DOCSLIB.ORG

Queets River Natural Coho Salmon Rebuilding Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Queets River Natural Coho Salmon Rebuilding Plan QUEETS RIVER NATURAL COHO (OCTOBER, 2019) SALMON REBUILDING PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT*, MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ANALYSIS*, REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW*, AND INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS* REGULATORY IDENTIFIER NUMBER 0648-BJ05 PLEASE NOTE: THE PORTION OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT IS FOCUSED ON THE SALMON REBUILDING PLAN ARE MAINLY SECTIONS 1-5, AND ANY APPENDICES NOTED IN THOSE SECTIONS. THIS IS AN INTEGRATED DOCUMENT AND SOME PORTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT [INDICATED BY AN ASTERISK (*)] MAY CURRENTLY BE INCOMPLETE. INCOMPLETE PORTIONS WILL BE DEVELOPED BY NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, AND MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT THROUGH THE NOTICE-AND COMMENT RULEMAKING PROCESS. Pacific Fishery Management Council National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, BIN C15700 Portland, OR 97220-1384 Seattle, WA 98115-0700 (503) 820-2280 (206) 526-6150 www.pcouncil.org www.noaa.gov/fisheries This document may be cited in the following manner: Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2019. Salmon Rebuilding Plan for Queets River Natural Coho. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384. A report of the Pacific Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Number NA15NMF4410016A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Salmon Technical Team, NMFS, and the Council staff express their thanks for the expert assistance provided by those listed here and numerous other tribal and agency personnel in completing this report. Dr. Michael O’Farrell, STT Chair National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Cruz, California Mr. Jon Carey, STT Vice-Chair National Marine Fisheries Service, Lacey, Washington Ms. Wendy Beeghley, STT member Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Montesano, Washington Ms. Marlene Bellman Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, Washington Mr. Craig Foster, STT member Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Clackamas, Oregon Dr. Larry Gilbertson Quinault Indian Nation, Taholah, Washington Dr. Steve Haeseker, STT member U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vancouver, Washington Ms. Ashton Harp, STT member Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Forks, Washington Mr. Rob Jones Northwest Indian Fish Commission, Olympia, Washington Mr. Tyler Jurasin Quinault Indian Nation, Taholah, Washington Dr. Robert Kope, former STT member, Vice-Chair National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington (retired) Mr. Larrie Lavoy, former STT member National Marine Fisheries Service, Lacey, Washington (retired) Mr. Alex Letvin, STT member California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Santa Rosa, California Mr. David Low Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Montesano, Washington Ms. Peggy Mundy National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington Ms. Mindy Rowse, STT member National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (continued) Dr. Jim Seger Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon Dr. Ed Waters Economist (on contract with the Pacific Fishery Management Council), Beaverton, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1 2.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 2.1 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ........................................4 2.2 National Environmental Policy Act .....................................................................................4 2.2.1 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................4 2.2.2 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................5 2.3 Stock overview.....................................................................................................................5 2.3.1 Stock composition ....................................................................................................5 2.3.2 Location and geography ...........................................................................................7 2.4 Management Overview ........................................................................................................8 2.4.1 Conservation objectives ...........................................................................................9 2.4.2 Management strategy ...............................................................................................9 3.0 Review of Potential Factors Leading to Overfished Status ...............................................10 3.1 Freshwater survival ............................................................................................................10 3.1.1 Review of freshwater conditions ...........................................................................10 3.1.2 Juvenile Production Estimates ...............................................................................15 3.2 Marine Survival .................................................................................................................15 3.2.1 Review of Ocean Conditions .................................................................................15 3.2.2 Early life survival rates ..........................................................................................18 3.3 Harvest Impacts .................................................................................................................18 3.3.1 Ocean Fisheries ......................................................................................................18 