Search

Search Results

• 41. [Image] Endangered Species Act : successes and challenges in agency collaboration and the use of scientific information in the decision making process : testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate / statement of Robin M. Nazzaro

  	Summary In summary, we found that federal agencies have taken steps to improve collaboration as a way to reduce conflicts that often occur between species protections and other resource uses, but that ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Endangered Species Act : successes and challenges in agency collaboration and the use of scientific information in the decision making process : testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate / statement of Robin M. Nazzaro Author: Nazzaro, Robin M Year: 2005, 2007 Summary In summary, we found that federal agencies have taken steps to improve collaboration as a way to reduce conflicts that often occur between species protections and other resource uses, but that more could be done to promote routine use of collaboration and clarify agencies' responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. In September 2003, we reported on efforts taken by the Department of Defense (DOD) to coordinate with other federal land managers in order to reduce the impact of species protections on military activities. We found several cases where such efforts were successful. For example, at the Barry M. Goldwater range in Arizona, Air Force officials worked with officials at FWS and the National Park Service to enhance food sources for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn in locations away from military training areas. As a result, the Air Force was able to minimize the impact of restrictions on training missions due to the presence of the pronghorn. However, such cases were few and far between because, among other things, there were no procedures or centralized information sources for facilitating such collaboration. In March 2004, we reported on collaboration that takes place pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the act?referred to as the consultation process?in the Pacific Northwest. In this area, large numbers of protected species and vast amounts of federal land conspire to make balancing species protection and resource use a contentious endeavor. We found that steps the Services and other federal agencies had taken made the consultation process run smoother and contributed to improved interagency relationships. However, some problems have persisted. For example, some agencies disagree with the Services about when consultation is necessary and how much analysis is required to determine potential impacts on protected species. In each of these reports, we made recommendations intended to further improve collaboration among federal agencies with regard to balancing species protections and other resource uses, and?in the March 2004 report?to resolve disagreements about the consultations process. DOD and FWS have begun discussing an implementation strategy to improve collaboration regarding species protection on military and other federal lands and development of a training program. With regard to the consultation process, while FWS and NMFS have continued to take steps to expand their collaboration processes, the agencies did not believe that disagreements about the consultation process require additional steps. They believe that current training and guidance is sufficient to address questions about the process. With regard to the use of science, we have found that FWS generally used the best available information in key Endangered Species Act decisions, although the agency was not always integrating new research into ongoing species management decisions. In addition, we identified concerns with the adequacy of the information available to make critical habitat decisions. In December 2002, we reported on many aspects of the decision making for species protections regarding the Mojave Desert tortoise. We found that the decision to list the tortoise as threatened, its critical habitat designation, and the recommended steps in the species' recovery plan, were based on the best available information. However, despite over $100 million in expenditures on recovery actions and research over the past 25 years, it is still unclear what the status of the tortoise is and what effect, if any, recovery actions are having on the species because research has not been coordinated in a way to provide essential management information. Such information is critically important as some of the protective actions, such as restrictions on grazing and off road vehicle use, are vigorously opposed by interest groups who question whether they are necessary for the tortoise's recovery. Accordingly, we recommended that FWS better link land management decisions with research results to ensure that conservation actions and land use restrictions actually benefit the tortoise. In response, FWS recently established a new office with a tortoise recovery coordinator and plans to create an advisory committee to ensure that monitoring and recovery actions are fed back into management decisions. In August 2003, we found that, similar to the decision making regarding the tortoise, FWS decisions about listing species for protection under the act were generally based on the best available information. However, while most critical habitat designations also appeared to be based on the best available information, there were concerns about the adequacy of the information available at the time these decisions are made. Specifically, critical habitat decisions require detailed information of a species' life history and habitat needs and the economic impacts of such decisions?information that is often not available and that FWS is unable to gather before it is obligated under the act to make the decision. As a result, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior clarify how and when critical habitat should be designated and identify if any policy, regulatory, or legislative changes are required to enable the department to make better informed designations. FWS has not responded to our recommendation. Title: Endangered Species Act : successes and challenges in agency collaboration and the use of scientific information in the decision making process : testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate / statement of Robin M. Nazzaro Author: Nazzaro, Robin M Year: 2005, 2007 Summary In summary, we found that federal agencies have taken steps to improve collaboration as a way to reduce conflicts that often occur between species protections and other resource uses, but that more could be done to promote routine use of collaboration and clarify agencies' responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. In September 2003, we reported on efforts taken by the Department of Defense (DOD) to coordinate with other federal land managers in order to reduce the impact of species protections on military activities. We found several cases where such efforts were successful. For example, at the Barry M. Goldwater range in Arizona, Air Force officials worked with officials at FWS and the National Park Service to enhance food sources for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn in locations away from military training areas. As a result, the Air Force was able to minimize the impact of restrictions on training missions due to the presence of the pronghorn. However, such cases were few and far between because, among other things, there were no procedures or centralized information sources for facilitating such collaboration. In March 2004, we reported on collaboration that takes place pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the act?referred to as the consultation process?in the Pacific Northwest. In this area, large numbers of protected species and vast amounts of federal land conspire to make balancing species protection and resource use a contentious endeavor. We found that steps the Services and other federal agencies had taken made the consultation process run smoother and contributed to improved interagency relationships. However, some problems have persisted. For example, some agencies disagree with the Services about when consultation is necessary and how much analysis is required to determine potential impacts on protected species. In each of these reports, we made recommendations intended to further improve collaboration among federal agencies with regard to balancing species protections and other resource uses, and?in the March 2004 report?to resolve disagreements about the consultations process. DOD and FWS have begun discussing an implementation strategy to improve collaboration regarding species protection on military and other federal lands and development of a training program. With regard to the consultation process, while FWS and NMFS have continued to take steps to expand their collaboration processes, the agencies did not believe that disagreements about the consultation process require additional steps. They believe that current training and guidance is sufficient to address questions about the process. With regard to the use of science, we have found that FWS generally used the best available information in key Endangered Species Act decisions, although the agency was not always integrating new research into ongoing species management decisions. In addition, we identified concerns with the adequacy of the information available to make critical habitat decisions. In December 2002, we reported on many aspects of the decision making for species protections regarding the Mojave Desert tortoise. We found that the decision to list the tortoise as threatened, its critical habitat designation, and the recommended steps in the species' recovery plan, were based on the best available information. However, despite over $100 million in expenditures on recovery actions and research over the past 25 years, it is still unclear what the status of the tortoise is and what effect, if any, recovery actions are having on the species because research has not been coordinated in a way to provide essential management information. Such information is critically important as some of the protective actions, such as restrictions on grazing and off road vehicle use, are vigorously opposed by interest groups who question whether they are necessary for the tortoise's recovery. Accordingly, we recommended that FWS better link land management decisions with research results to ensure that conservation actions and land use restrictions actually benefit the tortoise. In response, FWS recently established a new office with a tortoise recovery coordinator and plans to create an advisory committee to ensure that monitoring and recovery actions are fed back into management decisions. In August 2003, we found that, similar to the decision making regarding the tortoise, FWS decisions about listing species for protection under the act were generally based on the best available information. However, while most critical habitat designations also appeared to be based on the best available information, there were concerns about the adequacy of the information available at the time these decisions are made. Specifically, critical habitat decisions require detailed information of a species' life history and habitat needs and the economic impacts of such decisions?information that is often not available and that FWS is unable to gather before it is obligated under the act to make the decision. As a result, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior clarify how and when critical habitat should be designated and identify if any policy, regulatory, or legislative changes are required to enable the department to make better informed designations. FWS has not responded to our recommendation. Close

