Search

Search Results

• 11. [Article] Factors that Influence Evolutionary Significant Unit Boundaries and Status Assessment in a Highly Polymorphic Species, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in the Columbia Basin

  Abstract -- The species Oncorhynchus mykiss expresses a complex array of life histories across much of its range as well as considerable geographic variation. Several subspecies have been proposed (Behnke ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Factors that Influence Evolutionary Significant Unit Boundaries and Status Assessment in a Highly Polymorphic Species, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in the Columbia Basin Abstract -- The species Oncorhynchus mykiss expresses a complex array of life histories across much of its range as well as considerable geographic variation. Several subspecies have been proposed (Behnke 1992), although none of them are formally recognized. Two of the proposed subspecies in North America include both trout and steelhead life histories: O.m. irideus, or Coastal rainbow/steelhead, and O.m. gairdneri, or Inland redband/steelhead. A third subspecies that includes an anadromous life history occurs in Asia, while all other North American subspecies are entirely trout. In the Pacific Northwest, the boundary between the coastal and inland subspecies occurs in the Columbia Gorge, where the Columbia River cuts through the Cascade Mountain Range. The steelhead and trout life histories within these two subspecies are genetically more similar to each other than to fish with the same life history in the other subspecies, indicating that the different life histories within a geographic area share an evolutionary origin (Allendorf 1975). Recent molecular systematic surveys suggest that this proposed taxonomic model of North American 0. mykiss subspecies may be over simplified and inaccurate (Currens 1997, Busby et al. 1996, F. Utter, U. of Washington); however, it remains the available model until final revisions to the taxonomy are adopted. The NOAA Fisheries Service (NMFS) further divided 0. mykiss into multiple "Evolutionarily Significant Units" (ESUs)(Waples 1991, 56 FR 58612, Waples 1995) for listing consideration under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA considers "distinct" populations of taxonmnic species to be "species" eligible for legal protection (16 U.S.C. 1532[161). NMFS adopted the concept of ESUs to serve as distinct population segments in their ESA listing decisions, along with specific criteria for defining them. Evidence for whether or not rainbow trout and steelhead are in the same ESUs is presented in this report according to the criteria provided by NMFS policy (56 FR 58612). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) likewise recognizes "Distinct Population Segments" (DPSs) that may be listed under ESA. The agencies share jurisdiction over 0. mykiss for ESA decisions, with NMFS overseeing the anadromous steelhead and USFWS overseeing the freshwater trout. NMFS has described ESUs for all Northwest steelhead, whether they have been listed or not (Busby et al. 1996); however, the USFWS has not generally described DPSs for Northwest 0. mykiss trout. During the original coast-wide status review of steelhead conducted in the 1990s, the NMFS Biological Review Team concluded that, in general, 0. mykiss trout are part of steelhead ESUs in cases where the two forms are sympatric and have an opportunity to interbreed (Busby et al. 1996). The review team was less conclusive about whether trout above artificial barriers were part of the ESUs. Trout that are sympatric with steelhead were also included in the ESUs by NMFS in the final listing determinations, but they were not listed. The steelhead in five of the ESUs in the Pacific Northwest were listed, including the Lower Columbia (63 FR 13347), Willamette, Mid-Columbia (64 FR 14517), Upper Columbia and Snake ESUs (62 FR 43937), all of which are in the Columbia Basin. As a result of two recent court cases NMFS is now reexamming the biological relationship between trout and steelhead populations in the ESUs where steelhead are listed and is reassessing the extinction risk of the whole ESUs from the perspective of both life histories. First, the Hogan decision in Oregon concluded that the Services may describe distinct population segments for ESA listing, but once ESUs or DPSs are described, the Services cannot list only part of one of one of them (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans [161 F.Supp. 2d 1154, D. Oreg. 2001]). So if NMFS finds trout to be part of an ESU along with steelhead, the Service cannot assess the extinction risk of only the steelhead in the ESU or list only the steelhead. Second, lawsuits in California about non­anadromous 0. mykiss upstream of man-made barriers (mostly impassible dams) made a similar argument, stating that such populations are related to the steelhead populations below the barriers and should be included in the ESUs and listed (EDC v. Evans, SACV- 00-1212-AHS (EEA), United States District Court, C.D. California). The purpose of this report is to provide more detailed information about trout and steelhead in the Columbia Basin listed ESUs. This report will address two major issues. The first section provides information that will be used to review whether trout and steelhead populations are biologically part the same ESUs, as defined by NMFS criteria. The second section provides information that will be used to review the extinction risks of entire ESUs if trout are considered along with steelhead. A similar, separate report is being prepared for California ESUs where steelhead are listed. Title: Factors that Influence Evolutionary Significant Unit Boundaries and Status Assessment in a Highly Polymorphic Species, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in the Columbia Basin Abstract -- The species Oncorhynchus mykiss expresses a complex array of life histories across much of its range as well as considerable geographic variation. Several subspecies have been proposed (Behnke 1992), although none of them are formally recognized. Two of the proposed subspecies in North America include both trout and steelhead life histories: O.m. irideus, or Coastal rainbow/steelhead, and O.m. gairdneri, or Inland redband/steelhead. A third subspecies that includes an anadromous life history occurs in Asia, while all other North American subspecies are entirely trout. In the Pacific Northwest, the boundary between the coastal and inland subspecies occurs in the Columbia Gorge, where the Columbia River cuts through the Cascade Mountain Range. The steelhead and trout life histories within these two subspecies are genetically more similar to each other than to fish with the same life history in the other subspecies, indicating that the different life histories within a geographic area share an evolutionary origin (Allendorf 1975). Recent molecular systematic surveys suggest that this proposed taxonomic model of North American 0. mykiss subspecies may be over simplified and inaccurate (Currens 1997, Busby et al. 1996, F. Utter, U. of Washington); however, it remains the available model until final revisions to the taxonomy are adopted. The NOAA Fisheries Service (NMFS) further divided 0. mykiss into multiple "Evolutionarily Significant Units" (ESUs)(Waples 1991, 56 FR 58612, Waples 1995) for listing consideration under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA considers "distinct" populations of taxonmnic species to be "species" eligible for legal protection (16 U.S.C. 1532[161). NMFS adopted the concept of ESUs to serve as distinct population segments in their ESA listing decisions, along with specific criteria for defining them. Evidence for whether or not rainbow trout and steelhead are in the same ESUs is presented in this report according to the criteria provided by NMFS policy (56 FR 58612). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) likewise recognizes "Distinct Population Segments" (DPSs) that may be listed under ESA. The agencies share jurisdiction over 0. mykiss for ESA decisions, with NMFS overseeing the anadromous steelhead and USFWS overseeing the freshwater trout. NMFS has described ESUs for all Northwest steelhead, whether they have been listed or not (Busby et al. 1996); however, the USFWS has not generally described DPSs for Northwest 0. mykiss trout. During the original coast-wide status review of steelhead conducted in the 1990s, the NMFS Biological Review Team concluded that, in general, 0. mykiss trout are part of steelhead ESUs in cases where the two forms are sympatric and have an opportunity to interbreed (Busby et al. 1996). The review team was less conclusive about whether trout above artificial barriers were part of the ESUs. Trout that are sympatric with steelhead were also included in the ESUs by NMFS in the final listing determinations, but they were not listed. The steelhead in five of the ESUs in the Pacific Northwest were listed, including the Lower Columbia (63 FR 13347), Willamette, Mid-Columbia (64 FR 14517), Upper Columbia and Snake ESUs (62 FR 43937), all of which are in the Columbia Basin. As a result of two recent court cases NMFS is now reexamming the biological relationship between trout and steelhead populations in the ESUs where steelhead are listed and is reassessing the extinction risk of the whole ESUs from the perspective of both life histories. First, the Hogan decision in Oregon concluded that the Services may describe distinct population segments for ESA listing, but once ESUs or DPSs are described, the Services cannot list only part of one of one of them (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans [161 F.Supp. 2d 1154, D. Oreg. 2001]). So if NMFS finds trout to be part of an ESU along with steelhead, the Service cannot assess the extinction risk of only the steelhead in the ESU or list only the steelhead. Second, lawsuits in California about non­anadromous 0. mykiss upstream of man-made barriers (mostly impassible dams) made a similar argument, stating that such populations are related to the steelhead populations below the barriers and should be included in the ESUs and listed (EDC v. Evans, SACV- 00-1212-AHS (EEA), United States District Court, C.D. California). The purpose of this report is to provide more detailed information about trout and steelhead in the Columbia Basin listed ESUs. This report will address two major issues. The first section provides information that will be used to review whether trout and steelhead populations are biologically part the same ESUs, as defined by NMFS criteria. The second section provides information that will be used to review the extinction risks of entire ESUs if trout are considered along with steelhead. A similar, separate report is being prepared for California ESUs where steelhead are listed. Close

