DOCSLIB.ORG

Health Consultation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Health Consultation HEALTH CONSULTATION Evaluation of Mercury in Trout and White Fish From Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho Bonner County, Idaho Prepared by Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Division of Health Bureau of Community and Environmental Health Under Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Summary As part of a cooperative agreement with the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Bureau of Community and Environmental Health (BCEH), Division of Health, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW), prepared this health consultation to evaluate the potential health effects from exposure to mercury in Lake Pend Oreille fish. The State of Montana has a fish advisory for mercury contamination in Flathead Lake, which is upstream of Lake Pend Oreille. Over 90% of the water in Lake Pend Oreille flows from Flathead Lake and other lakes/reservoirs in Montana through the Clark Fork River. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) collected fish samples from Lake Pend Oreille to better understand the mercury contamination in the lake fish and any potential human health effects from eating the fish. The majority of mercury in fish is methylmercury. Exposure to methylmercury is more dangerous for young children than for adults because methylmercury more easily passes into the developing brain of young children and may interfere with the developmental process. Critical periods of neonatal development and the early months after birth are times that are particularly sensitive to the harmful effects of methylmercury on the nervous system. Methylmercury can accumulate in fetal blood to concentrations higher than in the mother. Mothers who are exposed to methylmercury and breastfeed their infant may also expose the child through breast milk. Based upon the available fish tissue data for mercury and other available information, BCEH has drawn the following conclusions and recommendations: Conclusions: 1. For occasional fish consumers who only eat one meal (4-oz for children, 8-oz for adult) per month of trout or white fish from Lake Pend Oreille, the exposure to mercury in fish is a no apparent public health hazard according to ATSDR’s public health hazard categories (Appendix C). 2. A public health hazard may exist for children, pregnant women, and general public who eat more than eight meals per month (two meals per week) of trout or white fish from Lake Pend Oreille. Recommendations: BCEH should issue a fish advisory for trout and white fish caught in Lake Pend Oreille based on the evaluation in this health consultation. BCEH should work with IDFG to post and distribute the fish advisory. Efforts should also be made by BCEH to educate the fishing community on the health implications of fish consumption. The advisory will include the following: 1. Children (6 year old or younger) should not eat more than one 4-oz meal per month of trout or two 4-oz meals per month of white fish from Lake Pend Oreille. 2. Pregnant women, including women planning to become pregnant, and nursing mothers, should not eat more than two 8-oz meals per month of trout or four 8-oz meals per month of white fish from Lake Pend Oreille. 3. General public should not eat more than three 8-oz meals per month of trout or four 8-oz meals per month of white fish from Lake Pend Oreille. 1 4. Do not eat other fish including commercial fish in the same month if you eat up to the recommended limit of trout or white fish from Lake Pend Oreille, since all fish contain various levels of mercury. To find the level of mercury in common commercially available fish, please check the national fish advisory (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html). 5. People should eat smaller, younger fish. Typically, the bigger or older the fish, the higher the mercury concentration in the fish fillet. 2 Purpose The Bureau of Community and Environmental Health (BCEH), Division of Health, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) has a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to conduct public health assessments and consultations for hazardous waste sites in Idaho. In 2004, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) collected trout and white fish samples from Lake Pend Oreille for mercury analysis in fish tissue. As part of the cooperative agreement with ATSDR, BCEH prepared this health consultation to evaluate the potential adverse health effects associated with the consumption of fish from Lake Pend Oreille. Background and Statement of Issue Lake Pend Oreille, the fifth largest natural freshwater lake in the United States, and Idaho’s largest lake, is located in Bonner County, Idaho (Appendix A, Figure A-1). The deepest part of the lake is 1200 feet and the lake has over 100 miles of shoreline. Fishing, waterskiing, sailing and windsurfing are all popular sports on the lake. The State of Montana has a fish advisory for mercury contamination in Flathead Lake, which is upstream of Lake Pend Oreille. Over 90% of the water in Lake Pend Oreille (Appendix A, Figure A-1) comes from the watershed of Flathead Lake and other lakes/reservoirs in Montana through the Clark Fork River (Personal communication: Chris Downs, fishery biologist, IDFG, phone, Feb. 18, 2005). Local fishermen expressed concern to IDFG about possible mercury contamination in Lake Pend Oreille fish. However, there were no mercury concentration data available for Lake Pend Oreille fish. After consulting with the Idaho Fish Consumption Advisory Program (IFCAP), the IDFG collected 14 trout and 15 white fish samples in February and March 2004 to better understand the