DOCSLIB.ORG

JUVENILE LAMPREY DISTRIBUTION and DENSITY in the CLEARWATER RIVER BASIN, IDAHO USFWS Idaho Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JUVENILE LAMPREY DISTRIBUTION and DENSITY in the CLEARWATER RIVER BASIN, IDAHO USFWS Idaho Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office JUVENILE LAMPREY DISTRIBUTION and DENSITY in the CLEARWATER RIVER BASIN, IDAHO USFWS Idaho Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office Doug Nemeth ( Frank Mullins { John Erhardt Mike Murray r Chris Griffith < Idaho Department of Fish and Game Clearwater Regional Office (Selway data) ) 7 Robert Hand WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION FROM NATURALLY-MIGRATING LAMPREY ADULTS in the CLEARWATER BASIN? • Upstream of adult releases • Lochsa River • Sampled most Type I and Type II habitat on Highway side • Lamprey Electrofishing Systems ABP-2 electro-fisher ---- - • 60-90 seconds/m2 • Sampled in 2.5 m2 units, at least 10m2 per site ( • Type I or Type II habitat only ( j 1 LOCHSA RIVER l 7 WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION FROM NATURALLY-MIGRATING Weir Cr. Powell LAMPREY ADULTS in the CLEARWATER BASIN? Fish Cr. USFWS 2018 Lamprey Sampling 2 Level (fish/ m ) 0 High> 14.9 • Medium 5 .0-14.9 • Low <5.0 0 None • 8 sites sampled along Lochsa • Type I and II habitat limited due to gradient and highway WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION FROM NATURALLY-MIGRATING Weir Cr. Powell LAMPREY ADULTS in the CLEARWATER BASIN? Fish Cr. • 8 sites sampled along Lochsa • Type I and II habitat limited due to gradient and highway • High frequency of occurrence – Ammocoetes present in 7 of 8 Lochsa sites. • Densities ranged from 0.1 – 38.8 ammo/m2 Weir Cr. Powell Fish Cr. USFWS 2018 Lamprey Sampling 2 Level (fish/ m ) 0 High> 14.9 Blue Circles IDFG Sampling 2002-2006 0 Medium 5.0-14.9 • Low <5.0 • Similar densities, similar locations 0 None • No ammocoetes upstream of Weir Cr. SELWAY RIVER ; 1 IDFG Selway R. Sites 2002-2006 (primarily wilderness) IDFG 2002-2006 Sampling 2 Level (fish/m ) 0 High >14.9 • Medium 5.0-14.9 • Low <5.0 0 None High Frequency of Occurrence 2018 sites sampled by IDFG in Red 2002-2006 sites sampled by IDFG in Blue High Frequency of Occurrence High > 14.9 Medium 5.0 – 14.9 Low < 5.0 MIDDLE FORK AND MAINSTEM CLEARWATER RIVERS ) l ) 1 Potlatch R. High Frequency 5.6 of Occurrence Lewiston C\earwater R,ver Note Adult MFCR and Release Sites Clearwater R. , r Middle Fork Clearwater R. USFWS 2018 Lamprey Sampling 2 Level (fish/ m ) 0 High> 14.9 0 Medium 5.0-14.9 • Low <5.0 0 None S.f:. C} iearw. ater n­ * Lamprey release locations "111er l, LOWER SNAKE RIVER l ' Middle Fork Clearwater River ) l.... ) 7 Lower Snake River Clearwater River • No ammocoetes seen in 64 minutes of e- fishing 5 sites ( • Sampled USFWS 201 B Lamprey Sampling 2 Clearwater as Level (fish/ m ) 0 High> 14.9 reference Medium 5.0-14.9 • Low <5.0 0 None * Lamprey release locations FIN SAMPLES 1 River C\earwat er 2018 Genetic Samples Se\way River Lochsa River: 1,008 M.F. Clearwater: 79 Clearwater: 116 Orofino Creek: 20 Lolo Creek: 21 Newsome Creek: 20 Selway: 1 - - FIN SAMPLES MAXIMIZED FIN SAMPLES TAKEN 21 C\earwater River • Number of naturally-migrating females producing progeny • Contribution of translocated adults 2018 Genetic Samples • Increased sample se\way size emigrants Lochsa River: 1,008 M.F. Clearwater: 79 and adults at dams Clearwater: 116 in future years. Orofino Creek: 20 Lolo Creek: 21 Newsome Creek: 20 S.f:. C} • Continue to ,earw. Selway: 1 ater n­ "-1'Ver improve Length at Age information FUTURE PLANS • Sample watersheds not recently sampled in cooperation w partners (density and fin samples) • Quantify Type I and Type II habitat along mainstem Lochsa R. • Measure juvenile densities opposite highway in Lochsa (minimal human presence) • Define relationship between 1st pass lamprey captures and total present Lochsa Population Estimate • Identify spawning areas of adult lamprey • Radio tag and release NPTH adults in early 2019- well ahead of spawning • Identify summer, fall and winter holding areas of adult lamprey in the Clearwater • Radio tag 2019 downstream dam captures and release in 2019 • Track movement of ammocoetes through Clearwater mainstems- Visual Tags and Fixed Site Sampling CONCLUSIONS • Current ammocoete distribution and density in Lochsa and Selway similar to that from 2002-2006 investigations. • High frequency of occurrence in preferred habitat in the Clearwater. • Limited amount of preferred habitat Opportunities for quantification, fin sampling, understanding movement, others. • No ammocoetes found in the lower Snake River..