• 12. [Article] Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 1999 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2002-09

  Abstract -- The steelhead supplement to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OSPW) is intended to maintain wild steelhead populations in Oregon at sustainable and productive levels that provide substantial ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 1999 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2002-09 Abstract -- The steelhead supplement to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OSPW) is intended to maintain wild steelhead populations in Oregon at sustainable and productive levels that provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits. The OSPW attempts to better define “sustainable and productive” by committing the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to establish “Population Health Goals” for each Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of wild steelhead within the state. In addition, section ODFW IB1S of the plan calls for ODFW to assess adult escapement and juvenile production of wild steelhead in each ESU. The National Marine Fisheries Service identified seven ESUs for steelhead in Oregon and concluded that steelhead produced in coastal basins between Cape Blanco in southern Oregon and the Klamath River Basin in northern California constitutes one ESU. This area closely corresponds to the geologic boundaries of the Klamath Mountains Province (KMP). Steelhead in the KMP differ from those in adjoining areas because of distinctive life history and genetic characteristics (Busby et al. 1994). Primary differences in life history parameters have been identified for wild KMP steelhead. Summer steelhead and winter steelhead differ in time of return as adults, tendency to return to fresh water on a false spawning migration (the “half-pounder” run), age at ocean entry, growth rate and migration patterns of juveniles in fresh water (ODFW 1990a; ODFW 1994). As a result of these differences, separate health goals seem warranted for summer and winter steelhead populations. Winter steelhead inhabit streams throughout the KMP, while summer steelhead are found only in a portion of the Rogue River Basin. However, the distribution of summer and winter steelhead overlap in major areas of the Rogue River Basin (Everest 1973) and as juveniles of the respective races cannot be differentiated, some population health goals will have to apply to both races. The status of wild steelhead in the Klamath Mountains Province ESU is not readily apparent. Busby et al. (1994) concluded that the steelhead in this ESU “is not now at risk of extinction, but if present trends continue, it is likely to become so in the foreseeable future”. In contrast, Chilcote (1998) concluded that almost all steelhead populations in the Oregon portion of the ESU “are relatively healthy and certainly do not warrant listing as threatened under the ESA”. Uncertainty as to the status of the resource, coupled with the comprehensive conservation plan developed by Oregon and the termination of wild fish harvest in all streams except the Rogue River, lead the National Marine Fisheries Service to defer a listing of KMP steelhead under the Endangered Species Act. However, KMP steelhead remained a candidate species during 1999. The goal of this project is to develop and implement assessment methods to determine the status of wild steelhead in the Oregon portion of the KMP. Project objectives include (1) develop population health goals and allied monitoring methods and (2) determine resource status in relation to health goals. Attainment of all of the population health goals will likely indicate that the populations of wild steelhead in the KMP are healthy and may allow managers to restore harvest opportunities for wild fish. Conversely, failure to attain any of the population health goals will likely indicate that the populations are depressed and would likely lead to actions designed to minimize fishing mortality. However, in most years it is likely that some goals will be attained while some will not be attained. Under that scenario, and depending on which goals are attained, selective fisheries, like the current one for wild winter steelhead in the Rogue River, remain as viable options for fishery managers. Title: Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 1999 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2002-09 Abstract -- The steelhead supplement to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OSPW) is intended to maintain wild steelhead populations in Oregon at sustainable and productive levels that provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits. The OSPW attempts to better define “sustainable and productive” by committing the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to establish “Population Health Goals” for each Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of wild steelhead within the state. In addition, section ODFW IB1S of the plan calls for ODFW to assess adult escapement and juvenile production of wild steelhead in each ESU. The National Marine Fisheries Service identified seven ESUs for steelhead in Oregon and concluded that steelhead produced in coastal basins between Cape Blanco in southern Oregon and the Klamath River Basin in northern California constitutes one ESU. This area closely corresponds to the geologic boundaries of the Klamath Mountains Province (KMP). Steelhead in the KMP differ from those in adjoining areas because of distinctive life history and genetic characteristics (Busby et al. 1994). Primary differences in life history parameters have been identified for wild KMP steelhead. Summer steelhead and winter steelhead differ in time of return as adults, tendency to return to fresh water on a false spawning migration (the “half-pounder” run), age at ocean entry, growth rate and migration patterns of juveniles in fresh water (ODFW 1990a; ODFW 1994). As a result of these differences, separate health goals seem warranted for summer and winter steelhead populations. Winter steelhead inhabit streams throughout the KMP, while summer steelhead are found only in a portion of the Rogue River Basin. However, the distribution of summer and winter steelhead overlap in major areas of the Rogue River Basin (Everest 1973) and as juveniles of the respective races cannot be differentiated, some population health goals will have to apply to both races. The status of wild steelhead in the Klamath Mountains Province ESU is not readily apparent. Busby et al. (1994) concluded that the steelhead in this ESU “is not now at risk of extinction, but if present trends continue, it is likely to become so in the foreseeable future”. In contrast, Chilcote (1998) concluded that almost all steelhead populations in the Oregon portion of the ESU “are relatively healthy and certainly do not warrant listing as threatened under the ESA”. Uncertainty as to the status of the resource, coupled with the comprehensive conservation plan developed by Oregon and the termination of wild fish harvest in all streams except the Rogue River, lead the National Marine Fisheries Service to defer a listing of KMP steelhead under the Endangered Species Act. However, KMP steelhead remained a candidate species during 1999. The goal of this project is to develop and implement assessment methods to determine the status of wild steelhead in the Oregon portion of the KMP. Project objectives include (1) develop population health goals and allied monitoring methods and (2) determine resource status in relation to health goals. Attainment of all of the population health goals will likely indicate that the populations of wild steelhead in the KMP are healthy and may allow managers to restore harvest opportunities for wild fish. Conversely, failure to attain any of the population health goals will likely indicate that the populations are depressed and would likely lead to actions designed to minimize fishing mortality. However, in most years it is likely that some goals will be attained while some will not be attained. Under that scenario, and depending on which goals are attained, selective fisheries, like the current one for wild winter steelhead in the Rogue River, remain as viable options for fishery managers. Close

