DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 ....................................................................................... 2-33 2.2.3 Stream-Type Salmonids..................................................................................... 2-39 2.2.4 Pacific Lamprey................................................................................................. 2-47 2.2.5 Sturgeon ............................................................................................................. 2-48 2.2.6 Northern Pikeminnow........................................................................................ 2-50 2.2.7 Eulachon ............................................................................................................ 2-51 2.2.8 River Otter......................................................................................................... 2-52 2.2.9 Columbian White-tailed Deer............................................................................ 2-53 2.2.10 Caspian Tern ...................................................................................................... 2-53 2.2.11 Bald Eagle.......................................................................................................... 2-54 2.2.12 Osprey................................................................................................................ 2-56 2.2.13 Sandhill Crane.................................................................................................... 2-57 2.2.14 Yellow Warbler.................................................................................................. 2-58 2.2.15 Red-eyed Vireo .................................................................................................. 2-58 2.3 Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 2-60 2.3.1 Habitat-Forming Processes................................................................................ 2-60 2.3.2 Habitat Change.................................................................................................. 2-75 2.3.3 Historical vs. Current Habitat Condition ........................................................... 2-82 2.4 Species/Habitat Interactions...................................................................................... 2-98 2.4.1 Focal Species Habitat Associations ................................................................... 2-98 2.4.2 Salmonids......................................................................................................... 2-104 2.4.3 Pacific Lamprey............................................................................................... 2-120 2.4.4 Sturgeon ........................................................................................................... 2-120 2.4.5 Northern Pikeminnow...................................................................................... 2-122 2.4.6 Eulachon .......................................................................................................... 2-122 2.4.7 River Otter....................................................................................................... 2-122 2.4.8 Columbian White-tailed Deer.......................................................................... 2-122 2.4.9 Caspian Tern.................................................................................................... 2-123 2.4.10 Bald Eagle........................................................................................................ 2-123 2.4.11 Osprey.............................................................................................................. 2-124 2.4.12 Sandhill Crane.................................................................................................. 2-124 2.4.13 Yellow Warbler and Red-eyed Vireo .............................................................. 2-124 2.5 Ecological Relationships......................................................................................... 2-125 2.5.1 Native Species Interactions.............................................................................. 2-125 2.5.2 Non-Indigenous Species Interactions .............................................................. 2-128 2.6 Knowledge Gaps..................................................................................................... 2-135 2.6.1 Uncertainty....................................................................................................... 2-135 2.6.2 Physical Process Models.................................................................................. 2-136 2.6.3 Current Research Needs................................................................................... 2-137 2.7 Hypothesis Statements ............................................................................................ 2-140 2.8 Literature Cited.............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.0 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem This chapter describes physical processes, habitat, fish and wildlife species, and ecological relationships within the lower Columbia River mainstem (i.e. below Bonneville Dam) and estuary. A balanced and complete ecosystem-based approach was desired for this assessment, however, was not possible based on currently available data. Certain topics are discussed in far greater detail than others because of this difference in data availability. For example, the estuary is discussed in detail throughout the chapter, while specific discussions regarding the lower mainstem are not presented, simply because the data do not exist. In the same regard, considerable research has focused on salmonid species in the Columbia River while much less is known about the other species presented here. Another necessary point of clarification is the use of the word estuary, which was not standardized across all previous research efforts. For our purposes, the Columbia River estuary was defined as the tidally influence portion of the Columbia River from the mouth to Bonneville Dam (rm 146) as well as the Columbia River plume. However, many other studies have defined the estuary differently. For example, some define the estuary upper boundary as the extent of salt water intrusion (typically Harrington Point