Search
Search Results
-
21. [Article] Spring Chinook in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers with 1996-2004 summaries; Progress Report 2005
Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Spring Chinook in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers with 1996-2004 summaries; Progress Report 2005
Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases of 5-8 million juveniles. Hatchery programs exist in the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, North and South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers mainly as mitigation for dams that blocked natural production areas. Some natural spawning occurs in most of the major basins and a few smaller tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy recognizes that naturally produced native fish are the foundation for long-term sustainability of native species and hatchery programs, and the fisheries they support. In the past, hatchery programs and fish passage issues were the focus of spring Chinook salmon management in the Willamette and Sandy basins. Limited information was collected on the genetic structure among basin populations, on abundance and distribution of natural spawning, on rearing and migrating of juvenile salmon, or on strategies for reducing risks that large hatchery programs pose for wild salmon populations. This study is being implemented to gather this information. We conducted work in the main-stem Willamette River at Willamette Falls, and in the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie, North Santiam, South Santiam, Molalla, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers in 2004-2005. Task headings below cross reference the study plan outlined in APPENDIX A. This report covers tasks that were worked on in late 2004 through early fall 2005, and summarizes data from 1996-2004.
-
Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Spring Chinook in the Willamette and Sandy Basins, Progress Reports 2006-2007
Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases of 5–8 million juveniles. Hatchery programs exist in the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, North and South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers mainly as mitigation for dams that blocked natural production areas. Some natural spawning occurs in most of the major basins and a few smaller tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy recognizes that naturally produced native fish are the foundation for long-term sustainability of native species and hatchery programs, and the fisheries they support. Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, by providing a genetic reserve as well as providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). In the past, hatchery programs and fish passage issues were the focus of spring Chinook salmon management in the Willamette and Sandy basins. Limited information was collected on the genetic structure among basin populations, on abundance and distribution of natural spawning, on rearing and migrating of juvenile salmon, or on strategies for reducing risks that large hatchery programs pose for wild salmon populations. This study is being implemented to gather this information. A schematic of the study plan is shown in APPENDIX A. We conducted work in the main-stem Willamette River above Willamette Falls, and in the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie, North Santiam, South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers in 2006 and 2007. Basin descriptions and background information on management and fish runs can be found in subbasin plans developed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW 1988, ODFW 1992a, ODFW 1992b, and ODFW 1996). Task headings below cross reference the study plan outlined in APPENDIX A. This report covers tasks that were worked on in late 2005 through early fall 2007.
-
23. [Article] Oregon North Coast Spring Chinook Stock Assessment – 2005-06 Information Reports 2008-01
Abstract -- Chinook salmon populations of the Oregon coast exhibit two general life history types, classified as either spring-run or fall-run depending on adult life-history traits. Fall chinook are present ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Oregon North Coast Spring Chinook Stock Assessment – 2005-06 Information Reports 2008-01
Abstract -- Chinook salmon populations of the Oregon coast exhibit two general life history types, classified as either spring-run or fall-run depending on adult life-history traits. Fall chinook are present in most Oregon coastal basins, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified 28 fall chinook populations in this area (ODFW 2005). Spring chinook salmon are found in larger river basins on the Oregon coast, and the upper portions of the Umpqua and Rogue rivers. This is a more limited distribution than coastal fall chinook and includes only 10 populations (ODFW 2005). Oregon coastal fall chinook stocks have been monitored through a set of 56 standard spawning ground surveys, many conducted since the 1950’s. There has not been a similar, consistent, coast-wide monitoring program for Oregon coastal spring chinook spawners. Abundance of these populations has been monitoring through a variety of methods including; freshwater harvest estimates, counts at dams and weirs, summer resting hole counts, and spawning ground surveys. In 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed west coast chinook salmon populations in regards to status under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The NMFS identified a total of 15 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of chinook salmon (Myers et al. 1998). Oregon coastal chinook are predominantly in the Oregon Coast ESU (Necanicum River to Elk River). This ESU includes both spring and fall chinook, and was determined to not warrant listing (Federal Register Notice 1998). In 2005, ODFW conducted a review of Oregon native fish status, in regards to the State’s Native Fish Conservation Policy. This review grouped populations by Species Management Unit (SMU), and examined coastal spring and fall chinook populations separately. The review determined the near-term sustainability of the Coastal Fall Chinook SMU was not at risk, but the Coastal Spring Chinook SMU was at risk (ODFW 