• 42. [Image] Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed Analysis

  	x, 386 p., ill., maps (some col.); Cover title; "July 2003"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed Analysis Author: U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management; Klamath Falls Resource Area Office; U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service; Fremont-Winema National Forests; Modoc National Forest Year: 2003, 2006, 2005 x, 386 p., ill., maps (some col.); Cover title; "July 2003" Title: Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed Analysis Author: U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management; Klamath Falls Resource Area Office; U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service; Fremont-Winema National Forests; Modoc National Forest Year: 2003, 2006, 2005 x, 386 p., ill., maps (some col.); Cover title; "July 2003" Close

• 43. [Image] Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened

  	In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Year: 2005, 2008 In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, allowing resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species. Additional material that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Forms (species assessment forms, previously called candidate forms) for each candidate species. We request additional status information that may be available for the 286 candidate species. We will consider this information in preparing listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review, as it will help us in monitoring changes in the status of candidate species and in management for conserving them. Previous Notices of Review The Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on endangered and threatened plant species, which was published as House Document No. 94-51 Title: Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Year: 2005, 2008 In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, allowing resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species. Additional material that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Forms (species assessment forms, previously called candidate forms) for each candidate species. We request additional status information that may be available for the 286 candidate species. We will consider this information in preparing listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review, as it will help us in monitoring changes in the status of candidate species and in management for conserving them. Previous Notices of Review The Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on endangered and threatened plant species, which was published as House Document No. 94-51 Close

• 44. [Image] Bull trout restoration and brook trout eradication at Crater Lake National Park, Oregon

  	ill., 1 map (sketched) ; Report title; "Drought conditions are continuing in 1994, at the writing of this report in March of 1994, Crater Lake National Park had received approximately 50% of the annual ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bull trout restoration and brook trout eradication at Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Buktenica, Mark. Year: 1994, 2008, 2009 ill., 1 map (sketched) ; Report title; "Drought conditions are continuing in 1994, at the writing of this report in March of 1994, Crater Lake National Park had received approximately 50% of the annual average accumulated precipatation to date." - P. 17.; Title: Bull trout restoration and brook trout eradication at Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Buktenica, Mark. Year: 1994, 2008, 2009 ill., 1 map (sketched) ; Report title; "Drought conditions are continuing in 1994, at the writing of this report in March of 1994, Crater Lake National Park had received approximately 50% of the annual average accumulated precipatation to date." - P. 17.; Close

• 45. [Image] Life zones with special reference to the botanical features of those of Crater Lake National Park

  	Thesis, M.A., Oregon, Dept. of Biology; Bibliography: p. 70-71
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Life zones with special reference to the botanical features of those of Crater Lake National Park Author: Wynd, Frederick Lyle Year: 1930, 2009 Thesis, M.A., Oregon, Dept. of Biology; Bibliography: p. 70-71 Title: Life zones with special reference to the botanical features of those of Crater Lake National Park Author: Wynd, Frederick Lyle Year: 1930, 2009 Thesis, M.A., Oregon, Dept. of Biology; Bibliography: p. 70-71 Close

• 46. [Image] Trinity River Flow Evaluation: final report: a report to the Secretary , U.S. Department of the Interior

  	TRINITY RIVER FLOW EVALUATION - FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY When Congress authorized construction of the Trinity River Division (TRD) of the Central Valley Project (CVP) in 1955, the expectation was ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Trinity River Flow Evaluation: final report: a report to the Secretary , U.S. Department of the Interior Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office; Hoopa Valley Tribe Year: 1999, 2006, 2005 TRINITY RIVER FLOW EVALUATION - FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY When Congress authorized construction of the Trinity River Division (TRD) of the Central Valley Project (CVP) in 1955, the expectation was that surplus water could be exported to the Central Valley without harm to the fish and wildlife resources of the Trinity River. The TRD began operations in 1963, diverting up to 90 percent of the Trinity River's average annual yield at Lewiston, California. Access to 109 river miles of fish habitat and replenishment of coarse sediment from upstream river segments were permanently eliminated by Lewiston and Trinity Dams. Within a decade of completing the TRD, the adverse biological and geomorphic responses to TRD operations were obvious. Riverine habitats below Lewiston Dam degraded and salmon and steelhead populations noticeably declined. In 1981, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) directed that a Trinity River Flow Evaluation (TRFE) study be conducted to determine how to rest Title: Trinity River Flow Evaluation: final report: a report to the Secretary , U.S. Department of the Interior Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office; Hoopa Valley Tribe Year: 1999, 2006, 2005 TRINITY RIVER FLOW EVALUATION - FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY When Congress authorized construction of the Trinity River Division (TRD) of the Central Valley Project (CVP) in 1955, the expectation was that surplus water could be exported to the Central Valley without harm to the fish and wildlife resources of the Trinity River. The TRD began operations in 1963, diverting up to 90 percent of the Trinity River's average annual yield at Lewiston, California. Access to 109 river miles of fish habitat and replenishment of coarse sediment from upstream river segments were permanently eliminated by Lewiston and Trinity Dams. Within a decade of completing the TRD, the adverse biological and geomorphic responses to TRD operations were obvious. Riverine habitats below Lewiston Dam degraded and salmon and steelhead populations noticeably declined. In 1981, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) directed that a Trinity River Flow Evaluation (TRFE) study be conducted to determine how to rest Close

• 47. [Image] The Water Report. Klamath Fishery Science: Controversy in the Klamath River Basin

  	Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. Includes bibliographic references. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Water Report. Klamath Fishery Science: Controversy in the Klamath River Basin Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2005, 2008, 2006 Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. Includes bibliographic references. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/. Title: The Water Report. Klamath Fishery Science: Controversy in the Klamath River Basin Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2005, 2008, 2006 Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. Includes bibliographic references. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/. Close

