DOCSLIB.ORG

Predation of Juvenile Salmonids by Resident Trout and Other Fishes in the Lower Cedar River, Washington

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Predation of Juvenile Salmonids by Resident Trout and Other Fishes in the Lower Cedar River, Washington PREDATION OF JUVENILE SALMONIDS BY RESIDENT TROUT AND OTHER FISHES IN THE LOWER CEDAR RIVER, WASHINGTON FINAL REPORT TO SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES by Roger A. Tabor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 Hans B. Berge King County, Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98104 Matt M. Klungle and Brad E. Thompson1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, Washington 98501 and Daniel W. Lantz2 and Benjamin E. Price3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 February 2014 1Present address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503 2Present address: King County, Department of Natural Resources and Parks, 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98104 3Present address: Restorx of Washington, Auburn, WA 98001 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We dedicate this report to the memory of Steve Foley. He was instrumental in supporting this project and without his assistance the project would not have been successful. Funding for this project was provided in part by the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) (through the Cedar River Anadromous Fish Committee) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. We are appreciative of Paul Faulds, Gary Spraque, and Michele Koehler, SPU for their assistance and support. Suggestions by Karl Burton, SPU and Frank Urabeck improved the final version of this report. We thank the many folks who assisted with the field work which included USFWS employees: Scott Sanders, Steve Damm, Dan Spencer, James Curtis, Terence Lee, Howard Gearns, Jeff Chan, Tim Romanski, Keith Sweeney, Eric Tallman, Nathan Hyde, and Tracy Leavy; WDFW employees: William Morris, Nathan Martens, Devin West, Shannon Vincent, Brant Boelts, Clayton Kinsel, Ann Blakely, Chad Jackson, Todd Kassler, Yong-Woo Lee, Nathanael Overman, Kelly Kiyohara, Bruce Bolding, Craig Busack, Scott Scheutzler; King County employees: Jim Lissa, Frank Leonetti, Ray Timm, Eleanor Bosman-Clark, Kollin Higgins; NOAA Fisheries employees: Sean Naman and Thomas Buehrens; and Trout Unlimited volunteers, especially Bill Robinson. We thank Lindsy Wright and James Curtis, USFWS for their long hours of processing the diet samples. Carrie Cook-Tabor assisted with editing and formatting of the draft report. USFWS student trainee employees Matt Wynn, Matt Wiley, Audry Djunaedi, Ashley Drossart, Alec Barber, and Verl Engel assisted with data entry. Genetic analysis was conducted by Todd Kassler and Cheryl Dean, WDFW. Isotope analysis was conducted by Sean Naman and Peter Kiffney, NOAA Fisheries. Trout scales were analyzed at the WDFW aging lab under the direction of Lee Blankenship. Trout otoliths were analyzed at the WDFW otolith lab under the direction of Jeff Grimm. Access to the river was greatly improved by private landowners Julie Stachawiak and Tim Allen who gave us permission to cross their property. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 5 Study Design .............................................................................................................................. 5 Summer Field Sampling (July-August 2006 and 2007) ........................................................ 6 Winter-Spring Field Sampling (January-June 2008 and 2010) ............................................ 7 Fish Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 7 Abundance Sampling ............................................................................................................. 7 Diet Sampling ........................................................................................................................ 8 Other Fish Sampling ............................................................................................................. 9 Diet Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 9 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 10 Abundance Estimation ......................................................................................................... 10 Diet Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 16 Consumption Estimation (Direct Consumption Model) ...................................................... 17 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 20 Abundance Estimates and Length Composition .................................................................... 20 Diet ........................................................................................................................................... 30 Trout .................................................................................................................................... 30 July-August Diet ............................................................................................................. 30 Winter-Spring Diet ......................................................................................................... 33 Coho Salmon ....................................................................................................................... 45 Mountain Whitefish ............................................................................................................. 46 Sculpin ................................................................................................................................. 