• 13. [Article] Passage behavior of radio-tagged yearling chinook salmon and steelhead at Bonneville Dam associated with the Surface Bypass Program, 2000

  Abstract -- In 1994, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) initiated a program to develop and evaluate surface-oriented juvenile salmonid bypass systems at hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Passage behavior of radio-tagged yearling chinook salmon and steelhead at Bonneville Dam associated with the Surface Bypass Program, 2000 Abstract -- In 1994, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) initiated a program to develop and evaluate surface-oriented juvenile salmonid bypass systems at hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers. The goal of the program was to develop juvenile bypass systems that would significantly improve the passage efficiency and survival of juvenile salmonids during their downstream migration. In 1998 a prototype surface collector (PSC) was installed at Bonneville Dam's first powerhouse. The PSC was designed not to bypass fish around the turbines but rather to examine fish behavior and hydraulics at the entrances and to determine the efficacy of surface bypass at BI before building a full production surface bypass system. In 1998 and 1999, our radio telemetry evaluation indicated that only 27-49% of the fish that came within 6 m of the entrances entered the PSC. We also determined that a 6 m entrance width was more efficient than a 1.5 m entrance width. In 2000, the PSC was extended to include turbines 1-6 and each of the six entrances was 6 m wide. To continue our evaluation of the PSC in 2000, we used radio telemetry to examine the movements and behavior of subyearling chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in the forebay of Bonneville Dam. The objectives of this research were to: 1) determine the behavior, distribution, and approach patterns of subyearling chinook salmon in the forebay areas of Bonneville Dam; 2) determine the time and route of dam passage of sub yearling chinook salmon; 3) determine movement patterns and behavior of subyearling chinook salmon in the vicinity of the PSC; and 4) assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the PSC. From 25 April to 1 June 2000, we radio-tagged and released 1,193 juvenile hatchery steelhead and 2,075 yearling chinook salmon. These fish were released from four locations upstream of Bonneville Dam: Rock Creek, John Day Dam, The Dalles Dam, and Hood River, Oregon. Median travel times from release to Bonneville Dam ranged from 14 h to 76 h, depending on species and the location of release. Of all the fish released, we detected 80% of steelhead and 82% of chinook salmon at Bonneville Dam. Of the fish released at Hood River, we detected 95% of steelhead and 94% of chinook salmon. Median residence time in the forebay areas of Bonneville Dam ranged from 8 min to 9 .7 h, depending on species and forebay area. Discharge rates and die! periods effected residence times of both species. Passage routes were determined for 91 % of steelhead and 92% of chinook salmon detected at Bonneville Dam. Nearly half ( 49%) of steelhead passed at powerhouse one (BI), and the largest proportion ( 44%) of chinook salmon passed through the spillway. Thirty-four percent of steelhead detected at Bonneville Dam passed through the spillway. Of the steelhead that passed at Bl, 44% passed into the sluiceway, 33% were guided into the downstream migration channel (DSM) via the standard-length submersible traveling screens (STS) or extended-length submersible bar screens (ESBS), and 23% were unguided and passed directly through the turbines. Of the chinook salmon that passed at Bl, 29% passed into the sluiceway, 36% were guided into the DSM, and 35% were unguided and passed directly through the turbines. Of the fish that passed at B2, 55% of steelhead and 39% of chinook salmon were guided into the DSM by the STS and 45% of steelhead and 60% of chinook salmon passed through the turbines unguided. No steelhead and 1 % of chinook salmon were detected passing through the sluice chute at B2, which was minimally operated during spring 2000. Passage rates were highest for both species during the day at the spillway and B 1. However, passage rates were highest for both species during the night at B2. Of the fish that entered the Bl forebay, 74% of steelhead and 63% of chinook sahnon were detected within 6 m of the PSC and were therefore considered to have discovered the PSC. Of the fish that discovered the PSC, 60% of steelhead and 72% of chinook salmon entered the PSC. However, of the fish that entered the PSC, only 29% (61 of 214) of steelhead and 41 % (100 of 246) of chinook salmon entered the PSC via the entrance they were first detected at without meandering to one or more entrances. Therefore, of the fish that entered the PSC, 71 % (153 of214) of steelhead and 59% (146 of 246) of chinook salmon meandered to one or more entrances before entering the PSC. In relation to units 1-6 at B 1, the PSC was quite efficient at collecting fish. Of the fish that passed at units 1-6 (guided and unguided) 83% of steelhead and 78% of chinook salmon entered the PSC. The PSC was also relatively effective compared to water passing into the turbines and the spillway. An effectiveness of 2.5 for steelhead and 2.4 for chinook salmon indicated that the proportion of fish that entered the PSC out of total passage at units 1-6 was over twice as high as the proportion of discharge that entered the PSC out of total discharge into and under the PSC at units 1-6. When compared to spillway effectiveness (1.0 for steelhead and 1.3 for chinook salmon), PSC effectiveness was about twice as high. Since fish that entered the PSC could pass through other routes, the PSC was not considered an actual passage route for purposes of