DOCSLIB.ORG

Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish] Forest: Salmon-Challis National Forest Forest Reviewer: Bart L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish] Forest: Salmon-Challis National Forest Forest Reviewer: Bart L SPECIES: Scientific [common] Prosopium williamsoni [Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish] Forest: Salmon-Challis National Forest Forest Reviewer: Bart L. Gamett Date of Review: March 16, 2018 Forest concurrence (or Yes recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No) FOREST REVIEW RESULTS: 1. The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes_X_ No___ 2. Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area _______ Species is not known to occur in the plan area _______ Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern _______ FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION: 1. Is the Species Native to the Plan Area? Yes_X__ No___ If no, provide explanation and stop assessment. 2. Is the Species Known to Occur within the Planning Area? Yes_X__ No___ If no, stop assessment. Table 1. Selected sampling events where Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish have been detected on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Number Reach Length Occupied Number Stream, Reach Year >200 mm in (km) Length (km) >200mm/km reach Historical Big Lost River, 2002- 1.5 1.5 500 750 National Forest 2005 1.5 1.5 61.7 92.55 lands between 2007- 1.5 1.5 291.9 437.85 Chilly Diversion to 2009 1.5 1.5 138.2 207.3 North Fork 2012 1.5 1.5 77.8 117 2017 Historical 8.7 8.7 500 4350 Antelope Creek, 2002- 8.7 0 0 0 Forest Boundary to 2005 8.7 0 0 0 Iron Bog Creek 2007- 8.7 0 0 0 2009 8.7 0 0 0 2012 2017 Historical 2002- 25.2 25.2 500 12600 East Fork Big Lost 2005 25.2 20.4 15.4 314.16 River, Forest 2007- 25.2 25.2 13.8 347.76 Boundary to Star 2009 25.2 25.2 24.4 614.88 Hope Creek 2012 25.2 25.2 28.2 710.64 2017 Historical 2002- 4 4 500 2000 East Fork Big Lost 2005 4 0 0 0 River, Star Hope 2007- 4 0 0 0 Creek to Corral 2009 4 0 0 0 Creek 2012 4 0 0 0 2017 Historical 2002- 6.7 6.7 500 3350 North Fork Big Lost 2005 6.7 0 0 0 River, Forest 2007- 6.7 6.7 18.9 126.63 Boundary to 2009 6.7 6.7 12.2 81.74 Summit Creek 2012 6.7 6.7 3.3 22.11 2017 Historical 2002- 22.8 22.8 500 11400 North Fork Big Lost 2005 22.8 0 0 0 River, Summit 2007- 22.8 0 0 0 Creek to Bear Creek 2009 22.8 0 0 0 2012 22.8 0 0 0 2017 Historical 2002- 15.6 15.6 500 7800 Star Hope Creek, 2005 15.6 0 0 0 Mouth to Muldoon 2007- 15.6 15.6 17.7 276.12 Creek 2009 15.6 0 0 0 2012 15.6 0 0 0 2017 Historical 2002- 6.6 6.6 500 3300 Summit Creek, 2005 6.6 0 0 0 Mouth to Phi Kappa 2007- 6.6 0 0 0 Creek 2009 6.6 0 0 0 2012 6.6 0 0 0 2017 Historical 13.6 13.6 500 6800 Wildhorse Creek, 2002- 13.6 0 0 0 Mouth to Wildhorse 2005 13.6 13.6 10.8 146.88 Campground 2007- 13.6 13.6 55.8 758.88 2009 13.6 0 0 0 2012 2017 USFS (United States Forest Service). 2018. Summary of Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish Distribution and Abundance Trends (National Forest Lands Only). USFS Salmon–Challis National Forest. a. Are all Species Occurrences Only Accidental or Transient? Yes___ No_X__ If yes, document source for determination and stop assessment. b. For species with known occurrences on the Forest since 1990, based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes_X__ No___ If no, provide explanation and stop assessment c. For species with known occurrences on the Forest predating 1990, does the weight of evidence suggest the species still occurs in the plan area? Yes___ No___ Provide explanation for determination N/A—occurrences have been documented since 1990. If determination is no, stop assessment d. Map 1, Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) range in Idaho; Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish only occurs in Big Lost River basin—see Map 2 (IDFG 2018) IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2018. Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni). Internet website: https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/18744. Accessed on January 2, 2018. e. Map 2, The distribution of Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. 3. Is There Substantial Concern for the Species’ Capability to persist Over the Long-term in the Plan Area Based on Best Available Scientific Information? Table 2. Status summary based on existing conservation assessments Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe No status Global Rank NatureServe No status State Rank State List IDFG—Game fish Status No SGCN status USDA Forest Region 4 sensitive species Service USDI FWS Not listed Other No other status Table 3. Status summary based on best available scientific information. Species (Scientific and Common Name): Prosopium williamsoni (Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish) Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations 1 A3 Big Lost River mountain whitefish are an isolated population of mountain USFS (United States Department of Distribution on whitefish native to the Big Lost River basin (USFS 2017a). Currently, they Agriculture, Forest Service). 2017a. Salmon-Challis occur in a few areas on the Forest within this drainage (USFS 2017a, An Assessment of Aquatic Species National Forest 2018), which intersects the Lost River Ranger District. These areas include on the Salmon–Challis National the Big Lost River (National Forest lands between Chilly Diversion to Forest in Support of Forest Plan North Fork), East Fork Big Lost River (Forest Boundary to Star Hope Revision. Draft 12-05-2017. Creek), and North Fork Big Lost River (Forest Boundary to Summit Creek). USFS (United States Forest Service). Species (Scientific and Common Name): Prosopium williamsoni (Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish) Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Because these fish only occur within a few reaches of a single drainage, 2018. Summary of Big Lost River habitat is naturally isolated (Rank A3). Mountain Whitefish Distribution and Abundance Trends (National Forest Lands Only). USFS Salmon– Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Challis National Forest. 