DOCSLIB.ORG

Fish Remains

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fish Remains In, Harmes Rockshelter: A Final Report on 11,000 Years of gul~~l. usetorent A. H3.CkS, ea.); pp. 320-337, Washington state Univ. Press, Pullman. II FISH REMAINS Virginia L. Butler Severalregional syntheses(e.g., Ames et a1. current study, many of the bulk sampleswere 1998;Schalk and Cleveland1983) have noted sorted (Gustafsonand Wegener1998) and found the presenceof fish remainsat Marmes to include fish remainsalong with other cultural Rockshelter.However, until the currentproject, material. fish bonesfrom the site had not been studiedin Stratigraphicunit information was usedin any detail. Given that many questionsabout this analysiswhere available. In many cases, regional humansubsistence change turn on however,field assignmentswere not made. establishingthe relative importanceof fish vs. Using depth,spatial coordinates and redrawn terrestrialmammals, the changingrole of stratigraphicprofiles for reference,Hicks salmon,and whetherHolocene environmental assignedthese materials to stratigraphicunits changeaffected salmon abundance and and suggeststhese represent only provisional distribution,studying the fish remainsfrom this recordsof vertical position becausethey arenot early site is extremelyworthwhile. The recovery basedon field observations(see Chapter Two). of fish remainsfrom the MarmesRockshelter Remainswere identified to the finest and adjacentfloodplain providesan opportunity taxonomic level using Butler's comparative to explore someof thesequestions. The remains collections from the ColumbiaBasin and describedrepresent some of the earliest,well adjacentregions in westernNorth America. documentedarchaeological fish remainsfrom the Becauseof their very small size, most of the ColumbiaPlateau and as such,provide a very floodplain faunal remainswere identified using importantrecord of fishesin regional streamsas low power magnification(10-2Ox). FlShremains well as humanresource use patterns. were quantified using Numberof Identified Specimens(NISP) (Grayson1984). For Cypriniformes (minnow and sucker)vertebrae, Methods and Materials the first two and last vertebraeon the column were distinguished;definition of abdominaland The fish remainscollected from the rockshelter caudal vertebrae,which representmost vertebrae and floodplain areasof the site were sampledin on the column, follows Wheelerand Jones very different ways. Remainsfrom the (1989). Salmonidvertebrae were assignedto rockshelterwere recovered during all four of the four categoriesbased on morphological 1960sexcavation field seasons.Excavated differenceassociated with position on column matrix was sieved'dry, through lA-inch mesh (Butler 1993). screens. However,during 1968,sediments in To estimatevariation in body size of fishes the upper stratawere quickly removedand not represented.the width (measurelabeled as screenedand faunal recoverywas limited. Given diameter,shown in Casteel(1976:84) was theserecovery concerns as well as time and measuredusing digital calipersor a micrometer budgetaryconstraints, only a sampleof the fish within the microscope. remainsfrom the rockshelterwere selectedfor All of the specimenswere examined for study (seeChapter Two, Samplingfor evidenceof burning. For severalof the descriptionof the sample). specimensfrom the floodplain, it wasdifficult to At the floodplain locale, detailedexcavation determinewhether a dark color reflected burning focusedonly on the Late Pleistocene/early or stainingthat might result from absorptionof Holocenesediments. Larger artifactsand faunal minerals in the surroundingmatrix. The decision items recoveredby the excavatorswere bagged to call a specimenburned was basedon separately,but most of the excavatedsediment conservativecriteria: only thosespecimens was water screenedthrough I-rom mesh. The which were uniformly black or calcined screenresidue retained from eachunit level was (white/blueishcast) were called burned. dried and baggedas a bulk sample. For the 319 Descriptive Summary of Fish Remains speciesbears a seriesof horizontal struts,rather than the fenestrationscharacteristic of The following information describesthe criteria Oncorhynchus.A secondspecies of Prosopium usedin assigningthe specimensto taxonomic known for the Columbiabasin, P. coulteri categoryas well as information on ecology and (Pygmy