calculating passage metrics such as FPE. However, if the PSC were an actual passage route, FPE would have increased from 78% to 85% for steelhead and from 73% to 78% for chinook salmon. Title: Passage behavior of radio-tagged yearling chinook salmon and steelhead at Bonneville Dam associated with the Surface Bypass Program, 2000 Abstract -- In 1994, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) initiated a program to develop and evaluate surface-oriented juvenile salmonid bypass systems at hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers. The goal of the program was to develop juvenile bypass systems that would significantly improve the passage efficiency and survival of juvenile salmonids during their downstream migration. In 1998 a prototype surface collector (PSC) was installed at Bonneville Dam's first powerhouse. The PSC was designed not to bypass fish around the turbines but rather to examine fish behavior and hydraulics at the entrances and to determine the efficacy of surface bypass at BI before building a full production surface bypass system. In 1998 and 1999, our radio telemetry evaluation indicated that only 27-49% of the fish that came within 6 m of the entrances entered the PSC. We also determined that a 6 m entrance width was more efficient than a 1.5 m entrance width. In 2000, the PSC was extended to include turbines 1-6 and each of the six entrances was 6 m wide. To continue our evaluation of the PSC in 2000, we used radio telemetry to examine the movements and behavior of subyearling chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in the forebay of Bonneville Dam. The objectives of this research were to: 1) determine the behavior, distribution, and approach patterns of subyearling chinook salmon in the forebay areas of Bonneville Dam; 2) determine the time and route of dam passage of sub yearling chinook salmon; 3) determine movement patterns and behavior of subyearling chinook salmon in the vicinity of the PSC; and 4) assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the PSC. From 25 April to 1 June 2000, we radio-tagged and released 1,193 juvenile hatchery steelhead and 2,075 yearling chinook salmon. These fish were released from four locations upstream of Bonneville Dam: Rock Creek, John Day Dam, The Dalles Dam, and Hood River, Oregon. Median travel times from release to Bonneville Dam ranged from 14 h to 76 h, depending on species and the location of release. Of all the fish released, we detected 80% of steelhead and 82% of chinook salmon at Bonneville Dam. Of the fish released at Hood River, we detected 95% of steelhead and 94% of chinook salmon. Median residence time in the forebay areas of Bonneville Dam ranged from 8 min to 9 .7 h, depending on species and forebay area. Discharge rates and die! periods effected residence times of both species. Passage routes were determined for 91 % of steelhead and 92% of chinook salmon detected at Bonneville Dam. Nearly half ( 49%) of steelhead passed at powerhouse one (BI), and the largest proportion ( 44%) of chinook salmon passed through the spillway. Thirty-four percent of steelhead detected at Bonneville Dam passed through the spillway. Of the steelhead that passed at Bl, 44% passed into the sluiceway, 33% were guided into the downstream migration channel (DSM) via the standard-length submersible traveling screens (STS) or extended-length submersible bar screens (ESBS), and 23% were unguided and passed directly through the turbines. Of the chinook salmon that passed at Bl, 29% passed into the sluiceway, 36% were guided into the DSM, and 35% were unguided and passed directly through the turbines. Of the fish that passed at B2, 55% of steelhead and 39% of chinook salmon were guided into the DSM by the STS and 45% of steelhead and 60% of chinook salmon passed through the turbines unguided. No steelhead and 1 % of chinook salmon were detected passing through the sluice chute at B2, which was minimally operated during spring 2000. Passage rates were highest for both species during the day at the spillway and B 1. However, passage rates were highest for both species during the night at B2. Of the fish that entered the Bl forebay, 74% of steelhead and 63% of chinook sahnon were detected within 6 m of the PSC and were therefore considered to have discovered the PSC. Of the fish that discovered the PSC, 60% of steelhead and 72% of chinook salmon entered the PSC. However, of the fish that entered the PSC, only 29% (61 of 214) of steelhead and 41 % (100 of 246) of chinook salmon entered the PSC via the entrance they were first detected at without meandering to one or more entrances. Therefore, of the fish that entered the PSC, 71 % (153 of214) of steelhead and 59% (146 of 246) of chinook salmon meandered to one or more entrances before entering the PSC. In relation to units 1-6 at B 1, the PSC was quite efficient at collecting fish. Of the fish that passed at units 1-6 (guided and unguided) 83% of steelhead and 78% of chinook salmon entered the PSC. The PSC was also relatively effective compared to water passing into the turbines and the spillway. An effectiveness of 2.5 for steelhead and 2.4 for chinook salmon indicated that the proportion of fish that entered the PSC out of total passage at units 1-6 was over twice as high as the proportion of discharge that entered the PSC out of total discharge into and under the PSC at units 1-6. When compared to spillway effectiveness (1.0 for steelhead and 1.3 for chinook salmon), PSC effectiveness was about twice as high. Since fish that entered the PSC could pass through other routes, the PSC was not considered an actual passage route for purposes of calculating passage metrics such as FPE. However, if the PSC were an actual passage route, FPE would have increased from 78% to 85% for steelhead and from 73% to 78% for chinook salmon. Close