47 Smallmouth Bass ................................................................................................................. 50 Consumption Estimates .......................................................................................................... 50 Trout .................................................................................................................................... 50 July-August Predation Estimates .................................................................................... 50 Winter-Spring Predation Estimates ................................................................................ 51 Coho Salmon (Winter-Spring Only) .................................................................................... 60 Other Analyses ........................................................................................................................ 61 PIT Tag Analysis ................................................................................................................. 61 Otolith Analysis ................................................................................................................... 61 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 62 Abundance Estimates and Length Composition .................................................................... 62 Predation and Diet .................................................................................................................. 64 Trout .................................................................................................................................... 64 Coho Salmon ....................................................................................................................... 70 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 71 APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 79 iii iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY From 2006 to 2010, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and King County undertook a cooperative project to estimate the abundance of resident trout and quantify their predation on juvenile salmonids in the Cedar River below Landsburg Diversion Dam. Summer sampling was conducted in 2006-2008, while winter-spring sampling was conducted in 2008-2010. Efforts to estimate resident trout abundance were conducted during three different summers and two winter-spring periods. Predation and diet sampling were conducted during two summer and two winter-spring periods. Summer abundance estimates of resident trout from 2006 to 2008 were remarkably similar, ranging from 16,320 to 17,435. In 2006 and 2007, trout were captured and marked for a recapture and/or resight (snorkeling)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (General Insurance
    8, 1909. 8 THE SEATTLE REPUBLICAN FRIDAY, JANUARY and the defects of NORTHWEST BRIEFS. achievements Scandinavian American Bank. the Brother in Black. In a few A resolution was introduced at Write Today straight-forward, clean-cut re- a copy meeting the city for of the recent of marks, free from partiality or "THE BANK ACCOUNT" council asking Mayor John E. prejudice, he pointed out to his a new, neat little 8-page paper aa full Philadelphia, of good things as an egg is of meat. Reyburn of to send auditors the shortcomings of the MAILED FREE. the Liberty Bell to the Alaska- Negro and deplored the fact there The Scandinavian-American Bank, Yukon-Pacific Exposition. was such a general impulse with Alaska Building, Seattle, Wash. d'Oreille River Navi- them to rush to the already over- The Pend E. N. BROOKS & CO. gation Co. has just inaugurated crowded cities where the cost of For Frills For Men. the best river service which the living is the highest and competi- HXQK traveling 1 public has ever enjoyed tion the" greatest. With Booker CLASS HABEBDASEEBT on that river. T. Washington, Mayor Miller 1331 Second Aye., Seattle, Wash. agreed life of the agri- The teachers' institute held in that the culturist is the most independent Spokane is being well attended. • Albert Hansen. existence in the world. He men- Eyes Carefully Examined and Two-thirds of the Columbia riv- tioned the fact that along many Properly Fitted With Glasses er bridge is completed and about lines the Negro had already at- 706 First Avenue.
    [Show full text]
  • Cedar River State Water Trail
    A WATER TRAIL GUIDE TO THE CEDAR RIVER Iron Horse Prairie BLOOMING S.N.A. 2 2 24 PRAIRIE 16 20 STEELE CO. DODGE CO. 15 9 FREEBORN CO. MOWER CO. 56 34 218 Cr eek 36 30 WALTHAM 1 1 NEWRY 20 Mud 16 25 1 SARGEANT 105 Creek CEDAR 34 103 57 Deer 218 RIVER MAPLE ISLAND CORNING MAYVILLE 251 Roberts HOLLANDALE 36 25 Cr eek LANSING 20 CORNERS 2 25 2 34 LANSING BROWNSDALE 2 RENOVA 16 30 Hickory Lake 61 Wild Indigo Prairie S.N.A. 36 Ramsey Mill 19 Pond W.M.A. 104 ANDYVILLE 25 Wild Indigo Prairie S.N.A. Carex Ramsey Mill Pond Cr eek W.M.A. Murphy RAMSEY 16 25 218 Creek Moscow Creek Wolf Ramsey Mill Pond 25 Portage (R) 125 Yds Turtle 27 20 J.C. Hormel 56 Nature Center Dobbins 102 Creek 61 34 Austin Mill Pond NICOLVILLE 102 East 90 OAKLAND Schrafel 90 W.M.A. Side 90 HOLLANDALE Lake Mentel 46 46 AUSTIN JUNCTION Portage (L) 250 Yds W.M.A. 218 19 Roosevelt Bridge Creek 90 Driesner Park 15 3 3 30 Orchard 105 Cedar River A.M.A. Rose 28 28 river level development) trail (future gauge Creek Route Description for the Cedar River RIVER NOTE: (R) and (L) represent right and left banks of the river when facing downstream. Cedar River Riverwood Landing A.M.A. 25.0 County Road 2 bridge ROSE River VARCO 4 24-21.6 Ramsey Mill Pond W.M.A. 4 218 CREEK Lyle-Austin W.M.A.