• 48. [Image] Implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Report to the House Committee on Resources)

  	I. Executive Summary There is increasing recognition from most quarters that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) needs to be improved. Exactly what those improvements should be is less uniform. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Report to the House Committee on Resources) Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources Year: 2005, 2007 I. Executive Summary There is increasing recognition from most quarters that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) needs to be improved. Exactly what those improvements should be is less uniform. This report examines the implementation of selected aspects of the endangered species program relying predominately on information provided by the primary implementing agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and offers some recommendations for possible improvements to the program. Debate over the ESA has traditionally been highly polarized. For example, compensating landowners for takings or reductions in property value has been opposed by some who argue updating the law to address this is not necessary. While consensus on other issues such as the need for increasing conservation incentives and the role states play in endangered species conservation has begun to emerge, one of the most debated aspects of ESA implementation continues to be whether the ESA is effectively conserving endangered and threatened species. While there have been significant strides in conserving individual species such as the whooping crane, red-cockaded woodpecker and gray wolf, few species have been delisted (removed from the endangered list) or downlisted (changed in status from endangered to threatened) because of successful ESA conservation efforts. Some argue that the number of recovered species is an unfair measure, asserting that the three decades the ESA has been in existence is an insufficient amount of time for the lengthy process of species recovery and point to listed species that have not gone extinct as evidence the ESA 'saves' species. From the opposing perspective, while recovery to the point of delisting may require a substantial amount of time for many species, after three decades more progress should be demonstrable through species that have recovered and been delisted. Even if a species has increased in numbers or distribution or the threats facing the species have been reduced, if it has not been delisted on the basis of recovery, the ESA's prohibitions and regulations remain applicable and the ESA should not be a 'one way street.' Of 40 total species removed from the list, 10 domestic species were delisted because of "recovery". Of 33 reclassified species, 10 domestic downlistings (a change from endangered to threatened status) reflected a reduced threat assessment which also allowed more flexibility in management. The FWS's most recent report to Congress (Fiscal years 2001-2002) shows that 77 percent of listed species fall in the 0 to 25 percent recovery achieved bracket and 2 percent fall in the 76 to 100 percent recovery achieved bracket. 39 percent of the FWS managed species are of uncertain status. Of those with an assessed trend, at one end of the spectrum are 3 percent possibly extinct, 1 percent occurring only in captivity and 21 percent declining and at the other end are 30 percent stable and 6 percent improving. These assessments however are subjective. Additionally, the assessment that a species is improving or stable may reflect, for example, a reduction in perceived threats or corrections to inaccurate threat assessments that stemmed from erroneous data rather than actual changes in species' trends that are demonstrated by improved numbers, distribution or other such measurements. Consequently, a meaningful assessment of conservation trends under the ESA using these data is not possible. The data used to list a number of species has been subsequently determined to be erroneous and species that likely do not merit classification as endangered or threatened remain listed. This can consume resources that could be directed to species that do merit listing. The assignment of recovery priorities appears highly skewed and the recovery priority for some species seems questionable. A meaningful distinction between endangered status and threatened status has been blurred as has been the framework for the mechanism of critical habitat. Expenditure reporting has improved but presents an incomplete picture of financial resources dedicated to endangered species. Workloads for litigation regarding activities such as consultation and listing under the ESA's complex structure compete for resources that could otherwise be directed at recovery efforts. The demands associated with ESA Section 4 determinations in combination with the pace of species listings and delistings, the number of possible future additions to the list and the economic impact of listings likely indicate that the current program is not sustainable. Title: Implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Report to the House Committee on Resources) Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources Year: 2005, 2007 I. Executive Summary There is increasing recognition from most quarters that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) needs to be improved. Exactly what those improvements should be is less uniform. This report examines the implementation of selected aspects of the endangered species program relying predominately on information provided by the primary implementing agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and offers some recommendations for possible improvements to the program. Debate over the ESA has traditionally been highly polarized. For example, compensating landowners for takings or reductions in property value has been opposed by some who argue updating the law to address this is not necessary. While consensus on other issues such as the need for increasing conservation incentives and the role states play in endangered species conservation has begun to emerge, one of the most debated aspects of ESA implementation continues to be whether the ESA is effectively conserving endangered and threatened species. While there have been significant strides in conserving individual species such as the whooping crane, red-cockaded woodpecker and gray wolf, few species have been delisted (removed from the endangered list) or downlisted (changed in status from endangered to threatened) because of successful ESA conservation efforts. Some argue that the number of recovered species is an unfair measure, asserting that the three decades the ESA has been in existence is an insufficient amount of time for the lengthy process of species recovery and point to listed species that have not gone extinct as evidence the ESA 'saves' species. From the opposing perspective, while recovery to the point of delisting may require a substantial amount of time for many species, after three decades more progress should be demonstrable through species that have recovered and been delisted. Even if a species has increased in numbers or distribution or the threats facing the species have been reduced, if it has not been delisted on the basis of recovery, the ESA's prohibitions and regulations remain applicable and the ESA should not be a 'one way street.' Of 40 total species removed from the list, 10 domestic species were delisted because of "recovery". Of 33 reclassified species, 10 domestic downlistings (a change from endangered to threatened status) reflected a reduced threat assessment which also allowed more flexibility in management. The FWS's most recent report to Congress (Fiscal years 2001-2002) shows that 77 percent of listed species fall in the 0 to 25 percent recovery achieved bracket and 2 percent fall in the 76 to 100 percent recovery achieved bracket. 39 percent of the FWS managed species are of uncertain status. Of those with an assessed trend, at one end of the spectrum are 3 percent possibly extinct, 1 percent occurring only in captivity and 21 percent declining and at the other end are 30 percent stable and 6 percent improving. These assessments however are subjective. Additionally, the assessment that a species is improving or stable may reflect, for example, a reduction in perceived threats or corrections to inaccurate threat assessments that stemmed from erroneous data rather than actual changes in species' trends that are demonstrated by improved numbers, distribution or other such measurements. Consequently, a meaningful assessment of conservation trends under the ESA using these data is not possible. The data used to list a number of species has been subsequently determined to be erroneous and species that likely do not merit classification as endangered or threatened remain listed. This can consume resources that could be directed to species that do merit listing. The assignment of recovery priorities appears highly skewed and the recovery priority for some species seems questionable. A meaningful distinction between endangered status and threatened status has been blurred as has been the framework for the mechanism of critical habitat. Expenditure reporting has improved but presents an incomplete picture of financial resources dedicated to endangered species. Workloads for litigation regarding activities such as consultation and listing under the ESA's complex structure compete for resources that could otherwise be directed at recovery efforts. The demands associated with ESA Section 4 determinations in combination with the pace of species listings and delistings, the number of possible future additions to the list and the economic impact of listings likely indicate that the current program is not sustainable. Close