3.3.2 In-river fisheries .....................................................................................................20 3.3.3 Total Exploitation Rates ........................................................................................22 3.4 Assessment and management ............................................................................................24 3.4.1 Abundance forecast errors .....................................................................................24 3.4.2 Exploitation rate forecast errors .............................................................................25 3.5 Summary of potential contributing factors ........................................................................27 4.0 Recommendations for Action ............................................................................................28 4.1 Recommendation 1: Rebuilt criterion ...............................................................................28 4.2 Recommendation 2: Management strategy alternatives ...................................................28 4.3 Recommendation 3: Comanager recommendations ..........................................................29 4.4 Analysis of management strategy alternatives ...................................................................30 5.0 Socioeconomic Impact of Management Strategy Alternatives ..........................................32 5.1 Approach to the socio-economic analysis and benchmark/baseline ..................................32 5.2 Alternative I .......................................................................................................................38 5.3 Alternative II ......................................................................................................................38 5.4 TMIN rebuilding scenario ....................................................................................................41 5.5 Summary of socio-economic impacts ................................................................................42 6.0 Affected Environment and Environmental effects of Management Strategy Alternatives Considered ...............................................................................................45 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................45 iii 6.2 Targeted salmon stocks ......................................................................................................45 6.2.1 Affected environment ............................................................................................45 6.2.2 Environmental consequences of the alternatives on targeted stocks .....................45 6.3 Marine mammals ...............................................................................................................45 6.3.1 Affected environment ............................................................................................45 6.3.2 Environmental consequences of the alternatives on marine mammals .................46 6.4 ESA Listed salmon stocks .................................................................................................46 6.4.1 Affected environment ............................................................................................46 6.4.2 Environmental consequences of the alternatives on ESA listed salmon stocks ....47 6.5 Non-target fish species:......................................................................................................47 6.5.1 Affected environment ............................................................................................47 6.5.2 Environmental consequences of the alternatives on non-target fish species .........48 6.6 Seabirds ..............................................................................................................................48
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Olympic Invasives Working Group 2018 Annual Report
    Olympic Invasives Working Group 2018 Annual Report Bohemian knotweed on Fisher Cove Rd, Clallam County, leading to Lake Sutherland, treated for the first time as part of the Clallam County Road Department Integrated Weed Management Plan. Report Prepared by Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board A patch of knotweed found growing on Ennis Creek in Port Angeles. Report prepared by Jim Knape Cathy Lucero Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board January 2019 223 East 4th Street Ste 15 Port Angeles WA 98362 360-417-2442 [email protected] http://www.clallam.net/weed/projects.html This report can also be found at http://www.clallam.net/weed/annualreports.html CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 7 2018 PROJECT ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................... 7 2018 PROJECT PROTOCOLS ..................................................................................... 11 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 14 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 15 PROJECT ACTIVITIES BY WATERSHED ................................................................... 18 CLALLAM COUNTY ...........................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Trends of Sport Fishing on Critical Fishery Resources in Olympic National Park Rivers and Lake Crescent
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Understanding Trends of Sport Fishing on Critical Fishery Resources in Olympic National Park Rivers and Lake Crescent Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/OLYM/NRTR—2012/587 ON THE COVER Creel Survey on Lake Crescent, July 29, 2010 Photograph by: Phil Kennedy, Olympic National Park Understanding Trends of Sport Fishing on Critical Fishery Resources in Olympic National Park Rivers and Lake Crescent Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/OLYM/NRTR—2012/587 Samuel J. Brenkman, Lauren Kerr, and Josh Geffre National Park Service Olympic National Park 600 East Park Avenue Port Angeles, Washington, 98362. June 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Land and Resource Management Plan