2 B Rangewide, mountain whitefish inhabit rivers and lakes throughout IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish Distribution in mountainous areas of western North America. The native range in the and Game). 2007. Mountain surrounding United States extends from central California and the Lahontan basin in Whitefish Conservation and geographic area Nevada to the northwestern states, including Idaho, Wyoming, and Management Plan for the Big Lost Montana; in Canada mountain whitefish are widespread in British River Drainage, Idaho. May 2007. Columbia and western Alberta (IDFG 2007). USFWS (United States Fish and The Big Lost River mountain whitefish are a unique form of mountain Wildlife Service). 2010a. whitefish that are restricted to the Big Lost River basin at the southern Endangered and Threatened edge of the species range. The Big Lost River originates in the Pioneer, Wildlife and Plants; 12–month Boulder, Lost River, and White Knob mountain ranges and flows down Finding on a Petition to List the the Big Lost River Valley onto the Snake River Plain, where it terminates Mountain Whitefish in the Big Lost at the Big Lost River Sinks (USFWS 2010a, 2010b). The distribution of the River, Idaho, as Endangered or Big Lost River mountain whitefish in the Big Lost River basin off National Threatened. 50 CFR Part 17; FWS- Forest lands is primarily restricted to the main stem Big Lost River. (Rank R1-ES-2009-0043; MO 92210-0- B). 0008 B2. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010b. Endangered and Threatened Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Wildlife and Plants; 12–month Finding on a Petition to List the Mountain Whitefish in the Big Lost River, Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened; Correction. 50 CFR Species (Scientific and Common Name): Prosopium williamsoni (Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish) Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Part 17; FWS–R1–ES–2009–0043; MO 92210–0–0008 B2. 3 B The Big Lost River basin is a part of a group of isolated stream systems, Campbell, M. R., and C. C. Kozfkay. Dispersal termed the Lost Streams, which originate in the mountains of southern 2006. Native Species Investigations, Capability Idaho and flow in a southerly direction where they sink into the Snake Project 2. Job Performance Report, River Plain; lava flows of the Plain prevent the Lost Streams from Project F-73-R-25. Report Number connecting with other streams in the basins, effectively isolating fish 06-18. Idaho Department of Fish from surrounding areas (Gamett 2009a). Therefore, mountain whitefish and Game, Boise, ID. in the Big Lost River basin are physically isolated from other whitefish populations within the Snake River basin. Gamett, B. 2009a. An Overview of Mountain Whitefish in the Lost Mountain whitefish have been isolated in the Big Lost River basin for an Streams of Idaho. South Zone Fish estimated 165,000–330,000 years, during which they evolved genetic Program. USFS Salmon-Challis distinction (Campbell and Kozfkay 2006; Gamett 2009a; Miller 2006; National Forest. September 8, USFS 2017a). Although the Big Lost River mountain whitefish has not 2009.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bibliography of Literature on Mountain Whitefish, Prosopium Williamsoni
    Bibliography of literature on mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni September, 2001 Colden V. Baxter Ph.d candidate, Fisheries Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 References: Baxter, C. V. 2002. Fish movement and assemblage dynamics in a Pacific Northwest riverscape. Ph.D. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Baxter, G. T., and J. R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming fishes. Begout Anras, M. L., P. M. Cooley, R. A. Bodaly, L. Anras, and R. J. P. Fudge. 1999. Movement and habitat use by lake whitefish during spawning in a boreal lake: integrating acoustic telemtry and geographic information systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128: 939-952. Bergersen, E. P. 1973. Fish production and movements in the lower Logan River, Utah. Pages 183 pp. Department of Wildlife Resources. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Bergstedt, L. C., and E. P. Bergersen. 1997. Health and movements of fish in response to sediment sluicing in the Wind River, Wyoming. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 312-319. Brown, C. J. D. 1952. Spawning habits and early development of the mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni, in Montana. Copeia : 109-113. Brown, L. G. 1972. Early life history of the mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni (Girard) in the Logan River, Utah. Pages 47 pp. Department of Wildlife Resources. Utah State University, Logan Utah. Davies, R. W., and G. W. Thompson. 1976. Movements of mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) in the Sheep River watershed, Alberta. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33: 2395-2401. Dill, W. A., and L. Shapalov. 1939. An unappreciated California game fish, the Rocky Mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoniI.