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2010 to 09/30/2010 Clearwater National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2010 to 09/30/2010 Clearwater National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) Geothermal Leasing - Regulations, Directives, Cancelled N/A N/A Tracy Parker Programmatic Environmental Orders 505-758-6310 Impact Statement [email protected] EIS Description: The Forest Service was a cooperating agency, assisting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in that Agency's geothermal leasing analysis and decision. The BLM issued a record of decision on 12/17/2008. Web Link: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwide.html Location: UNIT - Coronado National Forest All Units, Gila National Forest All Units, Lincoln National Forest All Units, Boise National Forest All Units, Bridger-Teton National Forest All Units, Clearwater National Forest All Units, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest All Units, Bitterroot National Forest All Units, Lewis And Clark National Forest All Units, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest All Units, San Juan National Forest All Units, White River National Forest All Units, Carson National Forest All Units, Cibola National Forest All Units, Cleveland National Forest All Units, Eldorado National Forest All Units, Lassen National Forest All Units, Los Padres National Forest All Units, Mendocino National Forest
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program
    Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Department of Energy Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of the Interior Nez Perce Tribe July 1997 Final Environmental Impact Statement Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA); U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). Title of Proposed Action: Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program. States Involved: Idaho. Abstract: Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Nez Perce Tribe propose a supplementation program to restore chinook salmon to the Clearwater River Subbasin in Idaho. The Clearwater River is a tributary to the Snake River, which empties into the Columbia River. The Final EIS includes a new alternative suggested by commentors to the Draft EIS. In the Proposed Action, the Nez Perce Tribe would build and operate two central incubation and rearing hatcheries and six satellite facilities. Spring and fall chinook salmon would be reared and acclimated to different areas in the Subbasin and released at the hatchery and satellite sites or in other watercourses throughout the Subbasin. The supplementation program differs from other hatchery programs because the fish would be released at different sizes and would return to reproduce naturally in the areas where they are released. The Use of Existing Facilities Alternative proposes using existing production hatcheries and the proposed satellite facilities to meet the need. Facilities at Dworshak National Fish Hatchery, Kooskia National Fish Hatchery, and Hagerman National Fish Hatchery would be used as central incubation and rearing facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Outreach Notice
    Outreach Notice Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests Forestry Technician (Wilderness/Trails) GS-0462-6/7 The Central Zone of the Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forests anticipates filling a permanent seasonal (18/8), Forestry Technician (Wilderness/Trails), GS-0462-06/07 position. The position will be stationed at the Moose Creek District office, the Fenn Ranger Station, but will work across the Moose Creek and Lochsa/Powell Ranger Districts, the two ranger districts that comprise the Central Zone. Interested applicants must submit the attached outreach response form to [email protected] by March 6, 2015. The vacancy announcement for this position has not yet been opened. Those who respond to this outreach will be contacted with the vacancy announcement number when it becomes available. When the vacancy opens, applicants will apply online at www.usajobs.com. Please direct any questions concerning this position to Katie Knotek at (406) 329-3708. ABOUT THE POSITION Series/Grade: GS-0462-06/07 Title: Forestry Technician (Wilderness/Trails) Location: Moose Creek Ranger District; Lowell, ID (physical location); Kooskia, ID (USAJOBS location). Tour of Duty: Permanent Seasonal (18/8), guaranteed 18 pay periods (36 weeks) annually The Position Duties Include: This position primarily performs a variety of work in support of the Central Zone’s trails and wilderness programs. Successful applicants will have a strong background in trail maintenance and construction, care and use of pack and saddle stock, crew leadership, and communication skills. Other duties include: Serves as technical specialist for the management and maintenance of both motorized and non- motorized trails, inside and outside wilderness, across the Central Zone.
