DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is a Margined Sculpin?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is a Margined Sculpin? WDFW – WA State Status Report - The margined sculpin (Cottus marginatus) is physically distinguishable from the paiute sculpin (Cottus beldingi), the only other similar sculpin species within its range, by medial chin pores and anal fin rays. The margined sculpin has one chin pore and 14 to 17 anal rays while the paiute sculpin has two chin pores and 11 to 14 anal rays. ODFW – records of Reticulate, Prickly, and Piute sculpin in the Umatilla and Walla Walla basins. Paul Shearer = Distribution limited to Walla Walla and Umatilla Basins. Common where it occurs. Doug Markle – Fishes of OR = they are in there. Inland Fishes of WA = Found in pools and slow-moving glides in headwater tributaries. Adults found in deeper and faster water than juveniles. Found in habitats with small gravel and silt substrates. Umatilla and Walla Walla Basins – based on personal observation from District Fish Biologist, no known samples. Dots on the map are from OSU museum specimens McPhail and Lindsey 1986 – The margined sculpin is the only fish endemic to the mid-Columbia River basin. What about the Umatilla Dace? Carlin et al 2012 WDFW – State Candidate Species - Knowledge about sculpins in Washington is limited. However, based on available information it is know that margined sculpin are confined to an extremely small range worldwide and in Washington. Also, much of the stream habitat it dwells in is degraded with an uncertain future. Because of its small range and degraded habitat conditions it is vulnerable and likely to become threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range without cooperative management. ODFW = Sensitive Species USFWS = Species of Concern Carlin et al 2012 ‘Margined Sculpin have been recorded from four river drainages.’ 1. Walla Walla 2. Touchet 3. Tucannon 4. Umatilla - These drainages experience substantial agriculture pressure in lowlands, logging activities at higher elevations, and drainage- wide recreation and pollution. Carlin et al 2012 Methods This study was done as part of a summer survey for salmonids • Sampled 57 sites in the Walla Walla sub-basin • June – August 2005 and 2006 • Backpack Electrofishing • CPUE • Mitochondrial DNA Carlin et al 2012 Identification 1. Field ID (diagnostic morphological characters) 2. Lab ID (voucher specimen) 3. Mitochondrial DNA Photo credit: Ryan Douglas Mitochondrial DNA -passed down only from mother -more copies per cell (2 copies in nDNA, 100-10,000 copies in rDNA) -useful in forensics (more stable, stronger, less degradation over time) Results -7,485 sculpins observed -1,019 were subsampled to identify species by chin pore count -502 (49.3%) were identified as Margined Sculpin -based on proportions, Margined Sculpin made up 18.9% of all sampled fishes -CPUE was 0.48 fish min -1 for sites with Margined Sculpin -CPUE was 0.23 fish min -1 for all fish-bearing sites -Based on fin ray and chin pore counts, lab ID matched field ID 98.6% of the time -Other subsampled sculpin were identified as Paiute Sculpin and Torrent Sculpin Carlin et al 2012 Fish Quiz Markel – A Guide to Freshwater Fishes of Oregon (copied from a draft version) Results “Other significant CPUE correlations were found for Northern Pikeminnow, Paiute Sculpin, and Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongates)” Do we have Redside Dace in Oregon? Richardsonius balteatus Carlin et al 2012 Fishbase: North America: Hudson and upper Susquehanna River drainages in New York and Pennsylvania, USA; Great Lakes (except Lake Superior) and Mississippi River basins from New York in USA and south Ontario in Canada to Minnesota and south to West Virginia and Kentucky in USA. More Results 26 fish that were morphologically identified as margined Sculpin were examined with DNA sequence comparisons. -Haplotype = group of genes within an organism inherited by a single parent -NJ phylogram = Neighbor Joining family tree -Polytomy = can’t be broken into separate divergent ancestors. Carlin et al 2012 Discussion -Data indicate high local abundance and great diversity (in both summer habitat occupation and mitochondrial DNA haplotype) -Margined Sculpin are a geographically restricted but highly abundant species with broad macrohabitat requirements, with evidence of substantial gene flow -Cottids are the numerically dominant benthic fishes in the Walla Walla sub-basin and support the statement by Freeman et al. 1988 and Adams and Schmetterling 2007 that Cottids may have more abundance and total biomass of any stream vertebrate in the northern hemisphere. -Margined sculpin (as verified by morphological identification) occurred in 29 of the 37 fish-bearing sites. Those sites varied widely in 8 independent habitat variables. -Margined Sculpin occurrence was significantly correlated with more boulders and slightly warmer temperatures. (This is in contrast to what is described in Lonzarich (1993) as well as the Inland Fishes of WA book). However, everybody agrees that they are not found in riffles. -Based on the genetic information, they tentatively posit a very low population size for margined sculpin