mercury contamination in the fish of Lake Pend Oreille and any potential health effects from eating the fish. Whole fish samples were sent to IDHW’s Bureau of Laboratories for tissue analysis. Fish samples were processed and analyzed for mercury concentrations in the fillets or meat. Sampling and analysis protocol developed by IFCAP (BCEH 2004) were followed. Mercury occurs naturally as a mineral and is distributed throughout the environment by both natural processes and human activities. The natural global bio-geochemical cycling of mercury is characterized by evaporation of mercury from soils and surface waters, followed by atmospheric transport, deposition of mercury back to land and surface water, and sorption of the compound to soil or sediment particulates. Mercury deposited on land and open water is in part re-volatilized back into the atmosphere. This emission, deposition, and re-volatilization create difficulties in tracing the movement of mercury to its sources. Major human activities which release mercury to the environment include mining and smelting; industrial processes involving the use of mercury, including chlor-alkali production facilities; combustion of fossil fuels, primarily coal; production of cement; and medical and municipal waste incinerators and industrial/commercial boilers (EPA 1996). Members of the general public with potentially high exposures to mercury include individuals who live in proximity to former mercury mining or production sites, secondary production 3 (recycling) facilities, municipal or medical incinerators, or coal-fired power plants. Some people may be exposed to higher levels of mercury in the form of methylmercury if they have a diet high in fish, shellfish, or marine mammals that come from mercury-contaminated waters. Methylmercury accumulates up the food chain, so that fish at the top of the food chain will have the most mercury in their meat. Of these fish, the biggest fish will have the highest levels of mercury (ATSDR 1999). Discussion Mercury Concentrations in Fish Mercury was analyzed in 14 trout samples and 15 white fish samples collected from Lake Pend Oreille by IDFG in February and March 2004. The body weight of sampled trout ranged from 1.46 kilogram (kg) to 5.90 kg and the sampled white fish ranged from 0.52 kg to 0.94 kg (Appendix B, Table B-1). The range and the geometric mean of the mercury concentrations in the fish fillet are reported in Table 1. The geometric means of mercury concentrations in trout and white fish were 0.421 and 0.264 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg), respectively. Table 1. Levels of Mercury Found in Fish Fillet from Lake Pend Oreille Fish Number of Body Weight Mercury Concentration (mg/kg) Species Samples (kg) (pound) Range Geometric Mean Trout 14 1.46-5.90 3.2-13.0 0.285-0.930 0.421 White Fish 15 0.52-0.94 1.1-2.1 0.163-0.354 0.264 Methylmercury constitutes over 99% of the total mercury detected in fish muscle tissue (fillet), with no detection of inorganic or dimethylmercury (Grieb et al. 1990; Bloom 1992). BCEH conservatively assumed that the total mercury values reported here (Table 1) to be all methylmercury. Methylmercury is the form of mercury most easily absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract (about 95% absorbed). Therefore, BCEH also assumed that the bioavailability of total mercury in fish were 100%. Exposure Pathway To determine whether people are exposed to mercury, BCEH considered five elements: the source of contamination; the movement of the contaminants in soil, air or water; the point at which people can come in contact with the contaminants; the routes of exposure (such as eating contaminated fish); and the population that can potentially be exposed. All five elements must be present for an exposure pathway to be complete. Exposure pathways are classified as a completed pathway, a potential pathway, or an eliminated pathway. If a pathway is complete, exposure is reasonably likely to have occurred in the past, is currently occurring, or is likely to occur in the future. If a potential pathway exists, exposure might have occurred, may be occurring, or may yet occur.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bathymetry, Morphology, and Lakebed Geologic Characteristics
    SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS MAP 3272 Bathymetry, Morphology, and Lakebed Geologic Characteristics Barton, G.J., and Dux, A.M., 2013, Bathymetry, Morphology, and Lakebed Geologic Characteristics of Potential U.S. Department of the Interior Prepared in cooperation with the Kokanee Salmon Spawning Habitat in Lake Pend Oreille, Bayview and Lakeview Quadrangles, Idaho science for a changing world U.S. Geological Survey IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Abstract lake level of 2,062.5 ft above NGVD 1929 (figs. 4–6) has been maintained during the summer (normal maximum summer full Scenic Bay, includes 254 acres and 2.8 mi of shoreline bordered by a gentle-to-moderate-sloping landscape and steep mountains. Methods conditions vary within each study unit: 2,100 photographs were subsampled for Scenic Bay, 1,710 photographs were subsampled lake morphology, lakebed geologic units, and substrate embeddedness. Descriptions of the morphology, lakebed geology, and pool), with drawdowns in autumn to reach a minimum winter level. Before 1966, the winter lake level was variable, and an A second study unit, along the north shore of Idlewild Bay, includes 220 acres and 2.2 mi of shoreline bordered by a gentle-to- for Idlewild Bay, and 245 photographs were subsampled for Echo Bay. These photographs were reviewed, and additional embeddedness in the shore zone, rise zone, and open water in bays and the main stem of the lake are provided in figures 5–6. Kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) are a keystone species in Lake Pend Oreille in northern Idaho, historically exceptional fishery continued with the Albeni Falls Dam in operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Moose Management Plan 2020-2025