whitefish), reachesmuch smalleradult habitats. Descriptionsare provided for each size than P. williamsoni. The archaeological order of fishesidentified. Appendix N presents specimenwas assignedto P. williamsoni based the analysisdata. on its large size. Two vertebrae(inventory numbers18987 Class Osteichthyes. Bony Fishes. and 18953)of very similar shapeand sizecould not be identified below the family level. They Order Acinenseriformes are from a small salmonid (vertebradiameter is Family Acipenseridae- sturgeons about 1.5 mm). As an indication of body size,a Acipensersp. - sturgeon modem fish of Salvelinusmallna (Dolly Varden) Materials: Rockshelter: 1 scote. measuring216 mm in total length has vertebra type-3 with widths that rangebetween 2.5 and Remarks: Two speciesof sturgeonare known 3.0 mm, suggestingthat the archaeological for westernNorth America.A. medirostris(green samplesare from fish smallerthan 200 mm. sturgeon)and A transmontanus(white Both vertebraehave very large openingsfor the sturgeon). Greensturgeon are known today only notochord(diameter of openingis about.5 mm), from brackishwaters of the lower 40 miles of the which is not characteristicof Oncorhynchusor Columbiaand fully marineenvironments. while Prosopium. The specimensmost closely match white sturgeonare documentedthroughout the Salvelinus,which includesthe Bull trout, S. river system.including the upper Columbiaand confluentus,and Dolly Varden,S. mallna. SnakeRivers. Basedon habitatpreference and However,the notochordC?pening for the modern distribution,the scute(or bony body archaeologicalspecimens is larger than that scale)is mostprobably from the white sturgeon. found on availablecomparative specimens, and thus the materialswere assignedto the family Order Salmoniformes level. Family Salmonidae-Salmons,Trouts, and Historically, the SnakeRiver and several Whitefish tnoutary rivers and streamsprovided extensive Materials: Floodplain: 1 indeterminatevertebra spawninghabitat for migratory speciesof type, 2 vertebratype-3. Oncorhynchus,particularly O. tshawytscha (chinook), o. nerka (sockeye),and o. mykiss Oncorhynchussp. - Salmonand Trout (steelheador rainbow trout) (parkhurst 1950). Materials: Rockshelter: I basipterygium. 2 Vast numbersof spring and summerruns of vertebratype-lor atlas, 13 vertebratype- 2, 10 chinook usedthe SnakeRiver upriver from the vertebratype-3, 2 vertebratype-4, I PalouseRiver as a passag~way to spawning indetemlinatevertebra type, 65 vertebra groundsin tributary rivers and streams;the fall fragments: 94 specimens. run chinook usedextensive spawning habitat in Floodplain: 2 gill rakers,10 vertebrafragments: the main stemSnake River betweenthe Palouse 12 specimens River and Hells Canyon(Fulton 1968). According to fishery documents,the Palouse Prosopiumwilliamsoni-Mountain Whitefish River itself, however,was, at leasthistorically, Materials: Floodplain: 1 vertebratype-3 not usedby spawningsalmon (Fulton 1968). In his fisheriessurvey and historic overview of Remarks: There areten speciesof salmon.trout SnakeRiver Basin anadromousfishes, Parkhurst and whitefish with recordsfor the Columbia (1950) did not surveythe PalouseRiver. He basinupriver of the estuary. The genus notesthat a high falls (PalouseFalls) located Oncorhynchusis representedby six speciesof about 10 kID abovethe mouth "rendersthe anadromousand residentforms. The StreaDlinaccessible to migratory fish" (1950:5). Oncorhynchusspecimens from the site were Ethnographicrecords show that salmon assignedbased on their large size, or, for the fishing was extremelyproductive at the vertebrae,distinctive shapeand fenestration confluenceof the Palouseand SnakeRivers (Ray pattern. A single vertebrawas assignedto 1975). Lewis and Clark and later explorers ProsopiumwiUiamsoni; the centrumof this describea very large village at the mouth of the 320 PalouseRjver. RossCox. who spenttime in the Floodplain: 5 dentaries,3 pharyngea1s:8 village around 1812,noted that in early August, specimens. peoplethere were engagedin catchingand drying salmonin large numbers(Ray 1975). Acrocheilusalutaceus--Chiselmouth Historic documentsalso show fishing campsand Materials: Rockshelter: 1 dentary,2 villages along the PalouseRiver itself (Ray hyomandibolae,1 prootic. 