at rm 23) while others define the upper boundary as the extent of river flow reversal (up to Oak Point at rm 53). Also, recent research suggests that the Columbia River plume environment should also be considered as part of the estuary. Thus, when presenting the work of others, estuary refers to the estuary boundaries described by the research and the reader is encouraged to review the original publication to alleviate any confusion as to which part of the estuary is being discussed. Where possible, clarification was provided to indicate if the information being presented applied to the tidal freshwater portion of the lower mainstem (i.e. rm 46-146), the lower portion of the river (rm 0-46), or the Columbia River plume. The geographic area covered in this subbasin assessment and qualitative analysis includes the Columbia River estuary and the lower Columbia River up to Bonneville Dam (Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2, and Figure 2-3); the major tributaries are not included in this analysis as they have been designated as subbasins by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) and are addressed separately in this Technical Foundation. The description and analysis, however, focuses on the Columbia River estuary by default; far more research to date has focused on the estuary and not the tidal freshwater portion of the lower mainstem. Where possible, data specific to the lower Columbia River mainstem were included; elsewhere, assumptions where made as to whether the habitat conditions, habitat-forming processes, and species-habitat interactions in the estuary were also applicable to the lower Columbia River mainstem. COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY/LOWER MAINSTEM
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Role of the Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: an Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Factors on Salmonid Population Viability
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-69 Role of the Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: An Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Factors on Salmonid Population Viability September 2005 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue infor- mal scientific and technical publications when com- plete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Docu- ments published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Fresh, K.L., E. Casillas, L.L. Johnson, and D.L. Bottom. 2005. Role of the estuary in the recovery of Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead: an evaluation of the effects of selected factors on salmo- nid population viability. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-69, 105 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-69 Role of the Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: An Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Factors on Salmonid Population Viability Kurt L.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Annual Report
    Document ID #P113359 Report covers work performed under BPA contract #26763 Report was completed under BPA contract #34772 REPORT ON THE PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN EXPERIMENTAL NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 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 U.S. Department of Agriculture 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 00026763 Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Report A – Sport Reward Fishery in the Columbia and Snake Rivers 10 Abstract 11 Introduction 12 Methods of Operation 13 Fishery Operation 13 Boundaries and Season 13 Registration Stations 14 Reward System 14 Angler Sampling 15 Returning Anglers 16 Non-Returning Anglers 16 Northern Pikeminnow Handling Procedures 17 Biological Sampling 17 PIT Tag Detection 17 Northern Pikeminnow Processing 18 Results and Discussion 18 Northern Pikeminnow Harvest 18 Harvest by Week 19 Harvest by Fishing Location 20 Harvest by Registration Station 21 Harvest by Species/Incidental Catch 22 Angler Effort 24 Effort by Week 25 Effort by Fishing Location 27 Effort by Registration Station 27 Catch Per Angler Day (CPUE) 28 CPUE by Week 29 CPUE by Fishing Location 30 CPUE by Registration Station 30 Angler Totals 31 Tag Recovery 34 Northern
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST and BIOGEOGRAPHY of FISHES from GUADALUPE ISLAND, WESTERN MEXICO Héctor Reyes-Bonilla, Arturo Ayala-Bocos, Luis E
    ReyeS-BONIllA eT Al: CheCklIST AND BIOgeOgRAphy Of fISheS fROm gUADAlUpe ISlAND CalCOfI Rep., Vol. 51, 2010 CHECKLIST AND BIOGEOGRAPHY OF FISHES FROM GUADALUPE ISLAND, WESTERN MEXICO Héctor REyES-BONILLA, Arturo AyALA-BOCOS, LUIS E. Calderon-AGUILERA SAúL GONzáLEz-Romero, ISRAEL SáNCHEz-ALCántara Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada AND MARIANA Walther MENDOzA Carretera Tijuana - Ensenada # 3918, zona Playitas, C.P. 22860 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur Ensenada, B.C., México Departamento de Biología Marina Tel: +52 646 1750500, ext. 25257; Fax: +52 646 Apartado postal 19-B, CP 23080 [email protected] La Paz, B.C.S., México. Tel: (612) 123-8800, ext. 4160; Fax: (612) 123-8819 NADIA C. Olivares-BAñUELOS [email protected] Reserva de la Biosfera Isla Guadalupe Comisión Nacional de áreas Naturales Protegidas yULIANA R. BEDOLLA-GUzMáN AND Avenida del Puerto 375, local 30 Arturo RAMíREz-VALDEz Fraccionamiento Playas de Ensenada, C.P. 22880 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Ensenada, B.C., México Facultad de Ciencias Marinas, Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanológicas Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Carr. Tijuana-Ensenada km. 107, Apartado postal 453, C.P. 22890 Ensenada, B.C., México ABSTRACT recognized the biological and ecological significance of Guadalupe Island, off Baja California, México, is Guadalupe Island, and declared it a Biosphere Reserve an important fishing area which also harbors high (SEMARNAT 2005). marine biodiversity. Based on field data, literature Guadalupe Island is isolated, far away from the main- reviews, and scientific collection records, we pres- land and has limited logistic facilities to conduct scien- ent a comprehensive checklist of the local fish fauna, tific studies.