• 14. [Article] 2006 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006

  Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette Valley, were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Factors implicated in the decline ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2006 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006 Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette Valley, were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Factors implicated in the decline of this species include changes in flow regimes and habitat characteristics resulting from the construction of flood control dams, revetments, channelization, diking, and the drainage of wetlands. The Oregon chub is further threatened by predation and competition by non-native species such as largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We continued surveys initiated in 1991 in the Willamette River drainage to quantify the abundance of known Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations as part of the implementation of the Oregon Chub Recovery Plan. We sampled a total of 103 sites in 2006. No new populations of Oregon chub were discovered. Thirty-five of the 103 sites were new locations that were sampled for the first time in 2006. Sixty-eight sites, sampled on at least one occasion between 1991-2005, were revisited. We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 33 locations. These included 23 naturally occurring and 10 introduced populations. Locations of naturally occurring populations were: Santiam drainage (Geren Island, Santiam I-5 Side Channels, Santiam Conservation Easement, Stayton Public Works Pond, Green’s Bridge Backwater, Pioneer Park, Santiam Conservation Easement, and Gray Slough), Mid-Willamette drainage (Finley Gray Creek Swamp), McKenzie drainage (Shetzline Pond and Big Island), Coast Fork Willamette drainage (Coast Fork Side Channels and Lynx Hollow), and the Middle Fork Willamette drainage (two Dexter Reservoir alcoves, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Buckhead Creek, two Elijah Bristow State Park sloughs and an island pond, Barnhard Slough, and Hospital Pond). Introduced populations were located in the Middle Fork Willamette (Wicopee Pond and Fall Creek Spillway Ponds), Santiam (Foster Pullout Pond), McKenzie (Russell Pond), Coast Fork Willamette (Herman Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Dunn Wetland, Finley Display Pond, Finley Cheadle Pond, Ankeny Willow Marsh, and Jampolsky Wetlands). We did not find Oregon chub at 14 locations where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-2005 (Jasper Park Slough, Wallace Slough, East Ferrin Pond, Dexter East Alcove, Hospital Impoundment Pond, Rattlesnake Creek, Elijah Bristow Large Gravel Pit, Elijah Bristow Small Gravel Pit, Little Muddy Creek tributary, Bull Run Creek, Camas Swale, Barnhard Slough, Camous Creek, and Dry Muddy Creek). Nonnative fish were collected at most of these locations. We obtained abundance estimates of naturally occurring populations of Oregon chub at 18 locations in the Middle Fork Willamette (East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Elijah Bristow State Park Sloughs and Island Pond, Hospital Pond, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Haws Pond, and Buckhead Creek), Santiam (Geren Island, Gray Slough, Stayton Public Works Pond, Pioneer Park Pond, and Santiam I-5 Side Channels), McKenzie (Big Island and Shetzline Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Finley Gray Creek) (Table 1). We obtained abundance estimates for 10 introduced populations of Oregon chub, located in Fall Creek Spillway Ponds, Wicopee Pond, Dunn Wetland Ponds, Finley Display Pond, Finley Cheadle Pond, Ankeny Willow Marsh, Jampolsky Wetlands, Foster Pullout Pond, Herman Pond, and Russell Pond. The three largest populations in 2006 were introduced populations. In addition, we evaluated eleven potential Oregon chub introduction sites in the Willamette River drainage. We introduced Oregon chub into the South Stayton Pond, a recently restored site located on ODFW property in the Santiam drainage, from Stayton Public Works Pond and Pioneer Park Pond. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set recovery criteria for downlisting the species to “threatened” and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species are: 1) establish and manage 10 populations of at least 500 adult fish, 2) all of these populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years, and 3) at least three populations meeting criterion 1 and 2 must be located in each of the three recovery areas (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, and Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2006, there were 18 populations totaling 500 or more individuals (Table 1). Thirteen of these populations also met the second criteria. Of the 13 populations meeting criteria 1 and 2, eight were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage, three were located in the Mid-Willamette drainage, and two were located in the Santiam drainage. With the addition of one more stable population in the Santiam drainage, the downlisting criteria will be met. Findings to date indicate that Oregon chub remain at risk due to the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, accelerated sedimentation, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications. Their status has improved in recent years, resulting primarily from successful introductions and the discovery of previously undocumented populations. Title: 2006 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006 Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette Valley, were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Factors implicated in the decline of this species include changes in flow regimes and habitat characteristics resulting from the construction of flood control dams, revetments, channelization, diking, and the drainage of wetlands. The Oregon chub is further threatened by predation and competition by non-native species such as largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We continued surveys initiated in 1991 in the Willamette River drainage to quantify the abundance of known Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations as part of the implementation of the Oregon Chub Recovery Plan. We sampled a total of 103 sites in 2006. No new populations of Oregon chub were discovered. Thirty-five of the 103 sites were new locations that were sampled for the first time in 2006. Sixty-eight sites, sampled on at least one occasion between 1991-2005, were revisited. We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 33 locations. These included 23 naturally occurring and 10 introduced populations. Locations of naturally occurring populations were: Santiam drainage (Geren Island, Santiam I-5 Side Channels, Santiam Conservation Easement, Stayton Public Works Pond, Green’s Bridge Backwater, Pioneer Park, Santiam Conservation Easement, and Gray Slough), Mid-Willamette drainage (Finley Gray Creek Swamp), McKenzie drainage (Shetzline Pond and Big Island), Coast Fork Willamette drainage (Coast Fork Side Channels and Lynx Hollow), and the Middle Fork Willamette drainage (two Dexter Reservoir alcoves, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Buckhead Creek, two Elijah Bristow State Park sloughs and an island pond, Barnhard Slough, and Hospital Pond). Introduced populations were located in the Middle Fork Willamette (Wicopee Pond and Fall Creek Spillway Ponds), Santiam (Foster Pullout Pond), McKenzie (Russell Pond), Coast Fork Willamette (Herman Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Dunn Wetland, Finley Display Pond, Finley Cheadle Pond, Ankeny Willow Marsh, and Jampolsky Wetlands). We did not find Oregon chub at 14 locations where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-2005 (Jasper Park Slough, Wallace Slough, East Ferrin Pond, Dexter East Alcove, Hospital Impoundment Pond, Rattlesnake Creek, Elijah Bristow Large Gravel Pit, Elijah Bristow Small Gravel Pit, Little Muddy Creek tributary, Bull Run Creek, Camas Swale, Barnhard Slough, Camous Creek, and Dry Muddy Creek). Nonnative fish were collected at most of these locations. We obtained abundance estimates of naturally occurring populations of Oregon chub at 18 locations in the Middle Fork Willamette (East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Elijah Bristow State Park Sloughs and Island Pond, Hospital Pond, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Haws Pond, and Buckhead Creek), Santiam (Geren Island, Gray Slough, Stayton Public Works Pond, Pioneer Park Pond, and Santiam I-5 Side Channels), McKenzie (Big Island and Shetzline Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Finley Gray Creek) (Table 1). We obtained abundance estimates for 10 introduced populations of Oregon chub, located in Fall Creek Spillway Ponds, Wicopee Pond, Dunn Wetland Ponds, Finley Display Pond, Finley Cheadle Pond, Ankeny Willow Marsh, Jampolsky Wetlands, Foster Pullout Pond, Herman Pond, and Russell Pond. The three largest populations in 2006 were introduced populations. In addition, we evaluated eleven potential Oregon chub introduction sites in the Willamette River drainage. We introduced Oregon chub into the South Stayton Pond, a recently restored site located on ODFW property in the Santiam drainage, from Stayton Public Works Pond and Pioneer Park Pond. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set recovery criteria for downlisting the species to “threatened” and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species are: 1) establish and manage 10 populations of at least 500 adult fish, 2) all of these populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years, and 3) at least three populations meeting criterion 1 and 2 must be located in each of the three recovery areas (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, and Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2006, there were 18 populations totaling 500 or more individuals (Table 1). Thirteen of these populations also met the second criteria. Of the 13 populations meeting criteria 1 and 2, eight were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage, three were located in the Mid-Willamette drainage, and two were located in the Santiam drainage. With the addition of one more stable population in the Santiam drainage, the downlisting criteria will be met. Findings to date indicate that Oregon chub remain at risk due to the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, accelerated sedimentation, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications. Their status has improved in recent years, resulting primarily from successful introductions and the discovery of previously undocumented populations. Close