1975). Ray refers to two such localesin Floodplain: 1 dentary, 1 pharyngeal. particular: A'patap, which was locatedat the foot of PalouseFalls, and C/axo'pa,about four Mylocheilus caurinus-Peamouth miles abovethe mouth. Unfortunately,the Materials: Floodplain: 5 pharyngeals. documentsdo not indicate whetherthe Native American fishery along the PalouseRjver Richardsoniusbalteatus-Redside shiner targetedresident freshwater fishes or Materials: Floodplain: 1 pharyngeal. anadromoussalmon and trout. The falls havebeen a barrier to migratory Rhinichthyssp.-Dace salmonidsat least sincethe late Pleistoceneand Materials: Floodplain: 2 PharyngeaIs. Holoceneperiods, thus it is clear that the Palouse Rjver itself was not a passagewayfor fish Rhinic hthy sIRichardsonius migrating to headwaterareas to spawn. It is Materials: Floodplain: 2 pharyngeals. possibleof coursethat the PalouseRjver channel below the falls was usedby salmonfor spawning PamilyCatostomidae and thus a fishery might have developedto target Cawstomussp.-suckers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WDFW Final Status Report for the Pygmy Whitefish
    STATE OF WASHINGTON September 1998 WashingtonWashington StateState StatusStatus ReportReport forfor thethe PygmyPygmy Whitefish Whitefish byby MollyMolly HallockHallock andand PaulPaul E.E. MongilloMongillo Washington Department of FISH AND WILDLIFE Fish Management Program Freshwater Resource Division Washington State Status Report for the Pygmy Whitefish by Molly Hallock and Paul E. Mongillo Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Management Program 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 September 1998 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of endangered, threatened and sensitive species (Washington Administrative Codes 232-12-014 and 232-12-011, Appendix A). In 1990, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted listing procedures developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies (Washington Administrative Code 232-12-297, Appendix B). The procedures include how species listing will be initiated, criteria for listing and de-listing, public review and recovery and management of listed species. The first step in the process is to develop a preliminary species status report. The report includes a review of information relevant to the species’ status in Washington and addresses factors affecting its status including, but not limited to: historic, current, and future species population trends, natural history including ecological relationships, historic and current habitat trends, population demographics and their relationship to long term sustainability, and historic and current species management activities. The procedures then provide for a 90-day public review opportunity for interested parties to submit new scientific data relevant to the status report, classification recommendation, and any State Environmental Policy Act findings. During the 90-day review period, the Department holds statewide public meetings to answer questions and take comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a System-Wide Predator Control Program: Northern Squawfish Management Program
    Development of a System-wide Predator Control Program Northern Squawfish Management Program - Implementation Annual Report 1997 October 1998 DOE/BP-24514-8 This Document should be cited as follows: Young, Franklin, "Development of a System-wide Predator Control Program; Northern Squawfish Management Program - Implementation", 1997 Annual Report, Project No. 199007700, 100 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-24514-8) Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208 This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The views in this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of BPA. DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEMWIDE PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM: STEPWISE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND EVALUATION PLAN IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN SECTION I: IMPLEMENTATION 1997 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Franklin R. Young Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority In Cooperation With Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Reservation Prepared
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins
    Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY AND LOWER MAINSTEM ................................ 2-1 2.1 Subbasin Description.................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.2 History ................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.3 Physical Setting.................................................................................................... 2-7 2.1.4 Fish and Wildlife Resources ................................................................................ 2-8 2.1.5 Habitat Classification......................................................................................... 2-20 2.1.6 Estuary and Lower Mainstem Zones ................................................................. 2-27 2.1.7 Major Land Uses................................................................................................ 2-29 2.1.8 Areas of Biological Significance ....................................................................... 2-29 2.2 Focal Species............................................................................................................. 2-31 2.2.1 Selection Process............................................................................................... 2-31 2.2.2 Ocean-type Salmonids
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Parasites of Fishes of Canada Part V: Nematoda
    Wilfrid Laurier University Scholars Commons @ Laurier Biology Faculty Publications Biology 2016 ZOOTAXA: Guide to the Parasites of Fishes of Canada Part V: Nematoda Hisao P. Arai Pacific Biological Station John W. Smith Wilfrid Laurier University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/biol_faculty Part of the Biology Commons, and the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation Arai, Hisao P., and John W. Smith. Zootaxa: Guide to the Parasites of Fishes of Canada Part V: Nematoda. Magnolia Press, 2016. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Zootaxa 4185 (1): 001–274 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Monograph ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2016 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4185.1.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0D054EDD-9CDC-4D16-A8B2-F1EBBDAD6E09 ZOOTAXA 4185 Guide to the Parasites of Fishes of Canada Part V: Nematoda HISAO P. ARAI3, 5 & JOHN W. SMITH4 3Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia V9R 5K6 4Department of Biology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5. E-mail: [email protected] 5Deceased Magnolia Press Auckland, New Zealand Accepted by K. DAVIES (Initially edited by M.D.B. BURT & D.F. McALPINE): 5 Apr. 2016; published: 8 Nov. 2016 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 HISAO P. ARAI & JOHN W.
    [Show full text]
  • Redacted for Privacy Abstract Approved Profes Sor)
    AN ABSTRACT OT' THE THESIS OT' Paul Edward Reimers for the M. S. in Fisheries (Narne) (5@ ( Major) Date thesis is presented Title DISTRIBUTION OF FISHES IN TRIBUTARIES OT' THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved profes sor) During 1963 and 1964 collections were made in tributaries of the lower Colurnbia River and literature was reviewed to cornpile a list of fishes frorn that area. Based on available sources and collections in this study, a total of. 28 farnilies and 77 species are known from the lower Colurnbia River. Most of the fishes are rnarine or have rnarine affinities. Freshwater fishes include eight farnilies and ?9 species, but only three farnilies and eight species are prirnary. In the Colurnbia River the peripheral farnily Cottidae reaches great developrnent in the absence of a rrrore extensive prirnary fauna. Seven of the 12 species of Cottus known frorn the basin occur in the lower tributaries and were found to be the rnost widespread species there. LocaI distribution of 25 selected species is discussed, and used to gain an understanding of the relationship of the fauna of the Co1urn- bia River with the fauna of the Puget Sound drainage and coastal strearns of Oregon and Washington. These 25 selected species in- cluded I7 species which are recorded frorn the lower Columbia Riv- €r, and eight other species which are possibly present there. A nurnber of species occur throughout the Colurnbia River basin and rnay have interchanged with other drainages at several points. The absence of several species frorn the Rrget Sound drainage was associated with their absence frorn tributaries of the lower Colurnbia River.
