Fight and air exposure times of caught and released salmonids from the South Fork Snake River

Catch-and-release regulations are among the most common types of fishing regulations. In recent years, concerns have arisen regarding the exposure of fish to air during catch-and-release angling. The purpose of our study was to quantify the length of time angled fish were exposed to air by anglers in a typical catch-and-release fishery and relate it to the lengths of time reported to produce negative effects. In total, 312 individual anglers were observed on the South Fork Snake River, Idaho, from May through August 2016. Fight time varied from 1.1 s to 230.0 s, and average fight time was 40.0 s (SD=36.8). Total air exposure times varied from 0.0 s to 91.8 s and averaged 19.3 s (SD=15.0). Though not statistically significant, a trend in reduced fight times was observed when anglers were guided and increased air exposure times when a net was used and a picture was taken. Results of the current study suggest that anglers expose fish to air for periods that are much less than those reported to cause mortality

Can Orchards Help Connect Mediterranean Ecosystems? Animal Movement Data Alter Conservation Priorities

As natural habitats become fragmented by human activities, animals must increasingly move through human-dominated systems, particularly agricultural landscapes. Mapping areas important for animal movement has therefore become a key part of conservation planning. Models of landscape connectivity are often parameterized using expert opinion and seldom distinguish between the risks and barriers presented by different crop types. Recent research, however, suggests different crop types, such as row crops and orchards, differ in the degree to which they facilitate or impede species movements. Like many mammalian carnivores, bobcats (Lynx rufus) are sensitive to fragmentation and loss of connectivity between habitat patches. We investigated how distinguishing between different agricultural land covers might change conclusions about the relative conservation importance of different land uses in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Bobcats moved relatively quickly in row crops but relatively slowly in orchards, at rates similar to those in natural habitats of woodlands and scrub. We found that parameterizing a connectivity model using empirical data on bobcat movements in agricultural lands and other land covers, instead of parameterizing the model using habitat suitability indices based on expert opinion, altered locations of predicted animal movement routes. These results emphasize that differentiating between types of agriculture can alter conservation planning outcomes

Fish passage barrier and surface water diversion screening assessment and prioritization manual

This manual was originally written in 1998 to provide a standardized methodology forevaluating fish passage at road crossings. The manual has since been expanded to includeevaluation of additional instream features, including dams, fishways, other human-made instreamstructures, natural barriers, and surface water diversions. Revisions to the prior version of thismanual (August 2000) are summarized in Table 1.1. A glossary of words, terms, andabbreviations used in this manual can be found in Appendix A

Fish passage design at road culverts: A design manual for fish passage at road crossings

This manual is for the design of permanent new, retrofit, or replacement road crossingculverts that will not block the migration of salmonids. The manual is intended for use bydesigners of culverts including private landowners and engineers. The level of expertisenecessary to use this manual varies depending on site conditions and the design option selected.For all but the no-slope design option (described below), it is assumed that the designer has abasic background of hydraulic engineering, hydrology, and soils/structural engineering toaccomplish an appropriate design. Formal fishways may be required at some culvert sites to provide passage. The design of fishways is beyond the scope of this manual though there is abrief description of some basic design concepts included here. A fish passage engineer should beconsulted for additional assistance for the design of fishways. The organization of the manualfollows the logical steps expected in a prudent culvert design. A data form is provided in AppendixF describing the data needed for the design and for those evaluating the design. For explanationsand definitions of terms describing the channel, hydrology and data requirements see theExplanation of Data also in Appendix F. Several case studies showing various culvert designoptions are described in Appendix G. The manual is based on the premise that a culvert is thedesired road crossing option at a site. That does not mean that for fish traffic, fish passage orother ecological functions, a culvert is the actually best solution or even permitted. Though thismanual focuses on fish passage, there are other habitat and ecological considerations that arefactors in the siting and design of road crossing structures. Those considerations are outlined inthe section Other Passage and Habitat Considerations. This manual does not provide guidanceabout the inventory of culverts or the prioritization of culvert barrier remedies. That information isincluded in Fish Passage Barrier Assessment and Prioritization Manual, 1998 by WDFW

Selected Area Fishery Evaluation Project Economic Analysis Study Final Report, Final Draft Revision 4: November 10, 2006.