    [Show full text]
  • 155891 WPO 43.2 Inside WSUP C.Indd
    MAY 2017 VOL 43 NO 2 LEWIS AND CLARK TRAIL HERITAGE FOUNDATION • Black Sands and White Earth • Baleen, Blubber & Train Oil from Sacagawea’s “monstrous fish” • Reviews, News, and more the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade Journal VOLUME 11 - 2017 The Henry & Ashley Fur Company Keelboat Enterprize by Clay J. Landry and Jim Hardee Navigation of the dangerous and unpredictable Missouri River claimed many lives and thousands of dollars in trade goods in the early 1800s, including the HAC’s Enterprize. Two well-known fur trade historians detail the keelboat’s misfortune, Ashley’s resourceful response, and a possible location of the wreck. More than Just a Rock: the Manufacture of Gunflints by Michael P. Schaubs For centuries, trappers and traders relied on dependable gunflints for defense, hunting, and commerce. This article describes the qualities of a superior gunflint and chronicles the evolution of a stone-age craft into an important industry. The Hudson’s Bay Company and the “Youtah” Country, 1825-41 by Dale Topham The vast reach of the Hudson’s Bay Company extended to the Ute Indian territory in the latter years of the Rocky Mountain rendezvous period, as pressure increased from The award-winning, peer-reviewed American trappers crossing the Continental Divide. Journal continues to bring fresh Traps: the Common Denominator perspectives by encouraging by James A. Hanson, PhD. research and debate about the The portable steel trap, an exponential improvement over snares, spears, nets, and earlier steel traps, revolutionized Rocky Mountain fur trade era. trapping in North America. Eminent scholar James A. Hanson tracks the evolution of the technology and its $25 each plus postage deployment by Euro-Americans and Indians.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NA TIO NAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard. SUite 1100 PORT LAND, OREGON 97232·1274 January 11 , 2013 Lorri Lee Pacific Northwest Regional Director U .S. Bureau ofReclamation 1160 North Curtis Road, Suite 100 Boise, Idaho 83706-1234 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Odessa Subarea Modified Partial Groundwater Replacement Project. (NWR-2012-9371) Dear Ms. Lee: Enclosed is the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Odessa Subarea Modified Partial Groundwater Replacement Project on the Colwnbia River in Adams, Lincoln, Franklin and Grant Counties, Washington. NMFS received a final biological assessment (BA) from Reclamation on November 6, 2012. Reclamation's BA determined that Columbia River chum salmon were likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action, 12 other species ofESA listed salmon and steelhead would not likely be adversely affected by the proposed action, and that Pacific eulachon, green sturgeon, and southern resident killer whales would not likely be adversely affected by the proposed action. NMFS disagreed with Reclamation's "Not Likely
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Estuary Program Story Map Text-only File 1) Introduction Welcome to the National Estuary Program story map. Since 1987, the EPA National Estuary Program (NEP) has made a unique and lasting contribution to protecting and restoring our nation's estuaries, delivering environmental and public health benefits to the American people. This story map describes the 28 National Estuary Programs, the issues they face, and how place-based partnerships coordinate local actions. To use this tool, click through the four tabs at the top and scroll around to learn about our National Estuary Programs. Want to learn more about a specific NEP? 1. Click on the "Get to Know the NEPs" tab. 2. Click on the map or scroll through the list to find the NEP you are interested in. 3. Click the link in the NEP description to explore a story map created just for that NEP. Program Overview Our 28 NEPs are located along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico. The NEPs employ a watershed approach, extensive public participation, and collaborative science-based problem- solving to address watershed challenges. To address these challenges, the NEPs develop and implement long-term plans (called Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (link opens in new tab)) to coordinate local actions. The NEPs and their partners have protected and restored approximately 2 million acres of habitat. On average, NEPs leverage $19 for every $1 provided by the EPA, demonstrating the value of federal government support for locally-driven efforts. View the NEPmap. What is an estuary? An estuary is a partially-enclosed, coastal water body where freshwater from rivers and streams mixes with salt water from the ocean.