• 49. [Image] Upper Klamath Basin bull trout conservation strategy : part 1, a conceptual framework for recovery, final

  	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document presents the framework of a plan to reverse the decline of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) populations in the Klamath Basin. If successful, we expect bull trout ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Upper Klamath Basin bull trout conservation strategy : part 1, a conceptual framework for recovery, final Author: Light, Jeffrey Year: 1996, 2008, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document presents the framework of a plan to reverse the decline of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) populations in the Klamath Basin. If successful, we expect bull trout to recover to a level where they will have a reasonable chance of long-term viability. The work is the collective effort of fish biologists, foresters, other natural resource management professionals, and local landowners representing a diverse array of interests and organizations. Together, these individuals have worked for several years to gather information pertaining to the distribution and status of Klamath bull trout populations and threats to their persistence. The members of the Bull Trout Working Group share the common desire to restore bull trout populations while at the same time sustaining their respective land use interests in the Klamath Basin. This approach provides incentives to all the interested parties to seek agreement on solutions, encouraging cooperative work on an otherwise ambitious and daunting task. The following few pages summarize the plan. Each area is covered again in greater detail in the body of the document. The goals established by the Bull Trout Working Group for this recovery plan are to (1) Secure existing bull trout populations, and (2) Expand the populations to some of their former range and numbers. We pursue these goals with a three step approach of assessment, implementation, and evaluation. We begin with a review of the distribution and status of bull trout generally, then specifically within the Klamath Basin. Next we present available data and interpretations supporting our conclusions regarding the type, magnitude, and extent of physical and biological factors or concerns that may hamper bull trout persistence. Land and fish management activities that contribute to these problem situations are then identified. This is followed by a blueprint for stepwise development and implementation of practical solutions. Finally, a monitoring plan is proposed to measure the success of the recovery efforts. The Klamath Basin Bull trout populations represent a valuable biological resource. These populations exist at the southern edge of the species' distribution, and have distinctive genetic character. In the Upper Klamath River Basin, bull trout are presently found as resident forms in eight isolated headwater streams within six small drainages. (4Headwater streams' in this document refers to very small streams, rather than rivers which are the headwaters for larger rivers). These streams occur in three general locations: they are tributaries of the Sprague River, of the Sycan River and of Upper Klamath Lake. Together, the known populations occupy approximately 23 miles (37 km) of perennial streams. Formerly, bull trout may have occurred in the mainstems of these systems (Gilbert 1897. Dambacher et al. 1992, Roger Smith, ODFW, pers. coram. 1994). In addition to existing populations, other populations are known to have recently occupied nearby streams (Cherry and Coyote creeks, the Upper Sycan River). Estimated current population sizes in each drainage range between 133 and 1,293, indicating that populations are low enough to warrant concern. These population sizes are smaller than the minimum viable population sizes predicted by conservation biology theory. A substantial risk of extirpation via natural disturbance cycles and stochastic events exists for such small populations. Streams that are presently inhabited by bull trout are typically small and spring-fed with steep gradients. They originate in the higher elevations of mountains within the Upper Klamath Basin and flow through forests where land uses range from wilderness and national parkland to commercial forestry and grazing. Eventually, these tributaries or their mainstem receiving waters leave the forest and flow through broad sagebrush-covered valleys or marshes where they widen and flatten. Here livestock grazing and agriculture are the dominant land uses. An assessment of the current situation regarding Klamath Basin bull trout was performed using existing and new information on life history, distribution, habitat requirements by lifestage, environmental requirements, exotic species interactions, angling pressure, land use interactions, habitat fragmentation, population fragmentation and many other factors. Basin-specific information on each of these factors was collected and analyzed, complemented by a thorough review of the literature. Past, present and possible future distributions of bull trout were examined. Particular emphasis was placed on determining the nature and extent of biotic interactions, because this potential agent of bull trout decline has not been thoroughly addressed in other works. Analysis of the assembled information resulted in the identification of several specific natural and anthropogenic factors which are thought to limit the distribution and persistence of bull trout. Habitat quality and quantity are affected by land use to some degree in all currently inhabited bull trout streams except upper Sun Creek. Generally, habitat conditions vary from fair to good in existing bull trout streams. We identified several land uses that have reduced habitat quality. Principal among the abiotic factors of concern is fine sediment loading from (1) road erosion, (2) stream bank and adjacent ground disturbance by livestock, and (3) Bull Trout Document - Final - - 6 - 26-Jan-96 stream-adjacent hillslope erosion from logging. Second among the abiotic factors of concern is elevated temperature. Other concerns include diminished large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, declining bank integrity, low flows, changes in stream morphology, and blocked or hindered fish passage. The relative importance of each of these factors or concerns differs by watershed, or by location within a watershed. In most cases, information on specific issues and their locations is available with sufficient resolution to allow land managers to develop action plans to address them. Possible exceptions may include Deming Creek, where Watershed Analysis has not yet been performed. Based on the assessment results to date, the following strategy was developed to address limiting factors and concerns. Competitive and genetic interactions with non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) were found to be important biotic factors currently threatening the persistence of bull trout in the Klamath Basin. This conclusion was based on the almost pervasive presence of these exotic competitors and the significance of their negative interactions as determined from the literature and from local observations in headwater streams. Temperature may be a significant issue, especially for juvenile rearing, although the temperature tolerances of bull trout are not well understood. Habitat fragmentation and alteration appear to have been major issues in the past, resulting in population fragmentation, particularly at lower elevations and in larger streams where bull trout may have ranged historically. These final two factors appear less important than exotic competitors or temperature for bull trout in the current limited ranges in headwater streams, though they are important in mainstems and larger tributaries. They will need to be addressed if large scale restoration is undertaken. With the exceptions of temperature and fine sediment, brook trout have habitat requirements and environmental tolerances similar to bull trout, and they thrive in many Klamath Basin headwater streams while bull trout do not. Brown trout pose a competitive threat similar to that posed by brook trout, but the mechanisms of displacement and the areas where they occur differ. Even in environments unaltered by land management, such as Sun Creek within Crater Lake National Park, exotic trout are displacing bull trout. This conclusion is consistent with findings throughout the west, where competition with exotic species has clearly had a major effect on bull trout range, resulting in