• 15. [Article] Neacoxie Watershed

  Abstract -- Previously, little information was known about the ecology or the condition of native habitats in the Neacoxie sub-watershed that drains from the city of Warrenton into the north section of ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Neacoxie Watershed Abstract -- Previously, little information was known about the ecology or the condition of native habitats in the Neacoxie sub-watershed that drains from the city of Warrenton into the north section of the Necanicum Estuary in the city of Seaside. In 2002, the Necanicum Watershed Council completed an assessment for the Necanicum River watershed, but with major knowledge gaps for the Neacoxie watershed, which includes the Neacoxie Creek corridor and the Clatsop Plains. In order for the North Coast Land Conservancy (NCLC) and other land managers to develop stewardship priorities and to make informed decisions about land management actions in this region, additional information was required. Together with the Necanicum Watershed Council and the North Coast Watershed Association, NCLC secured funding to conduct habitat inventories of the Neacoxie watershed. The Neacoxie Watershed Assessment summarizes the results of terrestrial plant transects and aquatic plant surveys completed in the summer of 2011 on ten properties owned by the North Coast Land Conservancy (NCLC) in the Neacoxie Creek watershed (please refer to Appendices A & B). Habitat types include stabilized sand dunes dominated by coastal prairie habitat, interdunal wetland swales and lakes, upland Sitka spruce forest, and forested wetlands. Percent composition of each plant community type observed was calculated. Invasive non-native plant species were recorded. Surveys were also conducted for both native and non-native plants in four water bodies owned by NCLC or adjacent to land trust properties. The plant community data that were collected will be used to evaluate baseline ecological conditions in the Neacoxie watershed. Plant communities can be used as indicators of long-term tidal and hydrologic conditions as well as the ecological health of the landscape. Repeated measurements can be used to assess community changes over time and to assess how plant community composition compares to that described for natural conditions. This information will assist the land trust in making science-based stewardship decisions on its properties, and can be used by other landowners to better understand changes occurring in plant communities in similar habitats on their properties as a result of human disturbance (e.g., land development, farming, grazing) and invasion by non-native plants. Title: Neacoxie Watershed Abstract -- Previously, little information was known about the ecology or the condition of native habitats in the Neacoxie sub-watershed that drains from the city of Warrenton into the north section of the Necanicum Estuary in the city of Seaside. In 2002, the Necanicum Watershed Council completed an assessment for the Necanicum River watershed, but with major knowledge gaps for the Neacoxie watershed, which includes the Neacoxie Creek corridor and the Clatsop Plains. In order for the North Coast Land Conservancy (NCLC) and other land managers to develop stewardship priorities and to make informed decisions about land management actions in this region, additional information was required. Together with the Necanicum Watershed Council and the North Coast Watershed Association, NCLC secured funding to conduct habitat inventories of the Neacoxie watershed. The Neacoxie Watershed Assessment summarizes the results of terrestrial plant transects and aquatic plant surveys completed in the summer of 2011 on ten properties owned by the North Coast Land Conservancy (NCLC) in the Neacoxie Creek watershed (please refer to Appendices A & B). Habitat types include stabilized sand dunes dominated by coastal prairie habitat, interdunal wetland swales and lakes, upland Sitka spruce forest, and forested wetlands. Percent composition of each plant community type observed was calculated. Invasive non-native plant species were recorded. Surveys were also conducted for both native and non-native plants in four water bodies owned by NCLC or adjacent to land trust properties. The plant community data that were collected will be used to evaluate baseline ecological conditions in the Neacoxie watershed. Plant communities can be used as indicators of long-term tidal and hydrologic conditions as well as the ecological health of the landscape. Repeated measurements can be used to assess community changes over time and to assess how plant community composition compares to that described for natural conditions. This information will assist the land trust in making science-based stewardship decisions on its properties, and can be used by other landowners to better understand changes occurring in plant communities in similar habitats on their properties as a result of human disturbance (e.g., land development, farming, grazing) and invasion by non-native plants. Close