    [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]
  • 2017-2018 Enclosure Sampling Data
    These data were collected for SK Grant NA16NMF4270254 between June 26, 2017, and June 15, 2018. The data include fish sampling within enclosure and fyke nets deployed within the East Bay region of North Humboldt Bay, California. Note that there are various worksheets within this Excel Spreadsheet, which describe the various control and treatment sites associated with the fish sampling. The data collected at each site is consistent and described under the "Project Data" section. Disclaimer: These data and related items of information have not been formally disseminated by NOAA, and do not represent any agency determination, view, or policy. WORKSHEETS: Sheet Label Description Eelgrass_Control Fish sampling results from the enclosure net deployed within the eelgrass without Eelgrass_Culture Fish sampling results from the enclosure net deployed within the eelgrass with culture Mudflat_Control Fish sampling results from the enclosure net deployed within the mudflat without Mudflat_Culture Fish sampling results from the enclosure net deployed within the mudflat with culture Eelgrass_Control_Fyke Fish sampling results from the fyke net deployed within the eelgrass without culture Eelgrass_Culture_Fyke Fish sampling results from the fyke net deployed within the eelgrass with culture PROJECT DATA: Category Description Sampling Date Date of net deployment Family Family taxonmic level associated with fish identification Scientific name of the fish species, identified to the lowest Scientific Name Species taxonomic level possible Common Name Common
    [Show full text]
  • Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L
    PERSPECTIVE Goodbye to “Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L. Rypel | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA. E-mail: [email protected] Parsa Saffarinia | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Caryn C. Vaughn | University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of Biology, Norman, OK Larry Nesper | University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Anthropology, Madison, WI Katherine O’Reilly | University of Notre Dame, Department of Biological Sciences, Notre Dame, IN Christine A. Parisek | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA | The Nature Conservancy, Science Communications, Boise, ID Peter B. Moyle | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA Nann A. Fangue | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Miranda Bell- Tilcock | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA David Ayers | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Solomon R. David | Nicholls State University, Department of Biological Sciences, Thibodaux, LA While sometimes difficult to admit, perspectives of European and white males have overwhelmingly dominated fisheries science and management in the USA. This dynamic is exemplified by bias against “rough fish”— a pejorative ascribing low- to- zero value for countless native fishes. One product of this bias is that biologists have ironically worked against conservation of diverse fishes for over a century, and these problems persist today.
    [Show full text]
  • Burner, L. C, J. A. North, R. A. Farr, and T. A. Rien. 2000
    WHITE STURGEON MITIGATIONMITIGATION AND RESTORATIORESTORATIONN IN THE COLUMBIA ANDAND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAUPSTREAMM FROM BONNEVILLE DADAM.M. ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT APRIL 1998 - MARCH 1999 Edited by: David L. Ward Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife In Cooperation With: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission University of Idaho Prepared For: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 86-50 Contract Number DE-AI79-86BP63584 CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY by David L. Ward 3 REPORT A. Evaluate the success of developing and implementing a management plan for enhancing production of white sturgeon in reservoirs between Bonneville and McNary dams. by Lisa C. Burner, John A. North, Ruth A. Farr, and Thomas A. Rien 6 REPORT B. Evaluate the success of developing and implementing a management plan for white sturgeon in reservoirs between Bonneville and McNary dams in enhancing production. Describe the life history and population dynamics of subadult and adult white sturgeon upstream of McNary Dam and downstream from Bonneville Dam. by John D. DeVore, Brad W. James, Dennis R. Gilliland, and Brad J. Cady 41 REPORT C. Describe reproduction and early life history characteristics of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams. Define habitat requirements for spawning and rearing white sturgeons and quantify the extent of habitat available in the Columbia River between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams. by Kevin M. Kappenman, Darren G.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Sturgeon Limit Burrowing Shrimp Populations in Pacific Northwest Estuaries?
    Environ Biol Fish (2008) 83:283–296 DOI 10.1007/s10641-008-9333-y Do sturgeon limit burrowing shrimp populations in Pacific Northwest Estuaries? Brett R. Dumbauld & David L. Holden & Olaf P. Langness Received: 22 January 2007 /Accepted: 28 January 2008 /Published online: 4 March 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract Green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, and we present evidence from exclusion studies and field white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus, are fre- observation that the predator making the pits can have quent inhabitants of coastal estuaries from northern a significant cumulative negative effect on burrowing California, USA to British Columbia, Canada. An shrimp density. These burrowing shrimp present a analysis of stomach contents from 95 green stur- threat to the aquaculture industry in Washington State geon and six white sturgeon commercially landed in due to their ability to de-stabilize the substrate on Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and the Columbia River which shellfish are grown. Despite an active burrowing estuary during 2000–2005 revealed that 17–97% had shrimp control program in these estuaries, it seems empty stomachs, but those fish with items in their unlikely that current burrowing shrimp abundance and guts fed predominantly on benthic prey items and availability as food is a limiting factor for threatened fish. Burrowing thalassinid shrimp (mostly Neo- green sturgeon stocks. However, these large predators trypaea californiensis) were important food items for may have performed an important top down control both white and especially for green sturgeon taken in function on shrimp populations in the past when they Willapa Bay, Washington during summer 2003, where were more abundant.
    [Show full text]