widespread declines in bull trout distribution. Changes in habitat may have altered competitive interactions between bull trout and other salmonids, both directly and indirectly. Since changes in environmental factors can exacerbate competition issues in sensitive populations, habitat condition remains a concern. Near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategy for Recovery of Bull Trout Populations Our approach to recovery of the Klamath basin's bull trout populations is a two-phase effort corresponding to near- and mid-term objectives, and an examination of possible long-term recovery objectives. It entails securing and maintaining existing populations followed by expansion into former headwater and downstream habitats, and ultimately the possibility of connecting tributaries with mainstem linkages. Assessment, research and monitoring needs associated with each phase were identified (see main body of text). Specific project details such as funding, work schedules, participant responsibilities, specific actions, implementation methods and costs are not presented but are to be developed collectively by the Bull Trout Working Group. Phase 1: Securing existing populations This phase of the recovery plan focuses on the six small drainages where bull trout populations are known to exist today. Here we wish to prevent further decline of individual populations as a step toward securing the viability of the Klamath Basin metapopulation(s).1 This is accomplished by addressing biotic and abiotic factors that threaten the persistence of these populations. The most immediate threat is the continued presence of non-native salmonids. Localized areas of habitat degradation or alteration from sediment inputs and shade removal are an additional serious concern. It may be feasible to isolate bull trout populations above barriers, followed by eradication of brook and brown trout within each isolated stream reach. This approach will be tested early in Phase 7, with particular attention to unforeseen consequences on the ecology of the test streams. Assuming it is viable, this approach will become the focus of Phases 1 & 2, in parallel with habitat enhancement efforts. Habitat enhancement is generally feasible, particularly in areas where roads or livestock are the issues. Where needed, such habitat enhancement efforts are expected to be completed as part of Phases 1&2. It will be necessary to understand the distribution of genetic variation among existing sub-populations of bull trout in order to embark on a well 1 For an understanding of metapopulation considerations, see the body of the text, in particular the section on 'Metapopulations and sub-populations' on page 60. Bull Trout Document - Final - - 7 - 26-Jan-96 directed range expansion program. Baseline data would be essential for genetic monitoring activities and for the development of stocks for establishing new sub-populations in subsequent phases. If successful, the actions taken in Phase 1 are expected to eliminate the direct threats to existing bull trout sub-populations posed by non-native salmonids. Parallel efforts to improve the in-stream physical environment to ensure habitat is suitable for bull trout are expected to eliminate proximate environmental threats to existing bull trout sub-populations. This effort will require that abiotic limiting factors and concerns be addressed via land management activities, most of which fall within the realm of forest land management. Timber harvest and regeneration, roads (construction, use, and maintenance), and livestock grazing programs are considered. Immediate actions may take the form of road erosion abatement, including road abandonment and revegetation. Some of these actions can be accomplished when a particular unit is harvested, while others may be pursued as independent restoration activities (e.g., livestock management plans, culvert replacements). Presently, no in-stream fish habitat improvement projects have been proposed, and none are foreseen for stream reaches affected by this phase of the recovery plan. Most of the concerns related to livestock are focused within the riparian zone. Some riparian locations are much more sensitive than others, for example the large meadow in Long Creek. Actions to address these concerns will vary by landowner and location, and may range from complete riparian exclosure to short-term grazing to continuous but moderate access. The preferred actions will depend on the success of these various strategies in bringing about the desired response of the channel and fish habitat, and can be expected to change as recovery of riparian areas progresses. Effectiveness monitoring will be invaluable for measuring the success of these efforts, and in adapting our management strategy during the implementation. No water diversion concerns have been identified for this phase of the plan, except for Deming Creek, where screening of irrigation ditches may be warranted. Some additional fish management actions may also be applicable in Phase 7, for example to continue to monitor compliance with existing no kill regulations in bull trout streams. Other pertinent fish management issues have been addressed already, for example the cessation of exotic trout stocking (brook, brown or non-native rainbow) in bull trout streams. Phase 2: Expanding the range of bull trout within headwater streams In Phase 2, bull trout populations are refounded in headwater streams which now support brook trout, e.g. Calahan and Cherry creeks, or possibly in creeks without fish, e.g. Sheep Creek on the North Fork Sprague. This serves to expand the number of sub-populations, increases the number of refugia, and increases the overall size of the Klamath metapopulation(s). This is a major step in the establishment of viable metapopulations; by increasing the number of sub-populations, the effect of the loss or decline of any particular sub-population is reduced, making the metapopulation(s) more resilient to natural disturbance, variations in breeding success, disease outbreaks and other stochastic factors. Phase 2 consists of two parts: Phase 2a, in which sub-populations are founded in streams which only recently lost bull trout (e.g. Cherry Creek, Coyote Creek and the upper Sycan River) and Phase 2b, in which sub-populations are founded in other suitable headwater habitat, as indicated by the presence of thriving brook trout sub-populations (e.g. Sevenmile Creek, Calahan Creek, Annie Creek, Camp Creek, Jackson Creek, Deep Creek and Corral Creek). Both parts of Phase 2 are accomplished in much the same way as Phase 7: Barriers are constructed to exclude brook trout and brown trout, then the exotic species are eradicated above the barriers. Bull trout populations are then founded with human-introduced bull trout, whether via transplantation from wild sources or from a hatchery. Care must be exercised to maintain adequate genetic diversity in the founded sub-populations as establishment of genetically healthy populations is a non-trivial task. An inherent risk in newly created sub-populations is the loss of genetic variation (founder effect), which if great enough can reduce the vigor of the population and its long-term viability. As in Phase 7, stresses from abiotic factors, such as excessive delivery of fine sediment, low flows, or warm water temperatures, need to be reduced in parallel with the removal of exotics. Streamside roads, road crossings, low flows in upper reaches, and livestock are situations of concern in many of the streams, and warm temperatures are in some. Also as in phase 7, monitoring for the presence of exotics, bull trout population parameters, and abiotic factors is an important follow-up activity to track and ensure long-term success. In addition, genetic monitoring of newly founded populations is indicated. Bull Trout Document - Final - -8- 26-Jan-96 A possible future direction after Phase 2 Once Phase 2 is complete, the Bull Trout Working Group will pause to assess the efforts completed and plan future efforts. If phases 1 and 2 are successful, there will be significant numbers of bull trout in various tributaries, but possibly little genetic exchange between them. Bull trout range may still be restricted to headwater streams. During the evaluation and reassessment of the recovery effort, the group will re-consider the long-term recovery objectives. Based on what we know now, two possible recovery objectives are likely to be considered. The first such possible objective is the establishment of natural movement corridors between adjacent headwater streams, thereby establishing complete and viable metapopulation(s) of