    [Show full text]
  • Prescribed Burning for Elk in N Orthem Idaho
    Proceedings: 8th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 1968 Prescribed Burning For Elk in N orthem Idaho THOMAS A. LEEGE, RESEARCH BIOLOGIST Idaho Fish and Game Dept. Kamiah, Idaho kE majestic wapiti, otherwise known as the Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus canadensis), has been identified with northern Idaho for the last 4 decades. Every year thousands of hunters from all parts of the United States swarm into the wild country of the St. Joe Clearwater River drainages. Places like Cool­ water Ridge, Magruder and Moose Creek are favorite hunting spots well known for their abundance of elk. However, it is now evident that elk numbers are slowly decreasing in many parts of the region. The reason for the decline is apparent when the history of the elk herds and the vegetation upon which they depend are closely exam­ ined. This paper will review some of these historical records and then report on prescribed burning studies now underway by Idaho Fish and Game personnel. The range rehabilitation program being developed by the Forest Service from these studies will hopefully halt the elk decline and maintain this valuable wildlife resource in northern Idaho. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGION The general area I will be referring to includes the territory to the north of the Salmon River and south of Coeur d'Alene Lake (Fig. 1). 235 THOMAS A. LEEGE It is sometimes called north-central Idaho and includes the St. Joe and Clearwater Rivers as the major drainages. This area is lightly populated, especially the eaStern two-thirds which is almost entirely publicly owned and managed by the United States Forest Service; specifically, the St.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest HUC5 Watershed Name HUC6 Subwatershed Name USFS Acres
    Forest HUC5 Watershed Name HUC6 Subwatershed Name USFS Acres 17010306 - HANGMAN SUBBASIN CNF 1701030601 Upper Hangman Creek 170103060101 Headwaters Hangman Creek 2,245 ********** ************ --------- sum 2,245 17060108 - PALOUSE RIVER SUBBASIN CNF 1706010803 Upper Palouse River 170601080301 Headwaters Palouse River 27,352 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080302 Meadow Creek 14,237 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080303 Big Creek 2,857 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080304 Flat Creek 839 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080305 Hatter Creek 16 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080306 Gold Creek 4,224 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080308 Palouse River/Rock Creek 3,300 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080309 Deep Creek 1,346 ********** ************ --------- sum 54,171 17060109 - ROCK CREEK SUBBASIN CNF 1706010901 Pine Creek 170601090101 Headwaters Pine Creek 87 ********** ************ --------- sum 87 17060302 - LOWER SELWAY SUBBASIN CNF 1706030201 Moose Creek 170603020102 Upper East Fork Moose Creek 8,290 CNF Moose Creek 170603020103 Cedar Creek 16,271 CNF Moose Creek 170603020104 Middle East Fork Moose Creek 686 ********** ************ --------- sum 25,639 17060303 - LOCHSA RIVER SUBBASIN CNF 1706030301 Crooked Fork Creek 170603030101 Upper Crooked Fork Creek 18,907 Forest HUC5 Watershed Name HUC6 Subwatershed Name USFS Acres CNF Crooked Fork Creek 170603030102 Boulder Creek 15,627 CNF Crooked Fork Creek 170603030103 Lower Crooked Fork Creek 11,766 CNF Crooked Fork Creek 170603030104 Upper Brushy Fork Creek 5,142 CNF Crooked Fork Creek 170603030105 Spruce
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Idaho Wolf Monitoring Progress Report
    2015 IDAHO WOLF MONITORING PROGRESS REPORT Photo by IDFG Prepared By: Jason Husseman, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Jennifer Struthers, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Edited By: Jim Hayden, Idaho Department of Fish and Game March 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the end of 2015, Idaho’s wolf population remained well-distributed and well above population minimums required under Idaho’s 2002 Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. Wolves range in Idaho from the Canadian border south to the Snake River Plain, and from the Washington and Oregon borders east to the Montana and Wyoming borders. Dispersing wolves are reported in previously unoccupied areas. The year-end population for documented packs, other documented groups not qualifying as packs and lone wolves was estimated at 786 wolves. Biologists documented 108 packs within the state at the end of 2015. In addition, there were 20 documented border packs counted by Montana, Wyoming, and Washington that had established territories overlapping the Idaho state boundary. Additional packs are suspected but not included due to lack of documentation. Mean pack size was 6.4 wolves, nearly identical to the 2014 average of 6.5. Reproduction (production of at least 1 pup) was documented in 69 packs, representing the minimum number of reproductive packs extant in the state. Determination of breeding pair status was made for 53 packs at year’s end. Of these, 33 packs (62%) met breeding pair criteria, and 20 packs did not. No determination of breeding pair status was made for the remaining 55 packs. Mortalities of 358 wolves were documented in Idaho in 2015, and remained essentially unchanged from 2014 (n = 360).