    United States Department of Land and Resource Agriculture Forest Service Management Plan Pacific Northwest Region 1990 Olympic National Forest I,,; ;\'0:/' "\l . -'. \.. \:~JK~~'.,;"> .. ,. :~i;/i- t~:.(~#;~.. ,':!.\ ," "'~.' , .~, " ,.. LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN for the OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION PREFACE Preparation of a Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Olympic National Forest is required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) as amended by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Regulations developed under the RPA establish a process for developing, adopting, and revising land and resource Plans for the National Forest System (36 CFR 219). The Plan has also been developed in accordance with regulations (40 CFR 1500) for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Because this Plan is considered a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement (environmental impact statement) has been prepared as required by NEPA. The Forest Plan represents the implementation of the Preferred Alternative as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Forest Plan. If any particular provision of this Forest Plan, or application of the action to any person or circumstances is found to be invalid, the remainder of this Forest Plan and the application of that provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Information concerning this plan can be obtained
    [Show full text]
  • Coho Supplementation in the Queets River, Washington
    Coho Supplementation in the Queets River, Washington Larry Lestelle, Biostream Environmental February 2012 Purpose of presentation: . Summarize results of coho supplementation in the Queets River 1989-2002 . Two papers summarized, along with more recent results: Lestelle, L.C., G.R. Blair, S.A. Chitwood. 1993. Approaches to supplementing coho salmon in the Queet s River, Washi hitngton. IIn L. Berg and PPW.W. DDlelaney (eds.) Proceedings of the coho workshop. British Columbia Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, BC. Sharma, R., G. Morishima, S. Wang, A. Talbot, and L. Gilbertson. 2006. An evaluation of the Clearwater River supplementation program in western Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:423– 437. The Queets watershed – west coast of the Olympic Peninsula, WA (450 square mile basin) Focus in this review on the work in the Clearwater R Land-use ownership and jurisdictions Stream habitats very diverse Diverse in-channel habitats Diverse off-channel habitats Long-term monitoring has occurred in Clearwater R . Extensive smolt enumeration efforts (began 1980) . Sppgawning escapements monitored with redd surveys (mid 1970s to present) . Similar level of monitoring in Queets subbasin The Problem (as perceived in 1980s): . Believed that coho run badly underescaped • Extensive ocean and freshwater fisheries • Highest harvest rates in BC – outside domestic control • Federal court-ordered escapement goal range • Treaty-reserved Indian fisheries squeezed Ocean Recruits and Spawner Escapement 25,000 Age‐3 recruits 20,000 ber 15, 000 Num 10,000 5,000 Spawners 0 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 Spawning year Ocean Recruits and Spawner Escapement 25,000 Age‐3 recruits 20,000 ber 15, 000 Num 10,000 Escape goal range 5,000 Spawners 0 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 Spawning year Supplementation to be used .
    [Show full text]
  • QIN Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
    Quinault Indian Nation Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Quinault Indian Nation Taholah, Washington March 2017 Quinault Indian Nation Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Project Information Project: QIN Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Prepared for: Quinault Indian Community Development and Planning Department Charles Warsinske, Planning Manager Carl Smith, Environmental Planner Jesse Cardenas, Project Manager American Community Enrichment Reviewing Agency Jurisdiction: Quinault Indian Nation, made possible by a grant from Administration for Native Americans (ANA) Project Representative Prepared by: SCJ Alliance 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 SCJ Alliance teaming with AECOM Lacey, Washington 98516 360.352.1465 scjalliance.com Contact: Lisa Palazzi, PWS, CPSS Project Reference: SCJ #2328.01 QIN Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report 03062107 March 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Shoreline Analysis Areas (SAAs) Overview ................................................................. 3 1.3 Opportunities for Restoration .................................................................................... 4 2. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Baseline Data
    [Show full text]
  • 638 Quinault Ridge 618 Matheny 615 Clearwater 612 Goodman 607 Sol