bull trout within the Upper Klamath Basin. Connectivity between headwater streams would allow volitional movement of bull trout. Movement would allow dispersal, founding of new sub-populations, and interbreeding between sub-populations, within the local sub-basin. Establishing natural movement corridors between headwater streams may require that selected reaches of larger tributaries or even portions of mainstem rivers be restored to suitable habitat for bull trout. This would be an ambitious undertaking, which may be infeasible. It might require the elimination or exclusion of exotics, the removal of man-made barriers which prevent movement between streams, or alterations in current land use to reduce anthropogenically induced fine sediment loads, low flows, warm stream temperatures, or changes in channel morphology. The change in focus from headwater streams to larger tributaries represents an escalation in the scale and complexity of the restoration effort. Exclusion of exotics is much more difficult. Land use effects, whether from water diversions or livestock grazing are often more significant. The second possible objective of future efforts after Phase 2 is to attemp to re-establish fluvial populations of bull trout in selected mainstem rivers of the Upper Klamath Basin, in such a way as to connect the sub-populations of each metapopulation. Fluvial bull trout are far larger than stream resident bull trout, and have much higher fecundity as a result. This gives them a tremendous advantage in breeding, whether in founding new sub-populations, or augmenting existing sub-populations. By establishing a fluvial form of bull trout in the Upper Klamath Basin, overall viability of the metapopulation(s) should be greatly increased. Timeline for implementation A prototype Phase 1 implementation is likely to be completed within 2-5 years. Full implementation of Phase 1 may take many years, but the bulk of the work could be completed in 10-20 years. Further assessment work and some aspects of Phase 2 will be accomplished concurrent with Phase 1 efforts over the next several years, but may require 5-10 years before being well underway. Specific timelines for individual projects in phases 1 and 2 and the overall recovery effort will be developed by the Bull Trout Working Group. Summary and prognosis for bull trout populations in the Upper Klamath River Basin If our analysis is accurate, the Klamath Basin's native bull trout populations are imperiled, yet their future need not be bleak. They persist today as a handful of isolated sub-populations in small, headwater streams. If a fluvial life history form existed, as it may have at one time in the Wood River2, no longer occurs or is a very small (i.e., undetectable) component of the current Klamath River Basin population. Gene flow between these sub-populations has apparently ceased. Individual population sizes are small enough to be near or below minimum viable levels as defined by current theorists in conservation biology. Competition from introduced brook and brown trout is widespread, with severe long-term consequences. Habitat conditions vary from stream to stream, depending on the nature and extent of land uses around and downstream of the bull trout tributaries. Fine sediment inputs and elevated stream temperatures are the principal habitat issue. Water withdrawals, altered channels and flood plains, and other anthropogenic influences have contributed to loss of mainstem fluvial habitat, and may have ultimately resulted in habitat fragmentation, followed by isolation of the remaining populations. Together, these conditions do not bode well for the longevity of native bull trout populations. We believe concerted efforts to resolve the identified problems can achieve the goals of maintaining, and possibly restoring, Klamath bull trout populations. Further, we believe that without attention, one or more of the identified limiting factors will almost certainly spell an end to most or all of the sub-populations in the basin. 2 A 330 mm specimen was collected from Fort Creek, a tributary to the Wood River, in 1876. Cited in Cavendar 1978; Smithsonian Accession Number 16793. Bull Trout Document - Final - -9 - 26-Jan-96 Title: Upper Klamath Basin bull trout conservation strategy : part 1, a conceptual framework for recovery, final Author: Light, Jeffrey Year: 1996, 2008, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document presents the framework of a plan to reverse the decline of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) populations in the Klamath Basin. If successful, we expect bull trout to recover to a level where they will have a reasonable chance of long-term viability. The work is the collective effort of fish biologists, foresters, other natural resource management professionals, and local landowners representing a diverse array of interests and organizations. Together, these individuals have worked for several years to gather information pertaining to the distribution and status of Klamath bull trout populations and threats to their persistence. The members of the Bull Trout Working Group share the common desire to restore bull trout populations while at the same time sustaining their respective land use interests in the Klamath Basin. This approach provides incentives to all the interested parties to seek agreement on solutions, encouraging cooperative work on an otherwise ambitious and daunting task. The following few pages summarize the plan. Each area is covered again in greater detail in the body of the document. The goals established by the Bull Trout Working Group for this recovery plan are to (1) Secure existing bull trout populations, and (2) Expand the populations to some of their former range and numbers. We pursue these goals with a three step approach of assessment, implementation, and evaluation. We begin with a review of the distribution and status of bull trout generally, then specifically within the Klamath Basin. Next we present available data and interpretations supporting our conclusions regarding the type, magnitude, and extent of physical and biological factors or concerns that may hamper bull trout persistence. Land and fish management activities that contribute to these problem situations are then identified. This is followed by a blueprint for stepwise development and implementation of practical solutions. Finally, a monitoring plan is proposed to measure the success of the recovery efforts. The Klamath Basin Bull trout populations represent a valuable biological resource. These populations exist at the southern edge of the species' distribution, and have distinctive genetic character. In the Upper Klamath River Basin, bull trout are presently found as resident forms in eight isolated headwater streams within six small drainages. (4Headwater streams' in this document refers to very small streams, rather than rivers which are the headwaters for larger rivers). These streams occur in three general locations: they are tributaries of the Sprague River, of the Sycan River and of Upper Klamath Lake. Together, the known populations occupy approximately 23 miles (37 km) of perennial streams. Formerly, bull trout may have occurred in the mainstems of these systems (Gilbert 1897. Dambacher et al. 1992, Roger Smith, ODFW, pers. coram. 1994). In addition to existing populations, other populations are known to have recently occupied nearby streams (Cherry and Coyote creeks, the Upper Sycan River). Estimated current population sizes in each drainage range between 133 and 1,293, indicating that populations are low enough to warrant concern. These population sizes are smaller than the minimum viable population sizes predicted by conservation biology theory. A substantial risk of extirpation via natural disturbance cycles and stochastic events exists for such small populations. Streams that are presently inhabited by bull trout are typically small and spring-fed with steep gradients. They originate in the higher elevations of mountains within the Upper Klamath Basin and flow through forests where land uses range from wilderness and national parkland to commercial forestry and grazing. Eventually, these tributaries or their mainstem receiving waters leave the forest and flow through broad sagebrush-covered valleys or marshes where they widen and flatten. Here livestock grazing and agriculture are the dominant land uses. An assessment of the current situation regarding Klamath Basin bull trout was performed using existing and new information on life history, distribution, habitat requirements by lifestage, environmental requirements, exotic species