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON's ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN February 2003
    OREGON’S ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN February 2003 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 59 2501 S.W. First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 2 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ........................................................................................ 2 History of Elk in Oregon ............................................................................................... 2 History of Hunting Regulations .................................................................................... 4 Hunting Pressure and Harvest ....................................................................................... 8 ELK BIOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 12 Nutrition and Reproduction.......................................................................................... 12 Antler Development ..................................................................................................... 16 Migration and Movements ........................................................................................... 16 Diseases and Parasites.................................................................................................. 17 HABITAT.............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lochsa River Subbasin Assessment
    LOCHSA RIVER SUBBASIN ASSESSMENT Final September 1999 Prepared by: Nicholas Bugosh Lewiston Regional Office Idaho Division of Environmental Quality 1118 “F” Street Lewiston, Idaho 83501 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. vii 1.0. SUBBASIN CHARACTERIZATION1......................................................1 1.1. Physical Characteristics...................................................................1 1.1.1. Lochsa Area Geology ..........................................................1 1.1.2. Soils......................................................................................5 1.1.3. Topography..........................................................................5 1.1.4. Climate.................................................................................5 1.1.5. Hydrolo ..............................................................................13 1.2. Biological Characteristics..............................................................16 1.2.1. Terrestrial Vegetation........................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • Nez Perce Tribe Fish and Wildlife Commission 2021 Fishing Season Regulation for the Snake River Basin and Its Tributaries ______
    __________________________________________________________________________ Nez Perce Tribe Fish and Wildlife Commission 2021 Fishing Season Regulation for the Snake River Basin and its Tributaries _________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to the Nez Perce Tribal Code Section 3-1-11, the Nez Perce Tribe Fish and Wildlife Commission has the authority to promulgate annual and seasonal hunting and fishing regulations and prescribe the manner and methods which may be used in taking fish and wildlife. Pursuant to that authority, the Nez Perce Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the following fishing regulation for the Nez Perce Tribe. NEZ PERCE TRIBE Fishing Season Regulation NPTFWC #21-117 CLOSURE of Snake River Basin Spring and Summer Chinook Ceremonial and Subsistence (C&S) Treaty Fisheries for the Specific Fishing Areas Described Below Effective 6PM (PST), April 27, 2021 CLEARWATER RIVER SUBBASIN Mainstem Clearwater Entire reach of river from confluence with the Snake River upstream to the confluence with the Lochsa and Selway rivers. North Fork Clearwater Entire reach of river from confluence with the mainstem Clearwater River upstream to the Dworshak Dam. South Fork Clearwater Entire reach of river from confluence of the South Fork Clearwater River with the Middle Fork Clearwater River upstream to 10 feet below the weirs/traps located on Newsome Creek, Red River, and Crooked River, with the area above the weirs/traps closed to fishing. Clear Creek Entire reach of river from confluence with the mainstem Clearwater River upstream to 10 feet below the hatchery weir, with area above the weir closed fishing. Lochsa River Entire reach of river from confluence with Selway River upstream to all tributary areas of the Lochsa River drainage.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Idaho Te N 15H A
