DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of the Effects of the Yakima Basin Storage Study On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of the Effects of the Yakima Basin Storage Study On Assessment of the Effects of the Yakima Basin Storage Study on Columbia River Fish Proximate to Proposed Intake Locations A component of Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study, Washington Technical Series No. TS-YSS-13 Columbia River, potential pump site U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado January 2008 The mission of the U.S. Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Assessment of the Effects of the Yakima Basin Storage Study on Columbia River Fish Proximate to The Proposed Intake Locations A component of Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study, Washington Technical Series No. TS-YSS-13 Fisheries and Wildlife Resources Raymond Bark Steve Hiebert Vince Riedman Juddson Sechrist Water Research Resources Laboratory Jim Higgs NOAA-Fisheries, Seattle WA Andrew H. Dittman School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle WA Thomas P. Quinn U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado January 2008 PREFACE The Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study of options for additional water storage in the Yakima River basin. Section 214 of the Act of February 20, 2003 (Public Law 108-7), contains this authorization and includes the provision “… with emphasis on the feasibility of storage of Columbia River water in the potential Black Rock Reservoir and the benefit of additional storage to endangered and threatened fish, irrigated agriculture, and municipal water supply.” Reclamation initiated the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study (Storage Study) in May 2003. As guided by the authorization, the purpose of the Storage Study is to identify and examine the viability and acceptability of alternate projects by: (1) diversion of Columbia River water to a potential Black Rock reservoir for further water transfer to irrigation entities in the lower Yakima River basin as an exchange supply, thereby reducing irrigation demand on Yakima River water and improving Yakima Project stored water supplies; and (2) creation of additional water storage within the Yakima River basin. In considering the benefits to be achieved, study objectives are to modify Yakima Project flow management operations to improve the flow regime of the Yakima River system for fisheries, provide a more reliable supply for existing proratable water users, and provide water supply for future municipal demands. State support for the Storage Study was provided in the 2003 Legislative session. The 2003 budget included appropriations for the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) with the provision that the funds “. are provided solely for expenditure under a contract between the department of ecology and the United States bureau of reclamation for the development of plans, engineering, and financing reports and other preconstruction activities associated with the development of water storage projects in the Yakima river basin, consistent with the Yakima river basin water enhancement project, P.L. 103-434. The initial water storage feasibility study shall be for the Black Rock reservoir project.” Since that initial legislation, the State of Washington has appropriated additional matching funds. Storage Study alternatives were identified from previous studies by other entities and Reclamation, appraisal assessments by Reclamation in 2003 through 2006, and public input. Reclamation filed a Notice of Intent and Ecology filed a Determination of Significance to prepare a combined Draft Planning Report and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PR/EIS) on December 29, 2006. A scoping process, including public scoping meetings, in January 2007 identified several i concepts to be considered in the Draft PR/EIS. Those concepts have been developed into “Joint” and “State” Alternatives. The Joint Alternatives fall under the congressional authorization and the analyses are being cost-shared by Reclamation and Ecology. The State Alternatives are outside the congressional authorization, but within the authority of the State legislation, and will be analyzed by Ecology only. Analysis of all alternatives will be included in the Draft PR/EIS. This technical document and others explain the analyses performed to determine how well the alternatives meet the goals of the Storage Study and the impacts of the alternatives on the environment. These documents will address such issues as hydrologic modeling, sediment modeling, temperature modeling, fish habitat modeling and designs and costs. All technical documents will be referenced in the Draft PR/EIS and available for review ii CONTENTS Preface ...................................................................................................................... i Summary ..................................................................................................................S-1 Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose of this Report..................................................................................1 Chapter 2 Existing Facilities and Operations............................................................3 2.1 Current Operations.......................................................................................3 2.2 Intake Area—Priest Rapids Lake.................................................................6 2.3 Intake Area in Wanapum Pool ...................................................................14 Chapter 3 Methodology .............................................................................................15 3.1 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)......................................................15 3.1.1 CFD Program Description .............................................................15 3.1.2 Model Description.........................................................................16 3.1.3 Results............................................................................................19 3.2 Hydroacoustic Survey................................................................................20 3.2.1 Methods .........................................................................................20 3.2.2 Results............................................................................................21 Chapter 4 Potential Project Effects on Anadromous Fish Spawning, Juvenile Rearing Habitat, Fry Stranding, Passage and Migration.............................................................................25 4.1 Introduction................................................................................................25 4.2 Description of Salmonid Species ...............................................................25 4.2.1 Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) ........................................25 4.2.2 Rainbow trout/Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ...........................................................................................26 4.2.3 Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)..............................26 4.2.4 Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)...........................................27 4.3 Juvenile Salmon Monitoring Programs......................................................28 Chapter 5 Resident Fish Species and Potential Project Effects .............................41 5.1 Description of Individual Species ..............................................................41 5.1.1 Acipenseridae.................................................................................42 5.1.2 Clupeidae .......................................................................................43 5.1.3 Cyprinidae......................................................................................44 iii 5.1.4 Catostomidae .................................................................................49 5.1.5 Ictaluridae ......................................................................................51 5.1.6 Salmonidae.....................................................................................53 5.2 Percopsidae ................................................................................................57 5.3 Gadidae ......................................................................................................57 5.4 Gasterosteidae ............................................................................................58 5.5 Cottidae ......................................................................................................59 5.6 Centrarchidae .............................................................................................62 5.7 Percidae......................................................................................................65 Chapter 6 Factors and Estimate of Fish Mortality at the Intake of Priest Rapids Lake...............................................................................67 6.1 Smolt Passage Survival in the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Inventory of Fish in Streams in Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science An Inventory of Fish in Streams at Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003 Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2013/717.N ON THE COVER National Park staff conducting a snorkel fish survey in Kotsuck Creek, Mount Rainier National Park, 2002. Photograph courtesy of Mount Rainier National Park. An Inventory of Fish in Streams at Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003 Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2013/717.N Barbara A. Samora, Heather Moran, Rebecca Lofgren National Park Service North Coast and Cascades Network Inventory and Monitoring Program Mount Rainier National Park Tahoma Woods Star Rt. Ashford, WA. 98304 April 2013 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. These reports are 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]
  • 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]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard
    Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard Version 4.0 March, 2020 Revision History Version 1.0 Endorsed by the Oregon Geographic Information Council March 27, 2008 Version 2.0 Revised September 2010 – February, 2011 based on input from ODFW, BLM, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, NOAA Fisheries, Oregon Dept. of Transportation and the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. Revisions include changes to the scope of the standard, modifications to some attribute domains, the addition of two optional attribute elements and the addition of two business rules. Version 3.0 Revised December, 2014 – March, 2015 based on input from ODFW, BLM, USFS, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. Revisions include changes to the minimum graphic elements, optional attribute elements, Domain of Attributes (Appendix C) and Business Rules (Appendix D). Endorsed by the Oregon Geographic Information Council June 17, 2015 Version 4.0 Revised April – September, 2019 based on input from ODFW, BLM, USFS, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Weyerhaeuser Co., Urban Greenspaces Institute. Revisions include a new optional attribute element to identify specific habitat end extent determinations, a new optional attribute element to describe habitat access methods, a new optional attribute element to identify end extent barriers, changes related to the incorporation of modeled data, an expansion of the species domain, new business rules for designating Essential Salmonid Habitat and rules to clarify acceptable methods for standardized fish and habitat surveys.
    [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]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Basin-Wide Native Non-Game Fish Assessment
    Basin‐wide Native Non‐game Fish Assessment 2011 Annual Report Revised on February 21, 2013 USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Written by Christopher Lemmers (Biological Science Technician) and Maura Santora (Aquatic Biologist) Reviewed by Sarah Muskopf (Acting Forest Aquatic Biologist) and Shana Gross (Forest Ecologist) Approved by Holly Eddinger (Biological Program Leader) Original Version: April 19, 2012 Revised Version: February 21, 2013 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Willamette River Environmental Dredging and Ecosystem Restoration Project
    LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DRAFT FINAL REPORT March 2015 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 1020 SW Taylor St. Suite 530 Portland, OR 97205 This page left blank intentionally EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment (FS-EA) evaluates ecosystem restoration actions in the Lower Willamette River, led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the non-Federal sponsor, the City of Portland (City). The study area encompasses the Lower Willamette River Watershed and its tributaries, from its confluence with the Columbia River at River Mile (RM) 0 to Willamette Falls, located at RM 26. The goal of this study is to identify a cost effective ecosystem restoration plan that maximizes habitat benefits while minimizing impacts to environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. This report contains a summary of the feasibility study from plan formulation through selection of a recommended plan, 35% designs and cost estimating, a description of the baseline conditions, and description of impacts that may result from implementation of the recommended plan. This integrated report complies with NEPA requirements. Sections 1500.1(c) and 1508.9(a) (1) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended) require federal agencies to “provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact” on actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the federal government to insure such actions adequately address “environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment." The Willamette River watershed was once an extensive and interconnected system of active channels, open slack waters, emergent wetlands, riparian forests, and adjacent upland forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Beaver Dams, Streamflow Complexity, and the Distribution of a Rare Minnow, Lepidomeda Copei
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319041883 Beaver dams, streamflow complexity, and the distribution of a rare minnow, Lepidomeda copei Article in Ecology of Freshwater Fish · March 2018 DOI: 10.1111/eff.12374 CITATIONS READS 9 213 2 authors, including: Daniel C. Dauwalter Trout Unlimited 106 PUBLICATIONS 1,402 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Global Trout and Char Conservation Network View project Multiple Population Viability Analysis of Desert Trout View project All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel C. Dauwalter on 18 March 2018. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Accepted: 8 August 2017 DOI: 10.1111/eff.12374 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Beaver dams, streamflow complexity, and the distribution of a rare minnow, Lepidomeda copei Daniel C. Dauwalter1 | John D. Walrath1,2 1Trout Unlimited, Boise, ID, USA Abstract 2Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 351 Astle Avenue, Green River, WY, USA Freshwater fishes are threatened globally, and often too little is known about threat- ened species to effectively guide their conservation. Habitat complexity is linked to Correspondence Daniel C. Dauwalter, Trout Unlimited, Boise, fish species diversity and persistence, and degraded streams often lack habitat com- ID, USA. plexity. Beaver Castor spp., in turn, have been used to restore streams and increase Email: [email protected] habitat complexity. The northern leatherside chub Lepidomeda copei is a rare, small- Funding information bodied, drift- feeding minnow that has anecdotally been observed to use complex Trout Unlimited, Coldwater Conservation Fund; U.S.
    [Show full text]