    Idaho Moose Management Plan 2020-2025 DRAFT December 10, 2019 1 This page intentionally left blank. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Shiras Moose (Alces alces shirasi) occur across much of Idaho, except for the southwest corner of the state. Moose are highly valued by both hunters and non-hunters, providing consumptive and non-consumptive opportunities that have economic and aesthetic value. Over the past century their known range has expanded from small areas of northern and eastern Idaho to their current distribution. Population size also increased during this time, likely peaking around the late 1990s or early 2000s. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is concerned that current survey data, anecdotal information and harvest data indicate moose have recently declined in parts of Idaho. Several factors may be impacting moose populations both positively and negatively including predation, habitat change (e.g., roads, development, timber harvest), changing climate, disease or parasites and combinations thereof. IDFG was established to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage all of Idaho’s fish and wildlife. As such, species management plans are written to set statewide management direction to help fulfill IDFG’s mission. Idaho’s prior moose management plan (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1990) addressed providing a quality hunting experience, the vulnerability of moose to illegal harvest, protecting their habitat, improving controlled hunt drawing odds and expanding moose populations into suitable ranges. The intent of this revision to the 1990 Moose Management Plan is to provide guidance for IDFG and their partners to implement management actions that will aid in protection and management of moose populations in Idaho and guide harvest season recommendations for the next 6 years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas Preface Contents
    The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas Preface Contents The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas presents a compre- Shaded Relief Map ...........................................Front Cover hensive summary of the region’s most precious groundwater resource and Using The is a basic reference of the geographic, geologic and hydrologic characteris- Preface and Contents........................... Inside Front Cover tics of this aquifer. Introduction ........................................................................ 1 Atlas The Atlas is designed in a narrative format supported by graphs, maps Aquifer from Space............................................................. 2 and images. It is intended for broad community use in education, plan- ning, and general technical information. The preparation and publica- Geography........................................................................... 3 tion of the atlas were partially funded by a United States Environmental Aquifer History................................................................... 4 Protection Agency aquifer wellhead protection grant. Climate and Population .................................................... 5 The information was collected and obtained from a variety of sources, If your interest in the Aquifer is including: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Idaho Depart- Geology................................................................................ 6 general, the authors suggest you page ment of Environmental Quality, Panhandle
    [Show full text]
  • Elk Hunting in Idaho: Understanding the Needs and Experiences of Hunters
    ELK HUNTING IN IDAHO: UNDERSTANDING THE NEEDS AND EXPERIENCES OF HUNTERS Prepared by: Nick Sanyal, Ph.D., Associate Professor Ed Krumpe, Ph.D., Professor Alexandria Middleton, Research Assistant University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources For: Idaho Department of Fish and Game August 2012 2 | Page OVERVIEW The main goal of this stuDy of Idaho Elk hunters is to proviDe the Idaho Department of Fish anD Game representative information about the views of elk hunters in Idaho. Descriptions of who they are, what their preferences anD motivations are, how they make Decisions about where to hunt, anD their opinions on various Elk management issues were collecteD in the summer of 2012. This stuDy is the first comprehensive investigation of Idaho Elk hunters since a similar stuDy was conDucteD by the University of Idaho over 20 years ago in 1988-89, anD proviDes an important upDate to knowleDge about Elk hunters. The results proviDeD here, in combination with biological Data, are key to continuing to improve wilDlife planning anD management in the state of Idaho. SURVEY OBJECTIVES This current stuDy was DesigneD to proviDe contemporary Data for the quantification of the following characteristics of a sample Idaho Elk hunters: 1. Hunting Elk hunter profiles (basic Demographics, travel patterns, hunting history, harvest success, zone use); 2. Elk hunting preferences anD motivations; 3. Acceptability of current anD proposeD management strategies anD the trade-offs involved; 4. Decisions about where to hunt; 5. Attributes of a quality Elk hunting experience; 6. Hunting satisfaction; anD 7. Perceptions of preDators METHODS Survey research using a mail back anD web-baseD instrument was useD to collect Data from stratifieD ranDom samples of hunters licenseD to hunt Elk in 2011 Idaho.