    [Show full text]
  • Spawning and Early Life History of Mountain Whitefish in The
    SPAWNING AND EARLY LIFE HISTORY OF MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH IN THE MADISON RIVER, MONTANA by Jan Katherine Boyer A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fish and Wildlife Management MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana January 2016 © COPYRIGHT by Jan Katherine Boyer 2016 All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank my advisor, Dr. Christopher Guy, for challenging me and providing advice throughout every stage of this project. I also thank my committee members, Dr. Molly Webb and Dr. Tom McMahon, for guidance and suggestions which greatly improved this research. My field technicians Jordan Rowe, Greg Hill, and Patrick Luckenbill worked hard through fair weather and snowstorms to help me collect the data presented here. I also thank Travis Horton, Pat Clancey, Travis Lohrenz, Tim Weiss, Kevin Hughes, Rick Smaniatto, and Nick Pederson of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for field assistance and advice. Mariah Talbott, Leif Halvorson, and Eli Cureton of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service assisted with field and lab work. Richard Lessner and Dave Brickner at the Madison River Foundation helped to secure funding for this project and conduct outreach in the Madison Valley. The Channels Ranch, Valley Garden Ranch, Sun West Ranch, and Galloup’s Slide Inn provided crucial land and river access. I also thank my fellow graduate students both for advice on project and class work and for being excellent people to spend time with. Ann Marie Reinhold, Mariah Mayfield, David Ritter, and Peter Brown were especially helpful during the early stages of this project.
    [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]
  • Prosopium Williamsoni) Population in the Big Lost River
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 12-2009 The Effect of Irrigation Diversions on the Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) Population in the Big Lost River Patrick Allen Kennedy Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation Kennedy, Patrick Allen, "The Effect of Irrigation Diversions on the Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) Population in the Big Lost River" (2009). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 512. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/512 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EFFECT OF IRRIGATION DIVERSIONS ON THE MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH (PROSOPIUM WILLIAMSONI) POPULATION IN THE BIG LOST RIVER by Patrick Allen Kennedy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Watershed Science Approved: _________________________ _________________________ Dr. Tamao Kasahara Dr. Brett Roper Major Professor Committee Member _________________________ _________________________ Dr. James Haefner Dr. Byron Burnham Committee Member Dean of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2009 ii Copyright © Patrick Kennedy 2009 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT The Effect of Irrigation Diversions on the Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) Population in the Big Lost River by Patrick Allen Kennedy, Master of Science Utah State University, 2009 Major Professors: Dr. Tamao Kasahara and Dr. Brett Roper Department: Watershed Sciences Management agencies documented a decline in the mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) population on the Big Lost River, and unscreened diversions were recognized as a potential factor for this decline.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Tahoe Fish Species
    Description: o The Lohonton cutfhroot trout (LCT) is o member of the Solmonidqe {trout ond solmon) fomily, ond is thought to be omong the most endongered western solmonids. o The Lohonton cufihroot wos listed os endongered in 1970 ond reclossified os threotened in 1975. Dork olive bdcks ond reddish to yellow sides frequently chorocterize the LCT found in streoms. Steom dwellers reoch l0 inches in length ond only weigh obout I lb. Their life spon is less thon 5 yeors. ln streoms they ore opportunistic feeders, with diets consisting of drift orgonisms, typicolly terrestriol ond oquotic insects. The sides of loke-dwelling LCT ore often silvery. A brood, pinkish stripe moy be present. Historicolly loke dwellers reoched up to 50 inches in length ond weigh up to 40 pounds. Their life spon is 5-14yeors. ln lokes, smoll Lohontons feed on insects ond zooplonkton while lorger Lohonions feed on other fish. Body spots ore the diognostic chorocter thot distinguishes the Lohonion subspecies from the .l00 Poiute cutthroot. LCT typicolly hove 50 to or more lorge, roundish-block spots thot cover their entire bodies ond their bodies ore typicolly elongoted. o Like other cufihroot trout, they hove bosibronchiol teeth (on the bose of tongue), ond red sloshes under their iow (hence the nome "cutthroot"). o Femole sexuol moturity is reoch between oges of 3 ond 4, while moles moture ot 2 or 3 yeors of oge. o Generolly, they occur in cool flowing woier with ovoiloble cover of well-vegetoted ond stoble streom bonks, in oreos where there ore streom velocity breoks, ond in relotively silt free, rocky riffle-run oreos.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Whitefish Chances for Survival: Better 4 Prosopium Williamsoni