    [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]
  • Comment on G Marty Dcoument
    Critique of the Document “Information Regarding Concerns about Farmed Salmon - Wild Salmon Interactions” Presented to the Provincial Government of British Columbia by Gary Marty, D.V.M., Ph.D., Diplomate, A.C.V.P. of the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Health Centre, Abbotsford. Authors of this critique: Lawrence M. Dill1, Martin Krkosek2, Brendan Connors3, Stephanie J. Peacock4, Andrew W. Bateman5, Richard Routledge6, Mark A. Lewis7, and John Reynolds8 1 Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University 2 Assistant Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto 3 Senior Systems Ecologist, ESSA Technologies, and Adjunct Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University 4 PhD Candidate, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta 5 Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto 6 Professor, Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University 7 Professor and Senior Canada Research Chair, Departments of Biological Sciences and Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Alberta 8 Professor and Tom Buell BC Leadership Chair in Aquatic Conservation, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University Background The document, “Information Regarding Concerns about Farmed Salmon - Wild Salmon Interactions,” dated March 16, 2015, was presented to Ministers Thompson and Letnik of the Government of British Columbia (BC) with the intention of providing scientific information upon which to base management and policy decisions regarding wild and farmed salmon in British Columbia. Collectively, we are a group of scientists, mostly academic, whose research expertise includes salmon and infectious diseases (here we refer to infectious diseases in the broadest sense as those that may arise from parasitic, viral or bacterial pathogens).
    [Show full text]
  • History of Sockeye Salmon in Lake Washington
    Cedar River Sockeye Past and Present • History of the Watershed and Re-Configuration of the Basin • Baker Lake Sockeye Introductions • Lake Washington Water Quality Clean-Up • Sockeye Adult Returns • Current Limiting Factors for Juvenile and Adult Sockeye • Expectations for Future Returns (WDFW Model) ~17,000 Years Ago Vashon Glaciation Period Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet Waterlines is a project of the Burke Museum. Please visit us to learn more about Seattle’s past landscapes. www.burkemuseum.org/waterlines Captain Burrows Pleasure Resort, 1906 Captain Burrows resort at the mouth of the Black River from 1897 to 1917 [Renton Historical Society note]. Sign in image: Captain Burrows. Summer-Winter Pleasure Resort. Good Fishing-Hunting-Boating . Renton Historical Society collection, UW (648A) • “The only fish in them is a species of trout, very few in number, the largest of which are about a foot in length.” • Hammond 1886, in reference to Lakes Washington and Sammamish. • "A small salmon was said to live permanently in Lake Washington spawning in the creeks which emptied into the lake. The Duwamish of that section were said to prefer this salmon to that which entered the rivers from the Sound.” • Smith (1940), reporting on cultural interviews with local tribal elders. City of Renton created a new waterway in 1912 that diverted the lower Cedar River from the Black River into Lake Washington. (Buerge 1985) The purpose of this 2,000 foot channel was to abate flooding and to provide a “Commercial Waterway” for sea-going vessels after the completion of the ship locks at Ballard.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Impacts on Water Management in the Puget Sound Region, Washington, USA Julie A
    Climate Change Impacts on Water Management in the Puget Sound Region, Washington, USA Julie A. Vano1, Nathalie Voisin1, Lan Cuo1,2, Alan F. Hamlet1,2, Marketa McGuire Elsner2, Richard N. Palmer3, Austin Polebitski1, and Dennis P. Lettenmaier1,2 Abstract limate change is projected to result, on average, in earlier snowmelt and reduced summer flows, patterns that are not well represented in the historical observations used for planning and reliability analyses by water utilities. CWe extend ongoing efforts in the Puget Sound basin cities of Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma to characterize differences between historic and future streamflow and the ability of the region’s water supply systems to meet future demands. We use future streamflow simulations for the 2020s, 2040s, and 2080s from the Distributed Hydrology-Soil- Vegetation Model (DHSVM), driven by climate simulations archived by the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We use ensembles of streamflow predictions produced by DHSVM forced with multiple downscaled ensembles from the IPCC climate models as inputs to reservoir system models for the Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma water supply systems. Over the next century, under average conditions all three systems are projected to experience a decline and eventual disappearance of the springtime snowmelt peak in their inflows. How these shifts impact water management depends on the specifics of the reservoir system and their operating objectives, site-specific variations in the influence that reductions in snowmelt have on reservoir inflows, and the adaptive capacity of each system. Without adaptations, average seasonal drawdown of reservoir storage is projected to increase in all of the systems throughout the 21st century.
