Atherley, Simcoe County. In 1922, small plantings of rainbow trout had been made in Eagle Lake, Frontenac County (1,000 fish); Glecian River, Grey County (1,000 fish); Trout Lake, Parry Sound District (1,000 fish); Sturgeon Lake, Victoria County (1,000 fish); and Riverdale Park in Toronto (250 fish). Twelve hundred (1,200) rainbow trout and 5,300 steelhead were also stocked in Lake Simcoe. In 1924, 10,000 rainbow trout were stocked in the Wahnapitae River near Sudbury and 5,000 were released in Lac des Milles Lacs near Thunder Bay. Despite some of these early plantings there was apparently little interest in rainbow trout stocking. For example, of 1,268 applications for hatchery-reared fish in 1929, only 20 applicants requested rainbow trout. Seven of these waters were stocked in 1929. A more active rainbow trout stocking program in Ontario commenced in the mid-late 1930s. The first stocking of Kamloops, a lake resident form of rainbow trout, was recorded in 1938 when a total of 25,800 fish were stocked in Waseosa Lake (Muskoka District), Bernard and Poole lakes (Parry Sound District), and Lake Temagami (Nipissing District). In the 1940s, Kamloops were reared at both the Normandale and Chatsworth provincial fish culture stations. By 1967 various life stages of rainbow trout were reared and distributed from eleven different provincial fish culture stations. MacCrimmon et al. (1974) reported that at least 14 government and affiliated hatcheries in Ontario were rearing rainbow trout prior to 1973. 1 History of Rainbow Trout Stocking in Ontario Inland Waters In 1999 404,792 rainbow trout were stocked in Ontario waters. Of this total, 155,654 trout (38.5%) were stocked in the Great Lakes while 249,138 fish (61.5%) were released in inland waters of the province (see Table 1). Table 1. Rainbow trout stocking in Ontario inland waters in 1999. Region MNR District Number of fish stocked Southcentral Aylmer 1,054 Bancroft 29,350 Kemptville 16,500 Midhurst 7,505 Pembroke 38,100 Peterborough 10,000 Subtotal 102,509 Northeastern Chapleau 4,000 Cochrane 10,000 Hearst 8,000 Kirkland Lake 16,500 North Bay 49,618 Sault Ste. Marie 12,300 Sudbury 5,500 Timmins 14,000 Wawa 7,253 Subtotal 127,321 Northwestern Nipigon 19,308 Total 249,138 Rainbow trout are stocked in most portions of the province with the exception of northwestern Ontario. They are commonly used to diversify local angling opportunities and provide artificial (i.e., put-and-take) fisheries. The vast majority of rainbow trout stocking occurs in lakes and ponds. Rainbow trout are also the most popular species stocked by landowners in private ponds. 2 Synthesis of Selected Literature Synthesis of Selected Literature This section is intended to provide a summary and overview of rainbow trout stocking information which has been assembled. This information has been summarized under the following categories: 1. Factors influencing stocking success 2. Survival and contribution of stocked rainbow trout to the fishery 3. Potential impacts of rainbow trout stocking activities 4. Stocking assessment 5. Best management practices for stocking rainbow trout in inland waters. Factors Influencing Stocking Success There are a great number of factors which can influence the success of a rainbow trout stocking project (Table 2). Many of these factors are common to other stocked salmonids. Table 2. A summary of potential factors which can influence the success of a rainbow trout stocking project in an inland waterbody. Factor Reference(s)
Recommended publications
  • A Preliminary Assessment of the Native Fish Stocks of Jasper National Park