    117° 116° 49° CANADA K 49° oo 15h Ecoregions of Idaho te n 15h a i R 10 Columbia Plateau 12 Snake River Plain 16 Idaho Batholith (continued) i v e 10f Dissected Loess Uplands 12aTreasure Valley 16e Glaciated Bitterroot Mountains and r 10hPalouse Hills 12bLava Fields Canyons 15m Bonners 10j Nez Perce Prairie 12cCamas Prairie 16f Foothill Shrublands–Grasslands Priest Ferry Lake 10l Lower Snake and Clearwater Canyons 12dDissected Plateaus and Teton Basin 16gHigh Glacial Drift-Filled Valleys 15y 15h 15 11 Blue Mountains 12eUpper Snake River Plain 16hHigh Idaho Batholith P 12f Semiarid Foothills 16i South Clearwater Forested r 15q i e 11dMelange 15 s t 12gEastern Snake River Basalt Plains Mountains R 11eWallowas/Seven Devils Mountains i v e 15h 15h Libby 12hMountain Home Uplands 16j Hot Dry Canyons r 11f Canyons and Dissected Highlands 15w Sandpoint 12i Magic Valley 16kSouthern Forested Mountains ille R. 11gCanyons and Dissected Uplands re 12j Unwooded Alkaline Foothills Pend O 11i Continental Zone Foothills 17 Middle Rockies 15u 11l Mesic Forest Zone 13 Central Basin and Range 17e Barren Mountains Lake 11mSubalpine–Alpine Zone Pend 13bShadscale-Dominated Saline 17hHigh Elevation Rockland Alpine 48° Oreille Basins Zone 48° 15s Level III ecoregion 13cSagebrush Basins and Slopes 17j West Yellowstone Plateau 15w Level IV ecoregion 13dWoodland- and Shrub-Covered 17l Gneissic–Schistose Forested Low Mountains Mountains County boundary 15o 13i Malad and Cache Valleys 17nCold Valleys Coeur d’Alene State boundary 15h 17oPartly Forested Mountains Spokane 15 Northern Rockies International boundary 17aaDry Intermontane Sagebrush Coeur 15f Grassy Potlatch Ridges d’Alene Valleys Lake Kellogg 115° 114° 15hHigh Northern Rockies 17abDry Gneissic–Schistose–Volcanic 15h 15i Clearwater Mountains and Breaks 15 Hills 15j Lower Clearwater Canyons 17adWestern Beaverhead Mountains 15h 15mKootenai Valley Saint St.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Utilizatjq^ in the Snake Rivm Basin
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Water-Supply Paper 657 WATER UTILIZATJQ^ IN THE SNAKE RIVM BASIN ""-^r B<5 °o ^ «-? %*-« ^t«4 ____ ^n -" wC> v r v*> ^ /-^ T"i --O ^ o f^* t TA ^-- ± BY ^^^ W. G. HOYT \, ^ r-^ Co WITH A PREFACE ^ -^ "^ o o. ^ HERMAN STABLER ' ^ ^ e 'r1 t<A to ^ ^ >Jt C---\ V*-O r&1 """^*_> ® p <,A -o xi CP ^3 P* O ^ y» * "^ 0V - f\ *"^ . , UNITED STATKS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1935 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. - - - Price $1.00 (Paper cover) CONTENTS Page Preface, by Herman Stabler._______________________________________ ix Abstract _________________________________________________________ 1 Introduction__ _ _________________________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope of report.___________________________________ 2 Cooperation and base data.____________________________________ 3 Index system.._______________________________________________ 6 General features of Snake River Basin.______________________________ 6 Location and extent.__________________________________________ 6 Geographic and topographic features.___________________________ 7 Snake River system._____-_-----_____-_________-_____-_-__-_.._ 7 Tributaries to Snake River.____________________________________ 9 Historical review-__________________________________________________ 20 Scenic and recreational features.-...________________________________ 21 Climate____________________________A____ ___________________ 23 Natural vegetation_________________-_____-____________----__-_---._
    [Show full text]
  • Values of the Middle Fork Clearwater Adn Lochsa River Corridor
    Values of the Middle Fork Clearwater and Lochsa River Corridor Potentially Affected by Certain Over-Legal Truck Traffic US Highway 12 US Forest Service Northern Region Missoula, Montana March, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS................................................................................................... 2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................. 2 US HIGHWAY 12 – IDAHO SEGMENT ..................................................................................... 3 Agency Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................ 4 Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) ................................................................................. 4 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ............................................................................. 4 Forest Service .......................................................................................................................... 5 Over-Legal Sized Load Traffic .................................................................................................. 5 NATIONAL DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR ....................................................... 6 Wild and Scenic River: Middle Fork
    [Show full text]