    [Show full text]
  • About This File
    AUTHORS Bruce G. Marcot is the regional wildlife ecologist in the Ecological Framework for Management Research, Development, and Application Program, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agri- culture, Forest Service in Portland, Oregon. Michael J. Wisdom is the technology transfer scientist at the Starkey Experimental Forest, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service in La Grande, Oregon. Hiram W. LI is a professor in the Department of Fish and Wildlife at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon. Gonzalo C. Castillo is a graduate student at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon. Managing for Featured, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species and Unique Habitats for Ecosystem Sustainability Bruce G. Marcot, Michael J. Wisdom, Hiram W. Li, and Gonzalo C. Castillo From Volume III: Assessment Paul F. Hessburg, Science Team Leader and Technical Editor Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment Richard L. Everett, Assessment Team Leader Published by: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-329 February 1994 In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region ABSTRACT Marcot, Bruce G.; Wisdom, Michael J.; Li, Hiram W.; Castillo, Gonzalo C. 1994. Managing for fea- tured, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and unique habitats for ecosystem sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-329. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 39 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment.) The traditional approach to wildlife management has focused on single species—historically game species and more recently threatened and endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Relationships of Native and Non-Native Fishes Fo the Willamette River, Oregon
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Joshua E. Williams for the degree of Master of Science in Fisheries Science presented on May 12, 2014 Title: Habitat Relationships of Native and Non-native Fishes of the Willamette River, Oregon Abstract approved: ______________________________________________________ Stanley V. Gregory The Willamette River flows north between the Cascade Mountains and Coast Range of western Oregon within a 29,728-km2 basin. The fish community in the geologically young basin consists of 36 native species, but introductions of non-native fishes have added 33 additional species for a total of 69 fish species. During the summers of 2011-2013, fish distributions were sampled from the confluence of the McKenzie River downstream to the confluence of the Columbia River to assess: (1) fish community composition, (2) differences in community composition between mainstem river and slough habitats, and (3) relationships between native and non-native fish species and physical habitat characteristics. In addition, a 182-ha seasonally inundated floodplain habitat along the middle Willamette River was sampled during winter 2011 through spring 2012 to assess: (1) fish community composition, (2) spawning and rearing, and (3) timing of use and movement by fish species. Throughout the three years of longitudinal sampling, 36,586 fish were collected comprising 41 species, 22 native and 19 non-native. Overall, native fish represented 93% of the total fish sampled. Higher numbers of fish were collected in the upper river, and higher proportions of those fish were native species. Though non-native fish were more common in slough habitats than mainstem sties, the majority of fish collected in both habitat types were native.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CWU Comparative Osteology Collection, List of Specimens
    CWU Comparative Osteology Collection, List of Specimens List updated November 2019 0-CWU-Collection-List.docx Specimens collected primarily from North American mid-continent and coastal Alaska for zooarchaeological research and teaching purposes. Curated at the Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Central Washington University, under the direction of Dr. Pat Lubinski, [email protected]. Facility is located in Dean Hall Room 222 at CWU’s campus in Ellensburg, Washington. Numbers on right margin provide a count of complete or near-complete specimens in the collection. Specimens on loan from other institutions are not listed. There may also be a listing of mount (commercially mounted articulated skeletons), part (partial skeletons), skull (skulls), or * (in freezer but not yet processed). Vertebrate specimens in taxonomic order, then invertebrates. Taxonomy follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System online (www.itis.gov) as of June 2016 unless otherwise noted. VERTEBRATES: Phylum Chordata, Class Petromyzontida (lampreys) Order Petromyzontiformes Family Petromyzontidae: Pacific lamprey ............................................................. Entosphenus tridentatus.................................... 1 Phylum Chordata, Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) unidentified shark teeth ........................................................ ........................................................................... 3 Order Squaliformes Family Squalidae Spiny dogfish ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of the Operation of Kerr and Hungry Horse Dams on the Reproductive Success of Kokanee in the Flathead System
    EFFECT OF THE OPERATION OF KERR AND HUNGRY HORSE DAMS ON THE REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF KOKANEE IN THE FLATHEAD SYSTEM Final Report FY 1987 Prepared by Will Beattie Pat Clancy Ray Zubik Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Prepared for Thomas Vogel,Project Manager U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project No. 81S-5 Contract Number DE-AI79-86BP39641 May, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS . ii LIST OF TABLES . iv LIST OF FIGURES ...................... V LIST OF APPENDICES.....................viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................... ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................... X INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND................... 1 OBJECTIVES ....................... 3 SYNOPSIS OF IMPACTS ON THE FLATHEAD KOKANEE FISHERY: FLATHEAD RIVER SYSTEM ................. 5 LOSS OF MAIN STEM SPAWNING............... 7 FLATHEADLAKE ..................... 9 LOSS OF LAKESHORE SPAWNING............... 11 CHANGES IN THE TROPHIC ECOLOGY OF FLATHEAD LAKE .... 16 STUDY OF THE KOKANEE- MYSID SHRIMP INTERACTION IN FLATHEAD LAKE DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ............. 20 METHODS .......................... 22 FRY PRODUCTION ESTIMATES................ 22 ZOOPLANKTON SAMPLING ................. 22 MYSID SHRIMP SAMPLING ................. 24 FISH SAMPLING ..................... 24 AGE, GROWTH AND DIET ANALYSES ............. 25 PEN REARING ...................... 27 DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS .............. 29 RESULTS .........................