    A Preliminary Assessment of the Native Fish Stocks of Jasper National Park

    A Preliminary Assessment of the Native Fish Stocks of Jasper National Park David W. Mayhood Part 3 of a Fish Management Plan for Jasper National Park Freshwater Research Limited A Preliminary Assessment of the Native Fish Stocks of Jasper National Park David W. Mayhood FWR Freshwater Research Limited Calgary, Alberta Prepared for Canadian Parks Service Jasper National Park Jasper, Alberta Part 3 of a Fish Management Plan for Jasper National Park July 1992 Cover & Title Page. Alexander Bajkov’s drawings of bull trout from Jacques Lake, Jasper National Park (Bajkov 1927:334-335). Top: Bajkov’s Figure 2, captioned “Head of specimen of Salvelinus alpinus malma, [female], 500 mm. in length from Jaques [sic] Lake.” Bottom: Bajkov’s Figure 3, captioned “Head of specimen of Salvelinus alpinus malma, [male], 590 mm. in length, from Jaques [sic] Lake.” Although only sketches, Bajkov’s figures well illustrate the most characteristic features of this most characteristic Jasper native fish. These are: the terminal mouth cleft bisecting the anterior profile at its midpoint, the elongated head with tapered snout, flat skull, long lower jaw, and eyes placed high on the head (Cavender 1980:300-302; compare with Cavender’s Figure 3). The head structure of bull trout is well suited to an ambush-type predatory style, in which the charr rests on the bottom and watches for prey to pass over. ABSTRACT I conducted an extensive survey of published and unpublished documents to identify the native fish stocks of Jasper National Park, describe their original condition, determine if there is anything unusual or especially significant about them, assess their present condition, outline what is known of their biology and life history, and outline what measures should be taken to manage and protect them.
  • The Native Trout Waters of California Details Six of the State’S Most Scenic, Diverse, and Significant Native Trout Fisheries

    The Native Trout Waters of California Details Six of the State’S Most Scenic, Diverse, and Significant Native Trout Fisheries

    NATIVE TROUT WATERS OF CALIFORNIA Michael Carl The Ecological Angler www.ecoangler.com TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUTION – THE ORIGINAL SIX 4 ABOUT THE BOOK 4 CLAVEY RIVER 5 BACKGROUND 6 TROUT POPULATION DATA 6 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND ACCESS 7 DIRECTIONS TO REACH SEGMENT 3 AND 4 (E.G., BRIDGE CROSSING CLAVEY RIVER): 7 AREA MAP 8 CLAVEY RIVER FLOW STATISTICS 9 FISHING TECHNIQUES 9 EAGLE LAKE 10 BACKGROUND 11 BIG TROUT FOOD – TUI CHUBS 11 REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 11 DIRECTIONS TO EAGLE LAKE FROM RED BLUFF, CALIFORNIA: 11 AREA MAP 12 PRODUCTIVE TIMES AND ZONES TO FISH 13 FISHING TECHNIQUES 13 SPALDING TRACT – TOPO MAP 14 PIKES POINT – TOPO MAP 15 GOLDEN TROUT CREEK 16 OVERVIEW OF THE WATERSHED 17 ABUNDANCE OF CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT 17 CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT GENETIC DATA 17 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND ACCESS 18 DIRECTIONS TO COTTONWOOD PASS TRAILHEAD 18 AREA MAP 19 PHOTO JOURNAL – COTTONWOOD PASS TO TUNNEL MEADOW 20 FISHING TECHNIQUES 23 HEENAN LAKE 24 BACKGROUND 25 FLY ANGLER STATISTICS – 2007 SEASON (8/3/07 TO 10/28/07) 26 REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 27 AREA MAP 27 DIRECTIONS 27 PRODUCTIVE ZONES TO FISH 28 FISHING TECHNIQUES 28 UPPER KERN RIVER 29 BACKGROUND 30 KERN RIVER RAINBOWS 30 DISTRIBUTION OF KERN RIVER RAINBOWS 30 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 31 MAP – LLOYD MEADOW ROAD TO FORKS OF THE KERN 32 SPOTLIGHT – FORKS OF THE KERN 33 DIRECTIONS AND TRAIL DESCRIPTION 33 RECOMMENDED FISHING GEAR 33 UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER 35 OVERVIEW OF THE WATERSHED 36 ABUNDANCE AND SIZE OF LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT 37 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, ACCESS & DISTANCE 37 DIRECTIONS TO REACH TRAILHEAD: 38 AREA MAP 39 TRAIL DESCRIPTION 40 FISHING TECHNIQUES 40 Introduction – The Original Six The Native Trout Waters of California details six of the state’s most scenic, diverse, and significant native trout fisheries.
  • The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo of Western North America

    The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo of Western North America

    CItiEt'SW XHPYTD: RSOTLAITYWUAS 4 Monograph of ha, TEMPI, AZ The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo Of Western North America Robert J. Behnke "9! August 1979 z 141, ' 4,W \ " • ,1■\t 1,es. • . • • This_report was funded by USDA, Forest Service Fish and Wildlife Service , Bureau of Land Management FORE WARD This monograph was prepared by Dr. Robert J. Behnke under contract funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. Region 2 of the Forest Service was assigned the lead in coordinating this effort for the Forest Service. Each agency assumed the responsibility for reproducing and distributing the monograph according to their needs. Appreciation is extended to the Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, for assistance in publication. Mr. Richard Moore, Region 2, served as Forest Service Coordinator. Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. Rocky Mountain Region September, 1980 Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. it TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface ..................................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................
  • Fish Stocking Plan