    [Show full text]
  • Moose River Plains Wild Forest - South Anc D Little Moose Wilderness Owns
    l r T s e d a Protect Yourself c s ^ ok Hiking trails can be rough and rugged a Bro • Moose River Plains Wild Forest - South anC d Little Moose Wilderness owns ! Br - they are not maintained as park Eighth Lake id E [J!j Sagamore c d walkways - wear boots or shoes See North Map Campground la a ! Lake P o e R designed for hiking. [J!(!G k Indian !9 ! " a ! !j L Lake ] - • Know the weather forecast; plan and e Sag k l am roo l Sugarloaf Fourth o [J!( st B i re Lo v Mtn prepare based on current and [J h Lake !0 R t d r forecasted conditions. !G o !S p N o B L U E R I D G E r • Pack a day pack with items like water, o e Inlet Sixth !0 L W I L D E R N E S S v [J i Lake e ! flashlight, extra clothing, etc. k ra R !0 e a Ko Lak ke Seveth L La • Sign in and out of all trail registers th Mohegan l h n i nth- t Wakely d eve ig Lake M ! that you encounter. a R S ly j! !( r E Pond ?g ke Wak r [J T a ely M Trl a W tn d Respect Others n e t M O O S E R I V E R !A iln k C k M o • Be courteous of all other users e P L A I N S W I L D ro ! im B (10) j! !(!G L F O R E S T ey [J regardless of their sport, speed or e dl ak ra Limekiln L ake L B Cellar Pd t[ skill level.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Washington the Cedar River Watershed Is One of Two
    INTERNAL REPORT 102 FOREST PLANTCOMMUNITIESOF THELOWER CEDARRIVER WATERSHED D.R. M. Scott and J. Long University of Washington INTRODUCTION The Cedar River Watershed is one of two principal sites for the Western Coniferous Biome of the International Biological Program (IBP). Various physical add biological components of the watershed are being intensively studied as part of the Analysis of Ecosystems objectives of IBP. The purpose of this report is to present the results of an initial recon- naissance-level study of the forest vegetation of the watershed. The . tentative delineations and descriptions of this vegetation may be useful in the stratification of the watershed for intensive ecological research. A proposal for an inventory of terrestrial ecosystems of the Cedar River drainage by Scott and Del Moral (1971) was not funded for 1972. However, a half-time graduate student salary for six months and some transporta- tion were made available. This limited funding made possible the initiation of a survey of the forest communities of the watershed. The emphasis during this first field season was placed on the vegetation of the lower watershed. This decision was based on several factors, including the uncertainty of, transportation to the upper watershed and the fact that some study of the upper watershed, specifically the Findley Lake Basin, had already been completed (Del Moral, unpublished). DESCRIPTION OF THE LOWER WATERSHED The lower watershed can be defined, for the purposes of this report, as that part of the Cedar River Watershed below 600 m in elevation. On this basis it represents approximately 14,000 ha or 40% of the total watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashland Post Fire Landscape Assessment 2014 2
    Ashland Post Fire Landscape United States Assessment Forest Depart ment of Service Agriculture Ashland Ranger District Custer National Forest Powder River and Rosebud Counties, MT May 2014 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Ashland Post Fire Landscape Assessment 2014 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Ashland Ecological and Social/Economic Niche .............................................................................. 11 1.1.1 Livestock Grazing ...................................................................................................................... 11 1.1.2 Mixed Prairie and Forest ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Fishes
    Humboldt Bay Fishes ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> ·´¯`·._.