    Mountain Whitefish chances for survival: better 4 Prosopium williamsoni ountain whitefish are silvery in color and coarse-scaled with a large and the mackenzie and hudson bay drainages in the arctic. to sustain whatever harvest exists today. mountain whitefish in California and Nevada, they are present in the truckee, should be managed as a native salmonid that is still persisting 1 2 3 4 5 WHITEFISH adipose fin, a small mouth on the underside of the head, a short Carson, and Walker river drainages on the east side of in some numbers. they also are a good indicator of the dorsal fin, and a slender, cylindrical body. they are found the sierra Nevada, but are absent from susan river and “health” of the Carson, Walker, and truckee rivers, as well as eagle lake. lake tahoe and other lakes where they still exist. Whitefish m Mountain Whitefish Distribution throughout western North america. While mountain whitefish are regarded aBundanCe: mountain whitefish are still common in populations in sierra Nevada rivers and tributaries have California, but they are now divided into isolated popula- been fragmented by dams and reservoirs, and are generally as a single species throughout their wide range, a thorough genetic analysis tions. they were once harvested in large numbers by Native scarce in reservoirs. a severe decline in the abundance of americans and commercially harvested in lake tahoe. mountain whitefish in sagehen and prosser Creeks followed would probably reveal distinct population segments. the lahontan population there are still mountain whitefish in lake tahoe, but they the construction of dams on each creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Fish Conservation
    Yellowstone SScience Native Fish Conservation @ JOSH UDESEN Native Trout on the Rise he waters of Yellowstone National Park are among the most pristine on Earth. Here at the headwaters of the Missouri and Snake rivers, the park’s incredibly productive streams and lakes support an abundance of fish. Following the last Tglacial period 8,000-10,000 years ago, 12 species/subspecies of fish recolonized the park. These fish, including the iconic cutthroat trout, adapted and evolved to become specialists in the Yellowstone environment, underpinning a natural food web that includes magnificent animals: ospreys, bald eagles, river otters, black bears, and grizzly bears all feed upon cutthroat trout. When the park was established in 1872, early naturalists noted that about half of the waters were fishless, mostly because of waterfalls which precluded upstream movement of recolonizing fishes. Later, during a period of increasing popularity of the Yellowstone sport fishery, the newly established U.S. Fish Commission began to extensively stock the park’s waters with non-natives, including brown, brook, rainbow, and lake trout. Done more than a century ago as an attempt to increase an- gling opportunities, these actions had unintended consequences. Non-native fish caused serious negative impacts on native fish populations in some watersheds, and altered the parks natural ecology, particularly at Yellowstone Lake. It took a great deal of effort over many decades to alter our native fisheries. It will take a great deal more work to restore them. As Aldo Leopold once said, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic com- munity.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Whitefish, Prosopium Williamsoni, Monitoring Project in the Lochsa River Drainage of Northern Idaho
    Fishery Resources Status and Trends, Global Climate Change Component: Mountain Whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni, Monitoring Project in the Lochsa River Drainage of Northern Idaho An Investigation of the Response of Mountain Whitefish Distribution and Spawning Migration Timing to Long Term Changes in Water Temperatures in the Lochsa River, Idaho Final Report 2012 – 2015 Prepared by: John Hook Brian Simpson Brad Buechel Micheal Faler Ray Jones U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Idaho Fishery Resource Office Ahsahka, Idaho Introduction Mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni is a broadly distributed salmonid which ranges from the Colorado River basin to the Mackenzie River basin, and as far east as the Yellowstone River (Behnke 1992). They inhabit cold, low gradient steams, and are typically found lower in river systems than most stream dwelling salmonids (Maret et al. 1997). In Idaho, mountain whitefish are most often found in 5th to 7th order streams 15 meters in width or greater (Meyer, et al., 2009). Unlike most other North American native salmonids, the life history, status, and habitat requirements of mountain whitefish are not extensively researched, possibly because they are less appealing to anglers (Northcote and Ennis, 1994). A study of mountain whitefish in the Lochsa River drainage was conducted by the Idaho Fishery Resource Office (FRO) from 1992-1994 as part of the Fishery Resource Status and Trends program developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Rockhold and Berg 1995). The study was conducted under the Global Climate Change component designed to collect long-term population and environmental data for specific fish species. The study was conducted in Colt Killed Creek (formerly White Sands Creek) and Crooked Fork creeks, located in the headwaters of the Lochsa River drainage.