    Fish Stocking Plan

    Draft Application for a New License Major Project – Existing Dam New Bullards Bar Reservoir Fish Stocking Plan Security Level: Public Yuba River Development Project FERC Project No. 2246 Draft – December 2013 ©2013, Yuba County Water Agency All Rights Reserved Yuba County Water Agency Yuba River Development Project FERC Project No. 2246 Table of Contents Section No. Description Page No. Glossary – Definitions of Terms, Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................... GLO-1 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Yuba River Development Project ............................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose of the New Bullards Bar Reservoir Fish Stocking Plan ......................... 1-5 1.3 Objectives of the New Bullards Bar Reservoir Fish Stocking Plan..................... 1-5 1.4 Contents of the New Bullards Bar Reservoir Fish Stocking Plan ....................... 1-5 2.0 Regulatory Framework, Fish Assemblage, and Stocking History ................................... 2-1 2.1 Regulatory Framework for Fish Stocking in New Bullards Bar Reservoir ......... 2-1 2.1.1 Forest Service and Cal Fish and Wildlife – Memorandum of Understanding .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 California Fish and Wildlife Code ..........................................................
  • Long-Term Captive Breeding Does Not Necessarily Prevent Reestablishment: Lessons Learned from Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout

    Long-Term Captive Breeding Does Not Necessarily Prevent Reestablishment: Lessons Learned from Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout

    Rev Fish Biol Fisheries DOI 10.1007/s11160-011-9230-x RESEARCH PAPER Long-term captive breeding does not necessarily prevent reestablishment: lessons learned from Eagle Lake rainbow trout Gerard Carmona-Catot • Peter B. Moyle • Rachel E. Simmons Received: 7 March 2011 / Accepted: 18 July 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract Captive breeding of animals is often cited recovering as habitat. With the exception of an as an important tool in conservation, especially for abundant alien brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) fishes, but there are few reports of long-term population in Pine Creek, the habitat factors that led (\50 years) success of captive breeding programs, to the presumed near-extinction of Eagle Lake rainbow even in salmonid fishes. Here we describe the captive trout in the early twentieth century have been amelio- breeding program for Eagle Lake rainbow trout, rated, although the final stages of reestablishment Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum, which is endemic (eradication of brook trout, unequivocal demonstration to the Eagle Lake watershed of northeastern Califor- of successful spawning migration) have still not been nia. The population in Eagle Lake has been dependent completed. The Eagle Lake rainbow trout story shows on captive breeding for more than 60 years and that long-term captive breeding of migratory salmonid supports a trophy fishery in the lake. Nevertheless, fishes does not necessarily prevent reestablishment of the basic life history, ecological, and genetic traits of wild populations, provided effort is made to counter the subspecies still seem to be mostly intact. Although the effects of hatchery selection and that natural management has apparently minimized negative habitats are restored for reintroduction.
  • 1 EAGLE LAKE RAINBOW TROUT Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aquilarum

    1 EAGLE LAKE RAINBOW TROUT Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aquilarum

    EAGLE LAKE RAINBOW TROUT Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum (Snyder) Status: High Concern. The Eagle Lake rainbow trout (ELRT) does not exist as a self-sustaining wild population because of dependence on hatchery propagation. Habitat degradation and the presence of alien brook trout in Pine Creek, the ELRT’s principal spawning grounds, along with continued reliance on hatchery production to maintain the ELRT population will make it increasingly difficult to re-establish a wild population. Description: This subspecies is similar to other rainbow trout in gross morphology (see Moyle 2002), but differs slightly in meristic counts, especially in having finer scales than coastal rainbow trout. It is also distinctive in possessing 58 chromosomes, rather than the 60 typical of other rainbow trout (Busack et al. 1980). Taxonomic Relationships: Snyder (1917) described this trout as a subspecies of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri aquilarum. However, Hubbs and Miller (1948) examined Snyder's specimens and concluded that ELRT were derived from hybridization between native Lahontan cutthroat trout (presumed to have occupied Eagle Lake prehistorically) and introduced rainbow trout. Miller (1950) later retracted the hybridization theory. Needham and Gard (1959) then suggested that ELRT were descended from introduced or immigrant rainbow trout from the Feather or Pit River drainages. Behnke (1965, 1972) proposed a redband-rainbow hybrid origin, although redband trout are now considered to be rainbow trout subspecies. Busack et al. (1980), in an extensive electrophoretic, karyotypic and meristic analysis, suggested that ELRT were derived either from immigration or an unrecorded introduction of a rainbow trout with 58 chromosomes. The distinctive morphology, ecology, and physiology of this form all point to ELRT being derived from natural colonization from the Sacramento River drainage.
  • Evaluating the Importance of Zoonotic Bacteria