The purpose of this Study is to provide an economic review of current and proposed changes to the Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project (SAFE or Project). The Study results are the information requested in comments made on the Project by a joint review dated March 2005 by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) and Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB). North et al. (2006) addressed technical questions about operations and plans, and this report contains the response information for comments concerning Project economics. This report can be considered an economic feasibility review meeting guidelines for cost-effective analysis developed by the IEAB (2003). It also contains other economic measurement descriptions to illustrate the economic effects of SAFE. The SAFE is an expansion of a hatchery project (locally called the Clatsop Economic Development Council Fisheries Project or CEDC) started in 1977 that released an early run coho (COH) stock into the Youngs River. The Youngs River entrance to the Columbia River at River Mile 12 is called Youngs Bay, which is located near Astoria, Oregon. The purpose of the hatchery project was to provide increased fishing opportunities for the in-river commercial fishing gillnet fleet. Instead of just releasing fish at the hatchery, a small scale net pen acclimation project in Youngs Bay was tried in 1987. Hirose et al. (1998) found that 1991-1992 COH broodstock over-wintered at the net pens had double the smolt-to-adult return rate (SAR) of traditional hatchery release, less than one percent stray rates, and 99 percent fishery harvests. It was surmised that smolts from other Columbia River hatcheries could be hauled to the net pens for acclimation and release to take advantage of the SAR's and fishing rates. Proposals were tendered to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and other agencies to fund the expansion for using other hatcheries smolts and other off-channel release sites. The BPA, who had been providing funds to the Project since 1982, greatly increased their financial participation for the experimental expansion of the net pen operations in 1993. Instead of just being a funding partner in CEDC operations, the BPA became a major financing source for other hatchery production operations. The BPA has viewed the 10 plus years of funding since then as an explorative project with two phases: a 'research' phase ending in 1993, and a 'development' phase ending in 2006. The next phase is referred to in proposals to BPA for continued funding as an 'establishment' phase to be started in 2007. There are three components of SAFE: (1) The CEDC owns and operates the net pens in the Columbia River estuary on the Oregon side. The CEDC also owns and operates a hatchery on the South Fork Klaskanine River. (2) There are many other hatcheries contributing smolts to the net pen operations. The present suite of hatcheries are operated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The WDFW owns and operates the net pens at Deep River on the Washington side of the Columbia River. (3) The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) responsibilities are performed by employees of WDFW and ODFW. BPA provides funding for all three components as part of NPCC Project No. 199306000. The CEDC and other contributing hatcheries have other sources of funds that also support the SAFE. BPA's minor share (less than 10 percent) of CEDC funding in 1982 grew to about 55 percent in 1993 with the beginning of the development phase of the Project. The balance of the CEDC budget over the years has been from other federal, state, and local government programs. It has also included a 10 percent fee assessment (five percent of ex-vessel value received by harvesters plus five percent of purchase value made by processors) on harvests that take place in off-channel locations near the release sites. The CEDC total annual budget in the last several years has been in the $600 to$700 thousand range. The Project over the years also has relied on heavy volunteer participation and other agency in-kind support. The CEDC budget is exclusive of WDFW and ODFW M&E costs, and all non-CEDC hatchery smolt production costs. The annual estimated operation and management costs for SAFE except for the value of volunteer time and donated materials is in the $2.4 million range. Of this amount, BPA annual funding has been in the$1.6 million or two thirds range in recent years. Depreciation on capital assets (or an equivalent amount for annual contributions to a capital improvement fund) would be in addition to these operation and management costs. North et al. (2006) documented results through the second of three phases and described potential capacities. Full capacity as defined in early planning for the project (TRG 1996) was not reached by the time the second phase ended

Status of westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) in the United States: 2002.

200