interactions, angling pressure, land use interactions, habitat fragmentation, population fragmentation and many other factors. Basin-specific information on each of these factors was collected and analyzed, complemented by a thorough review of the literature. Past, present and possible future distributions of bull trout were examined. Particular emphasis was placed on determining the nature and extent of biotic interactions, because this potential agent of bull trout decline has not been thoroughly addressed in other works. Analysis of the assembled information resulted in the identification of several specific natural and anthropogenic factors which are thought to limit the distribution and persistence of bull trout. Habitat quality and quantity are affected by land use to some degree in all currently inhabited bull trout streams except upper Sun Creek. Generally, habitat conditions vary from fair to good in existing bull trout streams. We identified several land uses that have reduced habitat quality. Principal among the abiotic factors of concern is fine sediment loading from (1) road erosion, (2) stream bank and adjacent ground disturbance by livestock, and (3) Bull Trout Document - Final - - 6 - 26-Jan-96 stream-adjacent hillslope erosion from logging. Second among the abiotic factors of concern is elevated temperature. Other concerns include diminished large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, declining bank integrity, low flows, changes in stream morphology, and blocked or hindered fish passage. The relative importance of each of these factors or concerns differs by watershed, or by location within a watershed. In most cases, information on specific issues and their locations is available with sufficient resolution to allow land managers to develop action plans to address them. Possible exceptions may include Deming Creek, where Watershed Analysis has not yet been performed. Based on the assessment results to date, the following strategy was developed to address limiting factors and concerns. Competitive and genetic interactions with non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) were found to be important biotic factors currently threatening the persistence of bull trout in the Klamath Basin. This conclusion was based on the almost pervasive presence of these exotic competitors and the significance of their negative interactions as determined from the literature and from local observations in headwater streams. Temperature may be a significant issue, especially for juvenile rearing, although the temperature tolerances of bull trout are not well understood. Habitat fragmentation and alteration appear to have been major issues in the past, resulting in population fragmentation, particularly at lower elevations and in larger streams where bull trout may have ranged historically. These final two factors appear less important than exotic competitors or temperature for bull trout in the current limited ranges in headwater streams, though they are important in mainstems and larger tributaries. They will need to be addressed if large scale restoration is undertaken. With the exceptions of temperature and fine sediment, brook trout have habitat requirements and environmental tolerances similar to bull trout, and they thrive in many Klamath Basin headwater streams while bull trout do not. Brown trout pose a competitive threat similar to that posed by brook trout, but the mechanisms of displacement and the areas where they occur differ. Even in environments unaltered by land management, such as Sun Creek within Crater Lake National Park, exotic trout are displacing bull trout. This conclusion is consistent with findings throughout the west, where competition with exotic species has clearly had a major effect on bull trout range, resulting in widespread declines in bull trout distribution. Changes in habitat may have altered competitive interactions between bull trout and other salmonids, both directly and indirectly. Since changes in environmental factors can exacerbate competition issues in sensitive populations, habitat condition remains a concern. Near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategy for Recovery of Bull Trout Populations Our approach to recovery of the Klamath basin's bull trout populations is a two-phase effort corresponding to near- and mid-term objectives, and an examination of possible long-term recovery objectives. It entails securing and maintaining existing populations followed by expansion into former headwater and downstream habitats, and ultimately the possibility of connecting tributaries with mainstem linkages. Assessment, research and monitoring needs associated with each phase were identified (see main body of text). Specific project details such as funding, work schedules, participant responsibilities, specific actions, implementation methods and costs are not presented but are to be developed collectively by the Bull Trout Working Group. Phase 1: Securing existing populations This phase of the recovery plan focuses on the six small drainages where bull trout populations are known to exist today. Here we wish to prevent further decline of individual populations as a step toward securing the viability of the Klamath Basin metapopulation(s).1 This is accomplished by addressing biotic and abiotic factors that threaten the persistence of these populations. The most immediate threat is the continued presence of non-native salmonids. Localized areas of habitat degradation or alteration from sediment inputs and shade removal are an additional serious concern. It may be feasible to isolate bull trout populations above barriers, followed by eradication of brook and brown trout within each isolated stream reach. This approach will be tested early in Phase 7, with particular attention to unforeseen consequences on the ecology of the test streams. Assuming it is viable, this approach will become the focus of Phases 1 & 2, in parallel with habitat enhancement efforts. Habitat enhancement is generally feasible, particularly in areas where roads or livestock are the issues. Where needed, such habitat enhancement efforts are expected to be completed as part of Phases 1&2. It will be necessary to understand the distribution of genetic variation among existing sub-populations of bull trout in order to embark on a well 1 For an understanding of metapopulation considerations, see the body of the text, in particular the section on 'Metapopulations and sub-populations' on page 60. Bull Trout Document - Final - - 7 - 26-Jan-96 directed range expansion program. Baseline data would be essential for genetic monitoring activities and for the development of stocks for establishing new sub-populations in subsequent phases. If successful, the actions taken in Phase 1 are expected to eliminate the direct threats to existing bull trout sub-populations posed by non-native salmonids. Parallel efforts to improve the in-stream physical environment to ensure habitat is suitable for bull trout are expected to eliminate proximate environmental threats to existing bull trout sub-populations. This effort will require that abiotic limiting factors and concerns be addressed via land management activities, most of which fall within the realm of forest land management. Timber harvest and regeneration, roads (construction, use, and maintenance), and livestock grazing programs are considered. Immediate actions may take the form of road erosion abatement, including road abandonment and revegetation. Some of these actions can be accomplished when a particular unit is harvested, while others may be pursued as independent restoration activities (e.g., livestock management plans, culvert replacements). Presently, no in-stream fish habitat improvement projects have been proposed, and none are foreseen for stream reaches affected by this phase of the recovery plan. Most of the concerns related to livestock are focused within the riparian zone. Some riparian locations are much more sensitive than others, for example the large meadow in Long Creek. Actions to address these concerns will vary by landowner and location, and may range from complete riparian exclosure to short-term grazing to continuous but moderate access. The preferred actions will depend on the success of these various strategies in bringing about the desired response of the channel and fish habitat, and can be expected to change as recovery of riparian areas progresses. Effectiveness monitoring will be invaluable for measuring the success of these efforts, and in adapting our management strategy during the implementation. No water diversion concerns have been