    Evaluating the Importance of Zoonotic Bacteria

    EVALUATING THE IMPORTANCE OF ZOONOTIC BACTERIA, ANTIMICROBIAL USE AND RESISTANCE IN AQUACULTURE AND SEAFOOD A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Guelph by NATASA TUSEVLJAK In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science April, 2011 © Natasa Tusevljak, 2011 Library and Archives Biblioth6que et Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'^dition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre r6f6rence ISBN: 978-0-494-80085-0 Our file Notre r^f6rence ISBN: 978-0-494-80085-0 NOTICE; AVIS; The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation.
  • III. Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout/Tishes of Pine Creek and Eagle Lake

    III. Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout/Tishes of Pine Creek and Eagle Lake

    III. Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout/Tishes of Pine Creek and Eagle Lake It is from a storied prize catch that comes a secretive past: the Eagle Lake rainbow trout of disagreed upon origin is no longer naturally reproducing. History has been less than kind to the ELRT as actions of the past created potential extinction. Timely intervention and persistence in restoration efforts has brought the ELRT to a sort of crossroads today: hatchery production provides a quality fishing experience for visitors to Eagle Lake (and other waters in the western United States), while efforts to improve habitat has likely made spawning grounds accessible once again. The missing link at this point is whether the fish still have the capability to ascend Pine Creek at an opportune time to spawn and return (or for progeny to return) to complete their life cycle. All fish have been completely stopped by the dam in their upstream quest to migrate at the trapping and spawning facility near Spalding. From 1959 through 1994, ELRT were known to migrate past the dam during years of high flow when conditions allowed them to pass. Reconstructed in 1995 to more effectively prevent erosion and upstream movement of fish, it is highly unlikely that any ELRT have made it over the barrier. Questions arise as to the ability of these "hatchery" fish to know when to migrate, and where or how far upstream to go. Have we raised fish that are prograrnmed to spawn earlier now than in the past? If fish today are many generations removed from upstream migration, will they know how far to go, or know which stream or segment provides spawning gravels? Is it important to have these fish spawn naturally and occupy their "original" habitat? The CRMP group must continue to work on the answers to these questions.
  • Hat-Warren1986 Ashton Hatchery Annual Report

    Hat-Warren1986 Ashton Hatchery Annual Report

    Hatchery 07 Article 02 ASHTON HATCHERY ANNUAL REPORT October 1, 1985 to September 30, 1986 by Roland Warren Fish Hatchery Superintendent II October 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .......................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 2 OBJECTIVES ........................................................ 2 FISH PRODUCTION ................................................... 2 FISH RELEASES ..................................................... 3 FISH FEED UTILIZED ................................................ 4 FISH HEALTH ....................................................... 4 HATCHERY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................. 4 MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES .......................................... 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................... 5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Eye eggs ........................................................2 Table 2. Fish transfers ..................................................3 Table 3. Fish planted from October 1, 1985 to September 30, 1986 ............................................................3 Table 4. Fish feed consumed at Ashton Hatchery from October 1, 1985 to September 30, 1986 ............................4 1 ABSTRACT During the 1985-86 fish year, Ashton Hatchery received 2,776,929 eyed eggs. Rainbow trout, Kamloops rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, cutthroat trout, golden trout, and grayling were the species hatched. A total of 46,407 lb of fish were produced at the
  • Attachment I Trout Temperature Requirements