    [Show full text]
  • PEAMOUTH CHUB (Mylocheilus Caurinus)
    8840209 Appendix A 1 PEAMOUTH CHUB (Mylocheilus caurinus) Ecology and Life History Peamouth chub range throughout most of British Columbia, into Washington, Oregon, Montana and Idaho, and are primarily found west of the Rocky Mountains (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Peamouth chub are a schooling fish, inhabiting shallow water areas with vegetation. In general, young of the year fish typically reside in near shore areas (Coker et al, 2001), while large, mature individuals reside in deeper water (Scott and Crossman, 1973; Coker et al, 2001; Roberge et al., 2002). Peamouth consume mainly insects, but may also forage on molluscs and other small items (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Larger pearmouth may also consume young fish such as young of the year (YOY) sculpins (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Foraging occurs mainly at night, closer to shore (McPhail and Lindsey, 1970). Peamouth spawn in the springtime in streams or lakes, usually between May and June (Scott and Crossman, 1973; Coker et al., 2001) when water temperatures are between 10 to 15ºC (Coker et al, 2001). Large spawning aggregations occur, and groups of fish may be as large as 400 individuals (Scott and Crossman, 1973;Coker et al, 2001). Females move into spawning areas and multiple males will courts a single female. The green/grey, small adhesive eggs are deposited onto rock shallows (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Okanagan Lake System Peamouth chub were sampled in both beach seines and gill nets. These fish consisted of 37.9, 18.7, and 29.4% of the community sampled in gill nets in the spring, summer, and fall, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Willamette River Environmental Dredging and Ecosystem Restoration Project
    LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DRAFT FINAL REPORT March 2015 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 1020 SW Taylor St. Suite 530 Portland, OR 97205 This page left blank intentionally EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment (FS-EA) evaluates ecosystem restoration actions in the Lower Willamette River, led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the non-Federal sponsor, the City of Portland (City). The study area encompasses the Lower Willamette River Watershed and its tributaries, from its confluence with the Columbia River at River Mile (RM) 0 to Willamette Falls, located at RM 26. The goal of this study is to identify a cost effective ecosystem restoration plan that maximizes habitat benefits while minimizing impacts to environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. This report contains a summary of the feasibility study from plan formulation through selection of a recommended plan, 35% designs and cost estimating, a description of the baseline conditions, and description of impacts that may result from implementation of the recommended plan. This integrated report complies with NEPA requirements. Sections 1500.1(c) and 1508.9(a) (1) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended) require federal agencies to “provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact” on actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the federal government to insure such actions adequately address “environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment." The Willamette River watershed was once an extensive and interconnected system of active channels, open slack waters, emergent wetlands, riparian forests, and adjacent upland forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a System-Wide Predator Control Program
    DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEM-WIDE PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM: STEPWISE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND EVALUATION PLAN IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN 2003 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Russell Porter Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission In Cooperation with: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 199007700 Contract Number 00004477 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 3 REPORT A....................................................................................................................................... IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW SPORT-REWARD FISHERY IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS................................................................. 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... 9 ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................... 10 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 11 METHODS OF OPERATION .................................................................................................. 12 Fishery Operation......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]