identified for this phase of the plan, except for Deming Creek, where screening of irrigation ditches may be warranted. Some additional fish management actions may also be applicable in Phase 7, for example to continue to monitor compliance with existing no kill regulations in bull trout streams. Other pertinent fish management issues have been addressed already, for example the cessation of exotic trout stocking (brook, brown or non-native rainbow) in bull trout streams. Phase 2: Expanding the range of bull trout within headwater streams In Phase 2, bull trout populations are refounded in headwater streams which now support brook trout, e.g. Calahan and Cherry creeks, or possibly in creeks without fish, e.g. Sheep Creek on the North Fork Sprague. This serves to expand the number of sub-populations, increases the number of refugia, and increases the overall size of the Klamath metapopulation(s). This is a major step in the establishment of viable metapopulations; by increasing the number of sub-populations, the effect of the loss or decline of any particular sub-population is reduced, making the metapopulation(s) more resilient to natural disturbance, variations in breeding success, disease outbreaks and other stochastic factors. Phase 2 consists of two parts: Phase 2a, in which sub-populations are founded in streams which only recently lost bull trout (e.g. Cherry Creek, Coyote Creek and the upper Sycan River) and Phase 2b, in which sub-populations are founded in other suitable headwater habitat, as indicated by the presence of thriving brook trout sub-populations (e.g. Sevenmile Creek, Calahan Creek, Annie Creek, Camp Creek, Jackson Creek, Deep Creek and Corral Creek). Both parts of Phase 2 are accomplished in much the same way as Phase 7: Barriers are constructed to exclude brook trout and brown trout, then the exotic species are eradicated above the barriers. Bull trout populations are then founded with human-introduced bull trout, whether via transplantation from wild sources or from a hatchery. Care must be exercised to maintain adequate genetic diversity in the founded sub-populations as establishment of genetically healthy populations is a non-trivial task. An inherent risk in newly created sub-populations is the loss of genetic variation (founder effect), which if great enough can reduce the vigor of the population and its long-term viability. As in Phase 7, stresses from abiotic factors, such as excessive delivery of fine sediment, low flows, or warm water temperatures, need to be reduced in parallel with the removal of exotics. Streamside roads, road crossings, low flows in upper reaches, and livestock are situations of concern in many of the streams, and warm temperatures are in some. Also as in phase 7, monitoring for the presence of exotics, bull trout population parameters, and abiotic factors is an important follow-up activity to track and ensure long-term success. In addition, genetic monitoring of newly founded populations is indicated. Bull Trout Document - Final - -8- 26-Jan-96 A possible future direction after Phase 2 Once Phase 2 is complete, the Bull Trout Working Group will pause to assess the efforts completed and plan future efforts. If phases 1 and 2 are successful, there will be significant numbers of bull trout in various tributaries, but possibly little genetic exchange between them. Bull trout range may still be restricted to headwater streams. During the evaluation and reassessment of the recovery effort, the group will re-consider the long-term recovery objectives. Based on what we know now, two possible recovery objectives are likely to be considered. The first such possible objective is the establishment of natural movement corridors between adjacent headwater streams, thereby establishing complete and viable metapopulation(s) of bull trout within the Upper Klamath Basin. Connectivity between headwater streams would allow volitional movement of bull trout. Movement would allow dispersal, founding of new sub-populations, and interbreeding between sub-populations, within the local sub-basin. Establishing natural movement corridors between headwater streams may require that selected reaches of larger tributaries or even portions of mainstem rivers be restored to suitable habitat for bull trout. This would be an ambitious undertaking, which may be infeasible. It might require the elimination or exclusion of exotics, the removal of man-made barriers which prevent movement between streams, or alterations in current land use to reduce anthropogenically induced fine sediment loads, low flows, warm stream temperatures, or changes in channel morphology. The change in focus from headwater streams to larger tributaries represents an escalation in the scale and complexity of the restoration effort. Exclusion of exotics is much more difficult. Land use effects, whether from water diversions or livestock grazing are often more significant. The second possible objective of future efforts after Phase 2 is to attemp to re-establish fluvial populations of bull trout in selected mainstem rivers of the Upper Klamath Basin, in such a way as to connect the sub-populations of each metapopulation. Fluvial bull trout are far larger than stream resident bull trout, and have much higher fecundity as a result. This gives them a tremendous advantage in breeding, whether in founding new sub-populations, or augmenting existing sub-populations. By establishing a fluvial form of bull trout in the Upper Klamath Basin, overall viability of the metapopulation(s) should be greatly increased. Timeline for implementation A prototype Phase 1 implementation is likely to be completed within 2-5 years. Full implementation of Phase 1 may take many years, but the bulk of the work could be completed in 10-20 years. Further assessment work and some aspects of Phase 2 will be accomplished concurrent with Phase 1 efforts over the next several years, but may require 5-10 years before being well underway. Specific timelines for individual projects in phases 1 and 2 and the overall recovery effort will be developed by the Bull Trout Working Group. Summary and prognosis for bull trout populations in the Upper Klamath River Basin If our analysis is accurate, the Klamath Basin's native bull trout populations are imperiled, yet their future need not be bleak. They persist today as a handful of isolated sub-populations in small, headwater streams. If a fluvial life history form existed, as it may have at one time in the Wood River2, no longer occurs or is a very small (i.e., undetectable) component of the current Klamath River Basin population. Gene flow between these sub-populations has apparently ceased. Individual population sizes are small enough to be near or below minimum viable levels as defined by current theorists in conservation biology. Competition from introduced brook and brown trout is widespread, with severe long-term consequences. Habitat conditions vary from stream to stream, depending on the nature and extent of land uses around and downstream of the bull trout tributaries. Fine sediment inputs and elevated stream temperatures are the principal habitat issue. Water withdrawals, altered channels and flood plains, and other anthropogenic influences have contributed to loss of mainstem fluvial habitat, and may have ultimately resulted in habitat fragmentation, followed by isolation of the remaining populations. Together, these conditions do not bode well for the longevity of native bull trout populations. We believe concerted efforts to resolve the identified problems can achieve the goals of maintaining, and possibly restoring, Klamath bull trout populations. Further, we believe that without attention, one or more of the identified limiting factors will almost certainly spell an end to most or all of the sub-populations in the basin. 2 A 330 mm specimen was collected from Fort Creek, a tributary to the Wood River, in 1876. Cited in Cavendar 1978; Smithsonian Accession Number 16793. Bull Trout Document - Final - -9 - 26-Jan-96 Close

• 50. [Image] Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, California/Oregon

  	Cover title; Shipping list no.: 99-0252-P; "May 1999"--P. [4] of cover
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, California/Oregon Author: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Year: 1999, 2007, 2005 Cover title; Shipping list no.: 99-0252-P; "May 1999"--P. [4] of cover Title: Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, California/Oregon Author: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Year: 1999, 2007, 2005 Cover title; Shipping list no.: 99-0252-P; "May 1999"--P. [4] of cover Close