in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene, a time when high aridity and different drainage patterns might easily isolate any pioneer Margined Sculpin. Carlin et al 2012 Posit = sounds like ‘pause it’ More Discussion -Note, with concern, the potential for anthropogenic impact on this stream fish. Margined Sculpin will have a restricted distribution, and as such they could be vulnerable to anthropogenic impact. -Fish passage, flow level, and water temperature are already a high management priority in the region due to the presence of endangered salmonids. -Other sculpin populations found near agriculture have been associated with lowered fecundity and gonad size in contrast to those in forested lands. -Such increasing environmental stress may result in expression of deleterious alleles that can reduce fitness. -Unlike other sculpin species we have studied in the ORAFS Non-Native fish workshop. We should be able to identify Margined Sculpin in the field tomorrow based on morphological characteristics (one chin pore and 14 to 17 anal fin rays). Carlin et al 2012 Photo Credit: Roger Tabor USFWS.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Distribution, Abundance, and Genetic Population Structure of Wood River Sculpin, Cottus Leiopomus
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 68 Number 4 Article 10 12-31-2008 Distribution, abundance, and genetic population structure of Wood River sculpin, Cottus leiopomus Kevin A. Meyer Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nampa, Idaho, [email protected] Daniel J. Schill Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Matthew R. Campbell Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Christine C. Kozfkay Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eagle, Idaho, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Recommended Citation Meyer, Kevin A.; Schill, Daniel J.; Campbell, Matthew R.; and Kozfkay, Christine C. (2008) "Distribution, abundance, and genetic population structure of Wood River sculpin, Cottus leiopomus," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 68 : No. 4 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol68/iss4/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 68(4), © 2008, pp. 508–520 DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, AND GENETIC POPULATION STRUCTURE OF WOOD RIVER SCULPIN, COTTUS LEIOPOMUS Kevin A. Meyer1,3, Daniel J. Schill1, Matthew R. Campbell2, and Christine C. Kozfkay2 ABSTRACT.—The Wood River sculpin Cottus leiopomus is endemic to the Wood River Basin in central Idaho and is a nongame species of concern because of its limited distribution. However, status and genetic population structure, 2 factors often central to the conservation and management of species of concern, have not been assessed for this species.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Assessment U.S. Forest Service
    Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Assessment U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit FY 2010 By Richard Vacirca, LTBMU Forest Aquatic Biologist Contributors: Kendal Bell–Enders and Rosealea Bond, LTBMU Aquatic Field Crew; & Craig Oehrli, LTBMU Hydrologist Executive Summary Stream crossings by roads can pose serious threats to fishery ecosystems. The cumulative effect of culverts, fords, and other structures throughout a stream channel can significantly change the streams geomorphology and impair fish passage by blocking valuable spawning and rearing habitat. In the summer of 2010 the LTMBU evaluated 112 road/stream crossings. Of these, 61 had full assessments completed and 51 were partial assessments due to factors such as no flow, no structure, the crossing was a bridge, or the crossing was on a decommissioned road. Of the full assessments, 53 were on Forest Service system roads and 8 assessments were on CA and NV highways (Table1). Table 1: Total crossings inventory summary Assessment Type FS HWY Total Full Crossing Assessments 53 8 61 Partial Crossing Assessments 49 2 51 Inaccessible Sites 0 0 0 Total 102 10 112 FS = Crossings on Forest Service System roads HWY = Crossing is on CA/NV Highway or county road. Approximately 82% (50 of 61) of the full assessment on all road crossings do not meet the criteria for fish passage (RED), and are barriers for at least one life stage of salmonid or sculpin. Only 11% of the fully assessed crossings met the passage criteria (GREEN) to fish for both juvenile and adult salmonid life stages. The remaining 7% of fully assessed crossings were undetermined (GREY) for salmonid or sculpin and are candidates for further evaluation (Table 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names for Fish and Wildlife Species Found in Idaho
    APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN IDAHO. How to Read the Lists. Within these lists, species are listed phylogenetically by class. In cases where phylogeny is incompletely understood, taxonomic units are arranged alphabetically. Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks (GRanks and SRanks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species rangewide (GRank) and statewide (SRank). Rangewide ranks are assigned by NatureServe and statewide ranks are assigned by the Idaho Conservation Data Center. GX or SX Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH or SH Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20–40 years. A species could become SH without such a 20–40 year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The SH rank is reserved for species for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. G1 or S1 Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G2 or S2 Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G3 or S3 Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Animal Species of Concern
    MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Animal Species of Concern Species List Last Updated 08/05/2010 219 Species of Concern 86 Potential Species of Concern All Records (no filtering) A program of the University of Montana and Natural Resource Information Systems, Montana State Library Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for animals, plants, and plant communities with a focus on species and communities that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining trends and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report on Montana Animal Species of Concern is produced jointly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Also included in this report are Potential Animal Species of Concern -- animals for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability or for which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. Over the last 200 years, 5 species with historic breeding ranges in Montana have been extirpated from the state; Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), Pilose Crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii), and Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). Designation as a Montana Animal Species of Concern or Potential Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to avoid additional extirpations.
    [Show full text]
  • Wenaha Wildlife Area Plan Draft
    DRAFT WENAHA WILDLIFE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN January 2007 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Salem, Oregon 97303 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Plan ...................................................................................................... 1 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Mission and Authority.................................... 2 Purpose and Need of the Wenaha Wildlife Area .......................................................... 2 Wildlife Area Goals and Objectives .............................................................................. 2 Wildlife Area Establishment.......................................................................................... 3 Description and Environment ...................................................................................... 4 Physical Resources ...................................................................................................... 4 Location ................................................................................................................... 4 Climate..................................................................................................................... 4 Topography and Soils .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Field Key to the Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia
    FIELD KEY TO THE FRESHWATER FISHES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J.D. McPhail and R. Carveth Fish Museum, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, 6270 University Blvd., Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4 (604) 822-4803 Fax (604) 822-2416 © The Province of British Columbia Published by the Resources Inventory Committee Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data McPhail, J. D. (John Donald) Field key to the freshwater, fishes of British Columbia Also available through the Internet. Previously issued: Field key to the freshwater fishes of British Columbia. Draft for 1994 field testing, 1994. Includes bibliographical references: p. ISBN 0-7726-3830-6 (Field guide) ISBN 0-7726-3844-6 (Computer file) 1. Freshwater fishes - British Columbia - Identification. I. Carveth, R. II. Resources Inventory Committee (Canada) III. Title. QL626.5.B7M36 1999 597.176'09711 C99-960109-1 Additional Copies of this publication can be purchased from: Government Publications Centre Phone: (250) 387-3309 or Toll free: 1 -800-663-6105 Fax: (250) 387-0388 www.publications.gov.bc.ca Digital Copies are available on the Internet at: http://www.for.gov. bc.ca/ric Text copyright © 1993 J.D. McPhail Illustrations copyright © 1993 D.L. McPhail All rights reserved. Design and layout by D.L. McPhail "Admitted that some degree of obscurity is inseparable from both theology and ichthyology, it is not inconsistent with profound respect for the professors of both sciences to observe that a great deal of it has been created by themselves." Sir Herbert Maxwell TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction · i Region 1 - Vancouver Island 1 Region 2 - Fraser 27 Region 3 - Columbia 63 Region 4 - MacKenzie 89 Region 5 - Yukon 115 Region 6 - North Coast 127 Region 7 - Queen Charlotte Islands 151 Region 8 - Central Coast 167 Appendix 193 Acknowledgements .