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! South Fork 1 Soleduck 36 Forks 1 31 31 North Fork River 31 T29-0N R9-0W T29-0N T29-0N R9-0W Soleduck Alckee 36 110 Creek T29-0N R8-0W Æ Mill Creek River Soleduck River · CalawahRiver R10-0W MundenCreek 602 Bogachiel River Sitkum River 1 d[ Grader Creek 1 6 Elk Creek Canyon Creek Mink Lake Weeden Creek North Fork Hidden Dickey Bogachiel 607 Lost Creek Bogachiel Lake River d[ River North ForkBoulderCreek T28-0N Quillayuted[ Blackwood Creek Blackwood Lake R15-0W River Bogachiel Bogachiel Bear Creek South Fork Calawah River T28-0N River Soleduck River River Bogachiel SolCoon Duc Hyak Creek River R10-0W T28-0N Creek R10-0W Deer Lake Canyon Soleduck Lake BogachielRiver Maxfield Creek Ring Lake R14-0W Creek Long Lake South Fork Creek Clear Bridge Maxfield Kahkwa Elbow Creek T28-0NMorgenroth Haigs T28-0N Latlah Creek Game Management Unit Creek T28-0N R11-0W Lake T28-0N Creek R8-2W Lake Lake R13-0W T28-0N LunchR8-2W Lake R8-0W 31 Bogachiel River Eaton R8-0W 36 36 R12-0W Sunday 615 - Clearwater 31 Creek Creek 36 31 d[ 36 31 Creek Bogachiel River Warkum T27-0N Morganroth Creek Creek 1 Dry Creek Mosquito 36 31 Bogachiel Hoh Lake R15-0W Kloshe Creek 36 6 Murphy Creek 1 Indian Creek Slide Creek 6 1 Bogachiel River Bee Creek 6 River Spruce T27-0N Boulevard Creek T28-0N R9-0W Creek T28-0N R9-0W Hoh Creek 2021 - 2022Hunting 2021- Season Bogachiel6 Hemp 1 R13-0W 6 36 Scott Dowans Riverd[ Hill T27-0N 31 Creek 1 Cultus T27-0N R11-0W 1 6 All-in Creek 6 Cougar Olallie Creek
    [Show full text]
  • Queets River Natural Coho Rebuilding Plan Environmental
    QUEETS RIVER NATURAL COHO SALMON REBUILDING PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ANALYSIS, REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW, AND INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS REGULATORY IDENTIFIER NUMBER 0648-BJ05 PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS AN INTEGRATED DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL’S PACIFIC SALMON FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROVIDE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS REQUIRED UNDER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. Pacific Fishery Management Council National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, BIN C15700 Portland, OR 97220-1384 Seattle, WA 98115-0700 (503) 820-2280 (206) 526-6150 www.pcouncil.org www.noaa.gov/fisheries This document may be cited in the following manner: Pacific Fishery Management Council and National Marine Fisheries Service. 2020. Environmental Assessment: Salmon Rebuilding Plan for Queets River Natural Coho. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220- 1384 and National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, Washington 98115. A report of the Pacific Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Number NA15NMF4410016A. Environmental Assessment for Queets Coho Rebuilding Plan December 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Salmon Technical Team, NMFS, and the Council staff express their thanks for the expert assistance provided by those listed here and numerous other tribal and agency personnel in completing this report. Dr. Michael O’Farrell, STT Chair National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Cruz, California Mr. Jon Carey, STT Vice-Chair National Marine Fisheries Service, Lacey, Washington Ms. Wendy Beeghley, STT member Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Montesano, Washington Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Queets Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment
    Queets Vegetation Management United States Environmental Assessment Department of Agriculture Olympic National Forest Forest Service Jefferson County, Washington Pacific Northwest Region June 2015 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Abstract: This Environmental Assessment documents the proposed action, two alternatives to the proposed action, and the no action alternative considered for commercially thinning timber; conducting road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance; treating activity-generated slash (fuels); and implementing connected actions within the Late-Successional Reserve, Adaptive Management Area, and Riparian Reserve land allocations of the Queets River watershed on the Olympic National Forest, Pacific Ranger District. The Queets Vegetation Management project proposed treatment units are located within the Late-Successional Reserve and Adaptive Management Area land allocations, and also include Riparian Reserves which overlay these other land allocations.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 State of Our Watersheds Report Queets – Chehalis Basins
    2016 State of Our Watersheds Report Queets – Chehalis Basins he evidence is abundantly clear. We know how Tto manage our fish. We understand sustain- ability. The problems fish are facing are not of our making. But we are definitely a big part of the solution, with the work we do in habitat res- toration and protection, good management and education. – FAWN SHARp, PRESIDENT QUINAULT INDIAN NATION Quinault Indian Nation The Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) consists of the Quinault and Queets tribes and descendants of five other coastal tribes: Quileute, Hoh, Che- halis, Chinook and Cowlitz. Quinault ancestors lived on a major physical and cultural dividing line. Beaches to the south are wide and sandy, while to the north, they are rugged and cliff- lined. Quinault people shared in the cultures of the people to the south as well as those to the Seattle north. Living in family groups in longhouses up and down the river, they were sustained by the land and by trade with neighboring tribes. Salmon runs, abundant sea mammals, wildlife and forests provided substantial material and spiritual wealth. A great store of knowledge about plants and their uses helped provide for the people. The western red-cedar, the “tree of life,” provided logs for canoes, bark for clothing, split boards for houses and more. The Quinault are the Canoe People, the people of the cedar tree. Tribal headquarters are located in Taholah, Washington. 190 Quinault Indian Nation Queets – Quinault – Chehalis Basins The Quinault Indian Nation’s Area of Interest for this report covers three Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) includ- ing the Queets-Quinault basin (WRIA 21) and Chehalis basin (WRIAs 22 and 23).