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> Acknowledgements The Humboldt Bay Harbor District would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation to the authors and photographers who have allowed us to use their work in this report. Photography and Illustrations We would like to thank the photographers and illustrators who have so graciously donated the use of their images for this publication. Andrey Dolgor Dan Gotshall Polar Research Institute of Marine Sea Challengers, Inc. Fisheries And Oceanography [email protected] [email protected] Michael Lanboeuf Milton Love [email protected] Marine Science Institute [email protected] Stephen Metherell Jacques Moreau [email protected] [email protected] Bernd Ueberschaer Clinton Bauder [email protected] [email protected] Fish descriptions contained in this report are from: Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2003 FishBase. Worldwide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org/ 13 August 2003 Photographer Fish Photographer Bauder, Clinton wolf-eel Gotshall, Daniel W scalyhead sculpin Bauder, Clinton blackeye goby Gotshall, Daniel W speckled sanddab Bauder, Clinton spotted cusk-eel Gotshall, Daniel W. bocaccio Bauder, Clinton tube-snout Gotshall, Daniel W. brown rockfish Gotshall, Daniel W. yellowtail rockfish Flescher, Don american shad Gotshall, Daniel W. dover sole Flescher, Don stripped bass Gotshall, Daniel W. pacific sanddab Gotshall, Daniel W. kelp greenling Garcia-Franco, Mauricio louvar
    [Show full text]
  • Full Text in Pdf Format
    Vol. 20: 181–194, 2013 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Published online May 3 doi: 10.3354/esr00493 Endang Species Res Assessing the distinctiveness of the Cultus pygmy sculpin, a threatened endemic, from the widespread coastrange sculpin Cottus aleuticus Patricia E. Woodruff, Eric B. Taylor* Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre and Beaty Biodiversity Museum, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada ABSTRACT: The Cultus pygmy sculpin is a cottoid fish endemic to Cultus Lake, southwestern British Columbia, Canada, and is listed as ‘threatened’ under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). The Cultus pygmy sculpin was first discovered and described as a ‘dwarf’ coastrange sculpin Cottus aleuticus in the 1930s. It matures at a smaller size than the ‘normal’ C. aleuticus, has a lacustrine life history rather than a fluvial one, has different morphological features, and appears to undertake diurnal feeding migrations into the water column to feed on Daphnia, but little else of its biology is known. We used molecular genetic and behavioural assays to further assess the level of differentiation between Cultus pygmy sculpin and stream-dwelling C. aleuticus from several locations. Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes were broadly shared between Cultus pygmy sculpin and coastrange sculpin, and there was no apparent phylogeographic structure. However, analysis of 8 microsatellite analysis loci indicated significant genetic differentiation between parapatric samples of both forms. Laboratory-based experiments showed that, in gen- eral, the Cultus pygmy sculpin was found higher in the water column and was more active off the bottom than coastrange sculpin, but these behavioural differences were influenced by the pres- ence of congeneric C.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Critical Habitat for Coastrange Sculpin (Cultus Population) (Cottus Aleuticus)
    Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Research Document 2015/033 Pacific Region Identification of critical habitat for Coastrange Sculpin (Cultus Population) (Cottus aleuticus) 1 2 2 2 3 Eric Chiang , Lucas Pon , Daniel T. Selbie , Jeremy M.B. Hume , Patricia Woodruff , and Gerrit Velema3 1Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science Branch Suite 200, 401 West Pender St Vancouver, BC V6C 3S4 2Fisheries and Oceans Canada Cultus Lake Salmon Research Laboratory 4222 Columbia Valley Rd Cultus Lake, BC V2R 5B6 3University of British Columbia Department of Zoology 2329 West Mall Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 June 2015 Foreword This series documents the scientific basis for the evaluation of aquatic resources and ecosystems in Canada. As such, it addresses the issues of the day in the time frames required and the documents it contains are not intended as definitive statements on the subjects addressed but rather as progress reports on ongoing investigations. Research documents are produced in the official language in which they are provided to the Secretariat. Published by: Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 200 Kent Street Ottawa ON K1A 0E6 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/ [email protected] © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2015 ISSN 1919-5044 Correct citation for this publication: Chiang, E., Pon, L., Selbie, D.T.,Hume, J.M.B., Woodruff, P., and Velema, G. 2015. Identification of critical habitat for Coastrange Sculpin (Cultus Population) (Cottus aleuticus). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2015/033.
    [Show full text]