    Attachment I Trout Temperature Requirements

    Amended Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (APDEA) FERC Project Nos. 2085, 2175, 67 and 120 5.2.4 Aquatic Resources ATTACHMENT I TROUT TEMPERATURE REQUIREMENTS (LITERATURE REVIEW) Copyright 2007 by Southern California Edison Company February 2007 Attachment I Attachment I – Rainbow Trout Temperature Requirements Introduction In the PDEA, water temperature was evaluated with respect to criteria for trout found in the literature. These criteria were used to evaluate which bypass reaches may have temperatures that potentially affect habitat suitability for trout and thereby could affect meeting water quality objectives. This attachment summarizes recent literature for O. mykiss, with an emphasis on rainbow trout, in support of these criteria. Literature values for other fish species are summarized in Attachment H - Life History and Habitat Requirements of Fish Species in the Project Area. Daily mean temperature criteria were developed to assess whether temperatures would be suitable for fish growth and daily maximum temperature criteria were developed to assess conditions that would stress fish. Preferred temperatures are often considered a reasonable estimator of beneficial/optimal temperatures. Fish can withstand short-term exposure to water temperatures higher than those needed for longer-term growth or survival without significant negative effects. Based upon the best available information for regional streams, the temperature evaluation criterion applied to assess conditions for suitable trout growth is a mean daily water temperature at or below 20°C. A daily maximum temperature of 24°C was applied as a criterion for short-term high- temperature exposure, above which temperatures are expected to be stressful for trout. This section reviews studies that were used to develop these criteria.
  • Distribution and Status of Redband Trout in the Interior Columbia River Basin and Portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins

    Distribution and Status of Redband Trout in the Interior Columbia River Basin and Portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins

    Redband Trout: Resilience and Challenge in a Changing Landscape Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, 2007 Distribution and Status of Redband Trout in the Interior Columbia River Basin and Portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins RUSSELL F. THUROW* AND BRUCE E. RIEMAN U.S. Department of Agriculture- Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 322 East Front Street, Suite 401, Boise, Idaho 83702 DANNY C. LEE U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Southern Research Station 200 WT Weaver Blvd., Asheville, North Carolina 28804 PHILIP J. HOWELL U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 1401 Gekeler Lane, LaGrande, Oregon 97850 RAYMOND D. PERKINSON U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Washington Office EMC 4077 Research Way, Corvallis, Oregon 97333 Abstract.—We summarized existing knowledge (circa 1996) of the potential historical range and the current distri- bution and status of non-anadromous interior redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. in the U.S. portion of the interior Columbia River Basin and portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins (ICRB). We estimated that the potential historical range included 5,458 subwatersheds and represented about 45% of the species’ North American range. Two forms of interior redband trout were considered, those sympatric with steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. and allopatric forms that evolved outside the range of steelhead. Data were compiled from existing surveys and expert opinions of over 150 biologists during the scientific assessment for the Interior Columbia River Basin Eco- system Management Project (ICBEMP). We also predicted fish presence and status in unsampled areas, using statis- tical models to quantitatively explore relationships among redband trout status and distribution, the biophysical environment, and land management.
  • Alberta Athabasca Rainbow Trout Recovery Plan 2014-2019

    Alberta Athabasca Rainbow Trout Recovery Plan 2014-2019

    Alberta Athabasca Rainbow Trout Recovery Plan 2014-2019 Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 36 Alberta Athabasca Rainbow Trout Recovery Plan 2014–2019 Prepared by: The Alberta Athabasca Rainbow Trout Recovery Team Lisa Wilkinson, Team Leader, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development George Sterling, Species Lead, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Rick Bonar, Alberta Forest Products Association Curtis Brock, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Ward Hughson, Parks Canada Agency, JNP Carl Hunt, Athabasca Bioregional Society Al Hunter, Alberta Fish and Game Association Sharad Karmacharya, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Brian Meagher, Trout Unlimited Canada Shane Petry/Sam Stephenson, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Joe Rasmussen, University of Lethbridge Jason Spenst, Coal Valley Rob Staniland, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers September 2014 ISBN: 978-1-4601-1849-8 (On-line Edition) ISSN: 1702-4900 (On-line Edition) Cover photos: George Sterling (top); Ryan Cox (bottom left); Mike Blackburn (bottom right). For copies of this report, contact: Information Centre – Publications Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Main Floor, Great West Life Building 9920 – 108 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 2M4 Telephone: (780) 422-2079 OR Visit the Species at Risk Program website: http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/ This publication may be cited as: Alberta Athabasca Rainbow Trout Recovery Team. 2014. Alberta Athabasca Rainbow Trout Recovery Plan, 2014–2019. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 36. Edmonton, AB. 111 pp. ii PREFACE Albertans are fortunate to share their province with an impressive diversity of wild species. Populations of most species of plants and animals are healthy and secure.