    [Show full text]
  • MONTANA COOPERATIVE FISHERY RESEARCH UNIT Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit
    COMPARATIVE USE OF MODIFIED AND NATURAL HABITATS OF THE UPPER YELLOWSTONE RIVER BY JUVENILE SALMONIDS ALEXANDER V. ZALE and DOUGLAS RIDER INSIDE BEND STRAIGHT OUTSIDE BEND RIPRAP BARB JETTY MONTANA COOPERATIVE FISHERY RESEARCH UNIT Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit Comparative Use of Modified and Natural Habitats of the Upper Yellowstone River by Juvenile Salmonids by Alexander V. Zale and Douglas Rider Montana Cooperat ive Fishery Research Unit, USGS Depart ment of Ecology, Montana State University– Bozeman Bozeman, MT 59717 March 2003 The Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit is jointly support ed by the U.S. Geological Survey, Montana State University– Bozeman, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. This report has not been reviewed for conformity w ith U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards. Any use of trade product or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government, Montana State University, or the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The analyses and recommendations in this report are those of the aut hors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the U.S. Government, Montana State University, or the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Contents Page Introduction ................................................ 1 Objectives .............................................. 3 Study Area ................................................ 4 Methods .................................................. 5 Comparative Use Study ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Spawning Behavior of Mountain Whitefish and Co-Occurrence Of
    This article was downloaded by: [Montana State Library] On: 25 May 2012, At: 07:41 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utaf20 Spawning Behavior of Mountain Whitefish and Co- occurrence of Myxobolus cerebralis in the Blackfoot River Basin, Montana Ron Pierce a , Mike Davidson a & Craig Podner a a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 3201 Spurgin Road, Missoula, Montana, 59817, USA Available online: 24 May 2012 To cite this article: Ron Pierce, Mike Davidson & Craig Podner (2012): Spawning Behavior of Mountain Whitefish and Co- occurrence of Myxobolus cerebralis in the Blackfoot River Basin, Montana, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 141:3, 720-730 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.675900 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish and Other Populations of Snake River Basin Mountain Whitefish
    Mountain Whitefish Conservation and Management Plan for the Big Lost River Drainage, Idaho Photos: Bart Gamett May 2007 Idaho Department of Fish and Game TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 3 GOAL........................................................................................................................................ 4 PLAN OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................... 4 Population objectives .......................................................................................................................4 DRAINAGE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 7 MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH POPULATION .......................................................................... 8 General Species Description............................................................................................................8 Origin ................................................................................................................................................9 Historical Status .............................................................................................................................10 Current Status................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Late Quaternary Stratigraphy, Idaho National Laboratory, Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
    Late Quaternary Stratigraphy, Idaho National Laboratory, Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho Thomas V. Dechert Paul A. McDaniel Kenneth L. Pierce Anita L. Falen Maynard A. Fosberg Idaho Geological Survey Technical Report 06-1 University of Idaho ISBN 1-55765-512-X Moscow, Idaho 2006 Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Quaternary Geologic Setting ....................................................................................................... 2 Local Setting ................................................................................................................................ 5 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 6 Stratigraphic Units ....................................................................................................................... 7 The Surface Complex ............................................................................................................ 7 The Buried Complex .............................................................................................................. 9 Discussion and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 11 References .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]