    [Show full text]
  • Tahoe Fish Pamphlet 2Sided
    Product of University of Nevada, Reno and University of California, Davis, 2010 HELP KEEP NONNATIVE FISH OUT OF LAKE TAHOE: DO NOT MOVE ANY LIVE FISH – IT IS ILLEGAL Nonnative Fish Currently Present: Largemouth Bass ( Micropterus salmoides ) Identification: Very large mouth, upper jaw extends beyond eye. Broad black stripe along the lateral line and onto snout. To 38 in (97 cm). Preferred Habitat: Clear, vegetated, shallow and warm area. Photo Credit: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region Black Crappie ( Pomoxis nigromaculatus ) Identification: Long predorsal region arched with sharp dip over eye. Wavy black blotches, green flecks on silver blue side. To 19 in (49 cm). Preferred Habitat: Clear, vegetated area over mud and sand. Photo Credit: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ) Identification: Red belly in mature fish. Large black spot at rear of dorsal fin. Ear flap black at the edge. To 16 in (41 cm). Preferred Habitat: Adaptable to almost any habitat, but prominent in clear streams and lakes with increased vegetation. Brown Bullhead ( Ameiurus nebulosus ) Identification: Scaleless, smooth skin. Brown or black mottling on body. 5-8 large sawlike teeth on rear of pectoral spine. To 21 in (50 cm). Preferred Habitat: Typically found at bottoms and in productive areas over soft substrates. Goldfish ( Carassius auratus ) Identification: Large scales. Long dorsal fin (15-21 rays). Stout, saw toothed spine at front of dorsal and anal fins. To 16 in (41 cm). Preferred Habitat: Common in warm turbid or vegetated water; more tolerant than most fishes of some forms of pollution.
    [Show full text]
  • Xerces Society's
    Conserving the Gems of Our Waters Best Management Practices for Protecting Native Western Freshwater Mussels During Aquatic and Riparian Restoration, Construction, and Land Management Projects and Activities Emilie Blevins, Laura McMullen, Sarina Jepsen, Michele Blackburn, Aimée Code, and Scott Homan Black CONSERVING THE GEMS OF OUR WATERS Best Management Practices for Protecting Native Western Freshwater Mussels During Aquatic and Riparian Restoration, Construction, and Land Management Projects and Activities Emilie Blevins Laura McMullen Sarina Jepsen Michele Blackburn Aimée Code Scott Hoffman Black The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation www.xerces.org The Xerces® Society for Invertebrate Conservation is a nonprot organization that protects wildlife through the conservation of invertebrates and their habitat. Established in 1971, the Society is at the forefront of invertebrate protection, harnessing the knowledge of scientists and the enthusiasm of citizens to implement conservation programs worldwide. The Society uses advocacy, education, and applied research to promote invertebrate conservation. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 628 NE Broadway, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97232 Tel (855) 232-6639 Fax (503) 233-6794 www.xerces.org Regional oces from coast to coast. The Xerces Society is an equal opportunity employer and provider. Xerces® is a trademark registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce © 2018 by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Primary Authors and Contributors The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation: Emilie Blevins, Laura McMullen, Sarina Jepsen, Michele Blackburn, Aimée Code, and Scott Homan Black. Acknowledgements Funding for this report was provided by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, The Nature Conservancy and Portland General Electric Salmon Habitat Fund, the Charlotte Martin Foundation, Meyer Memorial Trust, and Xerces Society members and supporters.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Sculpin (Cottus Hubbsi) Is a Small, Freshwater Sculpin (Cottidae)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Columbia Sculpin Cottus hubbsi in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2010 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Columbia Sculpin Cottus hubbsi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 32 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC acknowledges Don McPhail for writing the provisional status report on the Columbia Sculpin, Cottus hubbsi, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. The contractor’s involvement with the writing of the status report ended with the acceptance of the provisional report. Any modifications to the status report during the subsequent preparation of the 6-month interim status report and 2-month interim status reports were overseen by Dr. Eric Taylor, COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Specialist Subcommittee Co-chair. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le chabot du Columbia (Cottus hubbsi) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Columbia Sculpin — illustration by Diana McPhail. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011. Catalogue No. CW69-14/268-2011E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-18590-3 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2010 Common name Columbia Sculpin Scientific name Cottus hubbsi Status Special Concern Reason for designation In Canada, this small freshwater fish is endemic to the Columbia River basin where it has a small geographic distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Hood Canal Bridge Ecosystem Impact Assessment Plan: Framework and Phase 1 Details FINAL – September 27, 2016
    Hood Canal Bridge Ecosystem Impact Assessment Plan: Framework and Phase 1 Details FINAL – September 27, 2016 Prepared by: Hood Canal Bridge Assessment Team and contributing experts (see reverse) Cite document as: Hood Canal Bridge Assessment Team. 2016. Hood Canal Bridge Ecosystem Impact Assessment Plan: Framework and Phase 1 Details. Long Live the Kings, Seattle, WA. Bridge Assessment Team Megan Moore, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center* Tarang Khangaonkar, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory* Barry Berejikian, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center* Hans Daubenberger, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe* Steve Jeffries, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife* Paul McCollum, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Erik Neatherlin, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Scott Pearson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife* Chris Harvey, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center* Austen Thomas, Smith-Root* Carl Ward, Washington Department of Transportation John Wynands, Washington Department of Transportation Contributors Kevin Redman, RPS Evans Hamilton Daniel Deng, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Tim Essington, University of Washington Monique Lance, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Marshal Richmond, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Julie Keister, University of Washington Ken Warheit, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Coordinators Michael Schmidt, Long Live the Kings+ Iris Kemp, Long Live the Kings Susan O’Neil, Long Live the Kings Lucas Hall, Long Live the Kings *Principals +Project Manager and Lead. For
    [Show full text]
  • AQU 1 Report
    PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD Lewis River Hydroelectric Project FERC Project Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 CONTENTS 4.0 AQUATIC RESOURCES ...............................................................................AQU 1-1 4.1 REPORT ON LIFE HISTORY, HABITAT REQUIREMENTS, AND DISTRIBUTION OF AQUATIC ANALYSIS SPECIES (AQU 1)........AQU 1-1 4.1.1 Study Objectives............................................................................AQU 1-2 4.1.2 Study Area .....................................................................................AQU 1-3 4.1.3 Methods .........................................................................................AQU 1-3 4.1.4 Key Questions................................................................................AQU 1-4 4.1.5 Results............................................................................................AQU 1-5 4.1.6 Discussion....................................................................................AQU 1-81 4.1.7 Schedule.......................................................................................AQU 1-83 4.1.8 References....................................................................................AQU 1-83 4.1.9 Comments and Responses on Draft Report .................................AQU 1-97 AQU 1 Appendix 1 Fish Distribution Maps AQU 1 Appendix 2 WRIA 27 Fish Distribution and Barriers LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1-1. Aquatic analysis species to be assessed.............................................AQU 1-1 Table 4.1-2. The number of adult spring and fall
    [Show full text]