• 16. [Article] Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2008

  Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2008 Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water quality (temperature) are cited as limiting factors in the Draft Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan (Carmichael 2008). Current and proposed restoration efforts for the MFJDR_IMW are anticipated to address these key limiting factors. In order to assess restoration effectiveness on focal fish species, monitoring and analyses must emphasize population level spatial scales. Fish population monitoring for the MFDJR_IMW includes evaluating summer steelhead and spring Chinook population productivity, survival, and abundance. While abundance is an important metric for population assessments, survival and production will also be key indicators of population responses to planned restoration activities. Freshwater survival is assessed from the parr to smolt life stages (parr to smolt survival) and ocean or out-of-basin survival is estimated as a smolt to adult return ratio (SAR). Freshwater productivity is assessed as smolts produced for constructed redds (smolts/redd). Originator: ODFW, Eastern Oregon Fish Research (EOFR). Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). Title: Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2008 Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water quality (temperature) are cited as limiting factors in the Draft Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan (Carmichael 2008). Current and proposed restoration efforts for the MFJDR_IMW are anticipated to address these key limiting factors. In order to assess restoration effectiveness on focal fish species, monitoring and analyses must emphasize population level spatial scales. Fish population monitoring for the MFDJR_IMW includes evaluating summer steelhead and spring Chinook population productivity, survival, and abundance. While abundance is an important metric for population assessments, survival and production will also be key indicators of population responses to planned restoration activities. Freshwater survival is assessed from the parr to smolt life stages (parr to smolt survival) and ocean or out-of-basin survival is estimated as a smolt to adult return ratio (SAR). Freshwater productivity is assessed as smolts produced for constructed redds (smolts/redd). Originator: ODFW, Eastern Oregon Fish Research (EOFR). Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). Close

• 17. [Article] Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2009

  Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2009 Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water quality (temperature) are cited as limiting factors in the Draft Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan (Carmichael 2008). Current and proposed restoration efforts for the MFJDR_IMW are anticipated to address these key limiting factors. In order to assess restoration effectiveness on focal fish species, monitoring and analyses must emphasize population level spatial scales. Fish population monitoring for the MFDJR_IMW includes evaluating summer steelhead and spring Chinook population productivity, survival, and abundance. While abundance is an important metric for population assessments, survival and production will also be key indicators of population responses to planned restoration activities. Freshwater survival is assessed from the parr to smolt life stages (parr to smolt survival) and ocean or out-of-basin survival is estimated as a smolt to adult return ratio (SAR). Freshwater productivity is assessed as smolts produced for constructed redds (smolts/redd). Originator: ODFW, Eastern Oregon Fish Research (EOFR). Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). Title: Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2009 Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water quality (temperature) are cited as limiting factors in the Draft Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan (Carmichael 2008). Current and proposed restoration efforts for the MFJDR_IMW are anticipated to address these key limiting factors. In order to assess restoration effectiveness on focal fish species, monitoring and analyses must emphasize population level spatial scales. Fish population monitoring for the MFDJR_IMW includes evaluating summer steelhead and spring Chinook population productivity, survival, and abundance. While abundance is an important metric for population assessments, survival and production will also be key indicators of population responses to planned restoration activities. Freshwater survival is assessed from the parr to smolt life stages (parr to smolt survival) and ocean or out-of-basin survival is estimated as a smolt to adult return ratio (SAR). Freshwater productivity is assessed as smolts produced for constructed redds (smolts/redd). Originator: ODFW, Eastern Oregon Fish Research (EOFR). Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). Close

• 18. [Article] Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2010

  Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2010 Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water quality (temperature) are cited as limiting factors in the Draft Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan (Carmichael 2008). Current and proposed restoration efforts for the MFJDR_IMW are anticipated to address these key limiting factors. In order to assess restoration effectiveness on focal fish species, monitoring and analyses must emphasize population level spatial scales. Fish population monitoring for the MFDJR_IMW includes evaluating summer steelhead and spring Chinook population productivity, survival, and abundance. While abundance is an important metric for population assessments, survival and production will also be key indicators of population responses to planned restoration activities. Freshwater survival is assessed from the parr to smolt life stages (parr to smolt survival) and ocean or out-of-basin survival is estimated as a smolt to adult return ratio (SAR). Freshwater productivity is assessed as smolts produced for constructed redds (smolts/redd). Originator: ODFW, Eastern Oregon Fish Research (EOFR). Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). Title: Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2010 Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water quality (temperature) are cited as limiting factors in the Draft Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan (Carmichael 2008). Current and proposed restoration efforts for the MFJDR_IMW are anticipated to address these key limiting factors. In order to assess restoration effectiveness on focal fish species, monitoring and analyses must emphasize population level spatial scales. Fish population monitoring for the MFDJR_IMW includes evaluating summer steelhead and spring Chinook population productivity, survival, and abundance. While abundance is an important metric for population assessments, survival and production will also be key indicators of population responses to planned restoration activities. Freshwater survival is assessed from the parr to smolt life stages (parr to smolt survival) and ocean or out-of-basin survival is estimated as a smolt to adult return ratio (SAR). Freshwater productivity is assessed as smolts produced for constructed redds (smolts/redd). Originator: ODFW, Eastern Oregon Fish Research (EOFR). Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). Close

• 19. [Article] Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2012

  Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2012 Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water quality (temperature) are cited as limiting factors in the Draft Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan (Carmichael 2008). Current and proposed restoration efforts for the MFJDR_IMW are anticipated to address these key limiting factors. In order to assess restoration effectiveness on focal fish species, monitoring and analyses must emphasize population level spatial scales. Fish population monitoring for the MFDJR_IMW includes evaluating summer steelhead and spring Chinook population productivity, survival, and abundance. While abundance is an important metric for population assessments, survival and production will also be key indicators of population responses to planned restoration activities. Freshwater survival is assessed from the parr to smolt life stages (parr to smolt survival) and ocean or out-of-basin survival is estimated as a smolt to adult return ratio (SAR). Freshwater productivity is assessed as smolts produced for constructed redds (smolts/redd). Originator: ODFW, Eastern Oregon Fish Research (EOFR). Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). Title: Fish Population Monitoring in the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed - Annual Technical Report 2012 Abstract -- Within the Middle Fork John Day River IMW (MFJDR_IMW), several habitat factors have been identified as limiting for the recovery of summer steelhead. Degraded floodplain and channel structure, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water quality (temperature) are cited as limiting factors in the Draft Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan (Carmichael 2008). Current and proposed restoration efforts for the MFJDR_IMW are anticipated to address these key limiting factors. In order to assess restoration effectiveness on focal fish species, monitoring and analyses must emphasize population level spatial scales. Fish population monitoring for the MFDJR_IMW includes evaluating summer steelhead and spring Chinook population productivity, survival, and abundance. While abundance is an important metric for population assessments, survival and production will also be key indicators of population responses to planned restoration activities. Freshwater survival is assessed from the parr to smolt life stages (parr to smolt survival) and ocean or out-of-basin survival is estimated as a smolt to adult return ratio (SAR). Freshwater productivity is assessed as smolts produced for constructed redds (smolts/redd). Originator: ODFW, Eastern Oregon Fish Research (EOFR). Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). Close