    [Show full text]
  • SECTION 16 – Table of Contents
    SECTION 16 – Table of Contents 16 Pend Oreille Subbasin Assessment – Terrestrial ............................................ 2 16.1 Focal Habitats: Current Distribution, Limiting Factors, and Condition ........................... 2 16.2 Wildlife of the Pend Oreille Subbasin ............................................................................ 12 16.3 Summary of Terrestrial Resource Limiting Factors ....................................................... 21 16.4 Interpretation and Synthesis............................................................................................ 24 16-1 16 Pend Oreille Subbasin Assessment – Terrestrial 16.1 Focal Habitats: Current Distribution, Limiting Factors, and Condition Vegetation in the Pend Oreille Subbasin is dominated by interior mixed conifer forest, with montane mixed conifer and lodgepole forests in the high elevations and small areas of montane coniferous wetlands and alpine habitats. Timber management is the primary land use in the Subbasin on National Forest System, BLM, Idaho Department of Lands, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Tribal, and private timberlands. Agriculture, grazing, and urban and rural residential development are other land uses. The largest urban areas within the Subbasin include Newport, Cusick, and Metaline, Washington, and Sandpoint, Priest River, and Clark Fork, Idaho. Figure 13.2 (Section 13) shows the current distribution of wildlife-habitat types in the Pend Oreille Subbasin based on IBIS (2003). Table 16.1 presents the acres of habitats by
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report
    Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report The Trust for Public Land March Printed on 100% recycled paper. © 2016 The Trust for Public Land. Table of contents Preface ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 5 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 2. Study area ....................................................................................................................... 9 3. Community engagement ........................................................................................... 12 4. Mapping conservation values .................................................................................... 15 5. Greater Sandpoint Greenprint action plan .............................................................. 26 6. Profiles in conservation ............................................................................................... 28 7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A: Participants Lists .............................................................................................. 31 Map References ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Elk Hunter Survey
    ELK HUNTING IN IDAHO: UNDERSTANDING THE NEEDS AND EXPERIENCES OF HUNTERS Prepared by: Nick Sanyal, Ph.D., Associate Professor Ed Krumpe, Ph.D., Professor Alexandria Middleton, Research Assistant University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources For: Idaho Department of Fish and Game August 2012 2 | Page OVERVIEW The main goal of this study of Idaho Elk hunters is to provide the Idaho Department of Fish and Game representative information about the views of elk hunters in Idaho. Descriptions of who they are, what their preferences and motivations are, how they make decisions about where to hunt, and their opinions on various Elk management issues were collected in the summer of 2012. This study is the first comprehensive investigation of Idaho Elk hunters since a similar study was conducted by the University of Idaho over 20 years ago in 1988-89, and provides an important update to knowledge about Elk hunters. The results provided here, in combination with biological data, are key to continuing to improve wildlife planning and management in the state of Idaho. SURVEY OBJECTIVES This current study was designed to provide contemporary data for the quantification of the following characteristics of a sample Idaho Elk hunters: 1. Hunting Elk hunter profiles (basic demographics, travel patterns, hunting history, harvest success, zone use); 2. Elk hunting preferences and motivations; 3. Acceptability of current and proposed management strategies and the trade-offs involved; 4. Decisions about where to hunt; 5. Attributes of a quality Elk hunting experience; 6. Hunting satisfaction; and 7. Perceptions of predators METHODS Survey research using a mail back and web-based instrument was used to collect data from stratified random samples of hunters licensed to hunt Elk in 2011 Idaho.