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Olympics Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
    116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 116–388 WILD OLYMPICS WILDERNESS AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT FEBRUARY 4, 2020.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. GRIJALVA, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the following R E P O R T together with DISSENTING VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 2642] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 2642) to designate and expand wilderness areas in Olym- pic National Forest in the State of Washington, and to designate certain rivers in Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park as wild and scenic rivers, and for other purposes, having con- sidered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendment is as follows: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wild Olympics Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Riv- ers Act’’. SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST WILDERNESS AREAS. (a) IN GENERAL.—In furtherance of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following Federal land in the Olympic National Forest in the State of Wash- ington comprising approximately 126,554 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Proposed Wild Olympics Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act’’ and dated April 8, 2019 (referred to in this section as the ‘‘map’’), is designated as wil- derness and as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System: (1) LOST CREEK WILDERNESS.—Certain Federal land managed by the Forest Service, comprising approximately 7,159 acres, as generally depicted on the map, which shall be known as the ‘‘Lost Creek Wilderness’’.
    [Show full text]
  • Old-Growth Forests
    c.i5 Fishand WildlifeRelationships in Old-GrowthForests Proceedingsof a Symposium Sponsoredby Alaska District, American Institute of FisheryResearch Biologists Northwest Section, The Wildlife Society AlaskaCouncil on Scienceand Technology Held in Juneau,Alaska, 12-15 April 1982 Symposium Editors William R. Meehan TheodoreR. Merrell,Jr. ThomasA. Hanley SuggestedCltatlon: (Eds.). 1984. Fish and ttilliam R., TheodoreR. Merrell, Jr. and Thornas^A' Hanlev lleehan, in Juneau,Alaska' ltiiaiiie-ietaiionstrips in 0ld-GrowthForests: Proceedingsof a syrnpoiiumheld 12-15April 1982. Ainer.Inst. Fish. Res.Biol' 425p' Published by the American lnstitute of Fishery Research Biologists December 1984 Availablefrom John W. Reintjes,Rt. 4, Box 85, MoreheadCity, NC 28557 Price920. *'"' &,,4 HABITATSAND SALMONIDDISTRIBUTION IN PRISTINE. E SEDIMENT-RICHRIVER VALLEY SYSTEMS: S. FORKHOH AND .€ ii OUEETSRIVER, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK € E JamesR. Sedell I USDA, ForestService. Corvallis, Oregon il ri Joseph E. Yuskaand RobertW. Speaker Oregon State University,Corvallis, Oregon :]: ABSTRACT Four distinct running-water habitats are defined and examined on the South Fork Hoh River and Upper Queets River-main river channel, river off-channel areas, terrace tributaries, and valley-wall tributaries. Speciescompositions, densities, and total fish biomassesare distinctly different for each habitat examined. Habitat formed by the main river channel and its tributaries is controlled by the valley terrace structure and the modifyingeffects of large woody debris. Large woody debris is important to all habitats regardless of size of stream. Without large wood, spawning and rearing-habitat quality would be poorer, even in the large, sediment-rich main channel. large wood-capped side channels had eight times the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) densities as side channels without debris.
    [Show full text]
  • Extent of Anadromy in Bull Trout and Implications for Conservation of a Threatened Species
    North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1073±1081, 2005 q Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2005 [Management Brief] DOI: 10.1577/M04-132.1 Extent of Anadromy in Bull Trout and Implications for Conservation of a Threatened Species SAMUEL J. BRENKMAN* AND STEPHEN C. CORBETT National Park Service, Olympic National Park, 600 East Park Avenue, Port Angeles, Washington 98362, USA Abstract.ÐThe use of radiotelemetry revealed that ulations that spend their entire life cycle in fresh- adult bull trout Salvelinus con¯uentus moved between water (Goetz 1989; Swanberg 1997). freshwater and the Paci®c Ocean and between water- One critical unanswered question is the extent sheds along coastal Washington. Forty-seven of 82 radio-tagged bull trout implanted in the Hoh River and to which bull trout move between freshwater and Kalaloch Creek basins were anadromous, and 23 ®sh marine environments. The extent of anadromy in were relocated in ®ve different estuaries up to 47 km bull trout remains uncertain primarily because ob- south of their tagging locations. Anadromous bull trout servations of native char have occurred in tidally typically entered the Hoh River from May to July, as- in¯uenced rivers in regions of overlap with the cended as far as 78 km upstream to spawning areas by closely related and morphologically similar Dolly September, and returned to the ocean to overwinter. This Varden, and the two species have not been distin- is the ®rst study to verify that anadromy is a primary life history form in coastal bull trout. The presence of guished during those observations (McPhail and anadromy and the irregular periods of freshwater, es- Baxter 1996).
    [Show full text]