• 20. [Article] Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2010 Annual Report

  Abstract -- Task 1.1: Distribution, Abundance, and Proportion of Hatchery and Natural-Origin Chinook Salmon: Counts of spring Chinook redds were similar in 2010 compared to the 2002–2009 averages for the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2010 Annual Report Abstract -- Task 1.1: Distribution, Abundance, and Proportion of Hatchery and Natural-Origin Chinook Salmon: Counts of spring Chinook redds were similar in 2010 compared to the 2002–2009 averages for the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie and the North Santiam rivers and significantly higher in the South Santiam River Preliminary analyses indicate that the proportions of hatchery fish recovered as carcasses from the spawning grounds varied significantly among all four surveyed sub-basins (South Santiam > M. Fork Willamette > North Santiam > McKenzie) Task 1.2: Monitor fin-clipped & unclipped fish passing Leaburg and Upper Bennett dams. Adult fish passage at Leaburg and Upper Bennett dams was continuously monitored in 2010. We estimated that 2,696 spring Chinook (52% unclipped) passed above Leaburg Dam and 5,956 passed above upper Bennett Dam (14% unclipped). Passage at Leaburg Dam of fin-clipped fish was strongly bimodal with peaks in June (coincident with passage of the majority of unclipped fish) and September (coincident with a smaller proportion of unclipped fish). This bimodal peak suggests that hatchery fish might be removed in September to reduce the proportion of hatchery origin spawners while simultaneously reducing the impacts of handling wild fish. Task 2.1: Collection, spawn timing, and Hatchery/Wild (H/W ) composition for broodstock management. Collection, spawn timing, and H/W composition for broodstock management were successfully monitored at all facilities in 2010. Task 2.2: Determine Survival of Outplanted Fish and Abundance of Spawners. Patterns of pre-spawning mortality were similar to results in 2009 with mortality below project dams significantly higher than that above project dams. We did not detect significant differences in mortality between clipped and unclipped spring Chinook. In comparisons of pre-spawning mortality among sub-basins above project dams, pre-spawning mortality was uniformly low in the Breitenbush and N. Santiam above Detroit, S. Santiam above Foster, and in the S. Fork McKenzie. Pre-spawning mortality was uniformly higher above project dams in the N. Fork Mid. Fork Willamette, Fall Creek and the Little N. Fork Santiam. No comprehensive surveys were conducted in the Middle Fork Willamette. Task 3.1: Determine the extent of summer steelhead reproduction in the wild: We developed a formal study plan to analyze and interpret genetic results from a collection of 299 tissue samples from unclipped juvenile steelhead at Willamette Falls, five from the mainstem Willamette River, and two from the South Santiam River in 2010 in addition to a single sample from an unclipped adult steelhead at the Minto fish collection facility. Samples were preserved 7 and cataloged and then shipped to the NOAA Fisheries Manchester, Washington (WA) laboratory for analysis. Task 3.2: Evaluate release strategies for summer steelhead to increase migration and reduce impacts on wild fish. Study plans to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of volitional release strategies were completed and presented in the 2009 annual report to USACE (Cannon et al. 2010). Funding to process the tissue samples was not available in 2010, and no progress was made in executing the proposed work. Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2010 Annual Report Abstract -- Task 1.1: Distribution, Abundance, and Proportion of Hatchery and Natural-Origin Chinook Salmon: Counts of spring Chinook redds were similar in 2010 compared to the 2002–2009 averages for the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie and the North Santiam rivers and significantly higher in the South Santiam River Preliminary analyses indicate that the proportions of hatchery fish recovered as carcasses from the spawning grounds varied significantly among all four surveyed sub-basins (South Santiam > M. Fork Willamette > North Santiam > McKenzie) Task 1.2: Monitor fin-clipped & unclipped fish passing Leaburg and Upper Bennett dams. Adult fish passage at Leaburg and Upper Bennett dams was continuously monitored in 2010. We estimated that 2,696 spring Chinook (52% unclipped) passed above Leaburg Dam and 5,956 passed above upper Bennett Dam (14% unclipped). Passage at Leaburg Dam of fin-clipped fish was strongly bimodal with peaks in June (coincident with passage of the majority of unclipped fish) and September (coincident with a smaller proportion of unclipped fish). This bimodal peak suggests that hatchery fish might be removed in September to reduce the proportion of hatchery origin spawners while simultaneously reducing the impacts of handling wild fish. Task 2.1: Collection, spawn timing, and Hatchery/Wild (H/W ) composition for broodstock management. Collection, spawn timing, and H/W composition for broodstock management were successfully monitored at all facilities in 2010. Task 2.2: Determine Survival of Outplanted Fish and Abundance of Spawners. Patterns of pre-spawning mortality were similar to results in 2009 with mortality below project dams significantly higher than that above project dams. We did not detect significant differences in mortality between clipped and unclipped spring Chinook. In comparisons of pre-spawning mortality among sub-basins above project dams, pre-spawning mortality was uniformly low in the Breitenbush and N. Santiam above Detroit, S. Santiam above Foster, and in the S. Fork McKenzie. Pre-spawning mortality was uniformly higher above project dams in the N. Fork Mid. Fork Willamette, Fall Creek and the Little N. Fork Santiam. No comprehensive surveys were conducted in the Middle Fork Willamette. Task 3.1: Determine the extent of summer steelhead reproduction in the wild: We developed a formal study plan to analyze and interpret genetic results from a collection of 299 tissue samples from unclipped juvenile steelhead at Willamette Falls, five from the mainstem Willamette River, and two from the South Santiam River in 2010 in addition to a single sample from an unclipped adult steelhead at the Minto fish collection facility. Samples were preserved 7 and cataloged and then shipped to the NOAA Fisheries Manchester, Washington (WA) laboratory for analysis. Task 3.2: Evaluate release strategies for summer steelhead to increase migration and reduce impacts on wild fish. Study plans to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of volitional release strategies were completed and presented in the 2009 annual report to USACE (Cannon et al. 2010). Funding to process the tissue samples was not available in 2010, and no progress was made in executing the proposed work. Close