    [Show full text]
  • J. Aquatic Invasive Species Control Contract
    CITY OF SANDPOINT AGENDA REPORT DATE: 7/12/16 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Jared Yost SUBJECT: Selection of company to perform aquatic weed management. DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: The City of Sandpoint requested proposals to control/eradicate Aquatic Invasive Species in Windbag Marina, City Beach and Memorial launch. City Council requires that the treatment methods applied are non-herbicide based. Aquatic Eurasian Milfoil and Flowering Rush are the primary Invasive Species to be treated at this time. The project purpose is to meet requirements of Idaho Statute 22-2407, maintain the recreational value of the waterway and to maintain a safe environment for water users. We received three responses to the RFP request (attached). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval to contract with “Aquatic Weed Solutions” ACTION: Council provide authority to mayor to sign selected contract. WILL THERE BE ANY FINANCIAL IMPACT? Yes, cost to pay contract. HAS THIS ITEM BEEN BUDGETED? Yes ATTACHMENTS: RFP Request Proposal ACE diving Proposal Blue Moose/Swamp Thing Proposal Aquatic Weed Solutions Statutes Page 1 of 1 Idaho Statutes TITLE 22 AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE CHAPTER 24 NOXIOUS WEEDS 22-2407. LANDOWNER AND CITIZEN DUTIES. (1) It shall be the duty and responsibility of all landowners to control noxious weeds on their land and property, in accordance with this chapter and with rules promulgated by the director. (2) The cost of controlling noxious weeds shall be the obligation of the landowner. (3) Noxious weed control must be for prevention, eradication, rehabilitation, control or containment efforts. However, areas may be modified from the eradication requirement if the landowner is a participant in a county-approved weed management plan or county-approved cooperative weed management area.
    [Show full text]
  • Hayden Lake Country Club Visitor's Guide Amusement Parks / Water
    Hayden Lake Country Club Visitor's Guide The communities of Hayden and Hayden Lake are located in the beautiful panhandle of North Idaho in Kootenai County, approximately 37 miles east of Spokane, Washington and 100 miles south of the Canadian Border. There is so much waiting here for you...come discover all that we have to offer! Amusement Parks / Water Parks Silverwood - Silverwood is the Northwest’s Largest Theme Park, featuring over 200 acres of fun and over 65 rides and attractions. 27843 U.S. 95, Athol, ID - (208) 683-3400 – www.silverwoodthemepark.com Triple Play Family Fun Park - Enjoy our bowling alley, go-karts, mini golf courses, laser tag, rock climbing wall and bumper boats, or ride the waves in our indoor waterpark featuring a wave pool, indoor/outdoor Jacuzzi, and three water slides. We also have a limited service restaurant. 175 W. Orchard – Hayden, ID - (208) 762-7529 – www.3play.com Wild Waters – Water slides, lazy river, and tube rentals. 2119 N. Government Way, Coeur d'Alene, ID - (208) 667-6491 - www.wildwaterswaterpark.com Arts and Culture Coeur d'Alene Symphony - (208) 772-0766 - www.cdasymphony.org Coeur d'Alene Summer Theatre - (208) 769-7780 - www.cdasummertheatre.org Lake City Playhouse - (208) 667-1323 - www.lakecityplayhouse.org/Productions.html Opera Plus! - (208) 664-2827 - www.operaplus.org Bike Rentals & Tours / Mountain Biking Route of the Hiawatha - Located on the ID/MT border, a 13-mile historic rail trail through nine train tunnels and across seven skyhigh trestles. Shuttle service. Bike, helmet and light rentals. PO Box 108, Wallace, ID - (208) 744-1301 – www.skilookout.com ROW Adventures - Guided mountain bike tours (and much more!).
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Application L96S2687 Camp Bay Community Dock
    Case No. PH-2021-PUB-20-003 July 6th, 2021 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF LANDS Attn: Jennifer [email protected] Re: Notice of Application L96S2687 Camp Bay Community Dock The Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper (LPOW) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments regarding the above referenced Encroachment Permit Application. LPOW is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that works to protect the water quality of Lake Pend Oreille (LPO), the Pend Oreille River and their associated waterways so that they remain swimmable, fishable and drinkable for future generations. While the overall water quality of LPO is healthy, we all need to stay vigilant in advocating for clean water in order to prevent the degradation of our precious resources. As mentioned in previous comments on encroachment applications, LPOW does not make it a general practice to get involved and/or comment on specific land use projects or individual docks. However, this project has a long history, a recent Petition for Judicial Review has been filed, and according to Panhandle Health no sewage disposal system, whether it be community or individual septic, has been approved. Due to a number of uncertain potential outcomes LPOW respectfully requests a public hearing for this application so that all community members and agencies involved are informed with most current information regarding the entire project. With regard to the Petition for Judicial Review (attached), it was filed by a neighbor against the Bonner County Board of Commissioners contending that the vacation of a road leading to the water was not in the public interest. It is concerning to LPOW that if the petitioner prevails, it may force the rearrangement of the entire subdivision, especially waterfront lots, in turn modifying the location of docks.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish and Wildlife Commission Meeting Wildlife Program
    FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION MEETING Webinar April 9, 2021 WILDLIFE PROGRAM AGENDA ITEMS Agenda Item 3-year Season Setting Rule Decision Fish and Wildlife Commission Presentation Summary Sheet Meeting date: 4/9/2021 Agenda item: Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goat Special Permits – Decision Presenter(s): Brock Hoenes, Ungulate Section Manager, Wildlife Program Background summary: Department staff briefed the Commission on proposed amendments to WACs: • 220-412-070 Big game and wild turkey auction, raffle, and special incentive permits. • 220-412-080 Special hunting season permits. • 220-415-070 2021 Moose seasons, permit quotas, and areas. • 220-415-120 2021 Bighorn sheep seasons, permit quotas, and areas. • 220-415-130 2021 Mountain goat seasons, permit quotas, and areas. The primary purpose of these proposals is to retain special permit hunting opportunities for moose, mountain goats, and bighorn sheep. The proposals also provide opportunities in accordance with the current status of these big game populations. More specifically, amendments include: Special Permits Allowing successful applicants for all big game special permits to return their permit to the department for any reason two weeks before the opening day of the season and to have their points restored. Bighorn Sheep Reducing the number of bighorn ram permits in the Yakima Canyon and Cleman Mountain herds. Establishing new hunts for bighorn rams in the Wenaha and Mountain View sub-herd areas in the Blue Mountains. Clarifying the criteria used to define a juvenile ram. Moose Increasing the number of bull moose permits in GMU 108 and decreasing the number of antlerless moose permits in GMUs 117 and 121.
    [Show full text]
  • Res-Pratt1983 Pend Oreille Trout and Char Life History Study
    Volume 054 Article 05 PEND OREILLE TROUT AND CHAR LIFE HISTORY STUDY IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME in cooperation with LAKE PEND OREILLE IDAHO CLUB Karen 1. Pratt May 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ....................................................1 INTRODUCTION ................................................ 2 OBJECTIVES ..................................................6 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................6 METHODS ..................................................... 8 Fish Distribution ....................................... 8 Rearing Areas ......................................8 Spawning Areas .....................................9 Bull Trout .................................... 9 Rainbow and Cutthroat Trout .................. 10 Creel Census ..........................................10 Fish Population Structure .............................10 Age and Growth ....................................10 Age Composition ...................................11 RESULTS ....................................................12 Fish Distribution .....................................12 Rearing Areas .....................................12 Spawning Areas ....................................18 Bull Trout ...................................18 Rainbow and Cutthroat Trout ..................18 Creel Census ..........................................31 Fish Population Structure .............................41 Age and Growth ....................................41 Rainbow Trout ................................41 Bull Trout
    [Show full text]