2005). The Tillamook and Nestucca spring chinook populations were of particular concern because they failed to pass the interim criteria for abundance, productivity, and reproductive independence. Hatchery supplementation of spring chinook has occurred in the Tillamook and Nestucca basins since the early 1900’s. Currently, approximately 450,000 spring chinook smolts are released annually from Trask Hatchery, Cedar Creek Hatchery (Nestucca), and from a STEP program at Whiskey Creek. These hatchery smolts have been mass marked with an adipose fin clip since the 1998 brood year. Therefore, hatchery origin adult spring chinook may now be positively identified by the lack of an adipose fin. Declining trends in wild coastal spring chinook populations have resulted in management actions to target harvest on adipose fin clipped hatchery fish, and to restrict harvest of wild origin fish. Results of status reviews, and changes in management practices have required a more thorough evaluation of stock status for the Tillamook and Nestucca spring chinook populations (Keith Braun, personal communication). Therefore, ODFW developed a monitoring plan for spring chinook in these basins. The monitoring plan identified four project objectives; 1) Determine adult spring chinook abundance in the Trask, Wilson, and Nestucca Rivers, 2) Determine hatchery vs. wild ratios for these three basins, 3) Determine age structure and sex ratios for adult spawners, and 4) Determine distribution and abundance for spring chinook recycled from local ODFW hatcheries. This project began in 2004 with an exploratory season to determine distribution, survey methodology, and feasibility of the proposed protocol. In 2005 and 2006 a more intensive sampling effort was implemented, designed to cover the entire distribution of spring chinook spawning in the Nestucca, Trask, and Wilson rivers. Since 2004, project field work has been funded with Restoration and Enhancement Program (R&E) funds, administered by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Project administration is covered through existing funding for the ODFW Oregon Adult Salmonid Inventory and Sampling Project (OASIS). Funding from R&E is scheduled to continue through the 2008 spawning season. Further monitoring will require a new funding source for project field work. This report documents results for project Objectives 1 to 4, including the abundance and distribution of spring chinook spawners during 2005 and 2006 in Oregon’s Trask, Wilson, and Nestucca river basins.
-
24. [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
- 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.
-
Abstract -- In the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls (Figure 1), there are four distinct spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs (North Santiam [Stock 21], South Santiam [Stock 24], McKenzie ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2012 Annual Report
Abstract -- In the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls (Figure 1), there are four distinct spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs (North Santiam [Stock 21], South Santiam [Stock 24], McKenzie [Stock 23], and Middle Fork Willamette [Stock 22]) that are managed for integrated harvest augmentation as part of the Willamette Valley Hatchery Mitigation Program. These hatchery stocks, as well as all naturally spawned spring Chinook salmon in the Upper Willamette Basin, are included in the Upper Willamette River Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). The Upper Willamette Summer Steelhead Hatchery Program is managed to provide fish for sport fisheries and to replace loss of fisheries caused by habitat and passage loss/degradation in the Willamette Basin and other lower Columbia basins. The hatchery program currently includes annual smolt releases into the North Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette rivers. Lack of access to historical habitat and degradation of remaining habitat below the dams, especially in the North and South Santiam (the “core” populations) are the key limiting factors shared between winter steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. In addition, summer steelhead are not native to the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls and a third, unique, limiting factor is the potential for competition, predation and genetic introgression from out-of-ESU hatchery fish interacting with and spawning in the wild with the native winter-run. Summer steelhead were first introduced to the South Santiam River as mitigation for lost winter steelhead production in areas inundated by Foster and Green Peter reservoirs. The scope of work actually directed towards risks posed by summer steelhead is much smaller than that directed towards issues faced by spring Chinook. The Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOP; NMFS 2008) required the USACE to collect information to describe the nature and extent of these potential effects but beyond relatively small-scale studies often integrated into much larger studies involving spring Chinook, more focused work will only follow commitment of significantly more effort and funds. 11 This report fulfills a requirement under Task Order NWPPM-10-FH-06, covering activities of May 2012–June 2012, that were implemented by ODFW on behalf of the Corps to assist with meeting requirements of the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) and measures prescribed in the Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOp) of July 2008 (NOAA 2008). The Corps provided funding to continue ongoing monitoring activities and initiate long-term planning.
-
Abstract -- In the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls (Figure 1), there are four distinct spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs (North Santiam [Stock 21], South Santiam [Stock 24], McKenzie ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2013 Annual Report
Abstract -- In the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls (Figure 1), there are four distinct spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs (North Santiam [Stock 21], South Santiam [Stock 24], McKenzie [Stock 23], and Middle Fork Willamette [Stock 22]) that are managed for integrated harvest augmentation as part of the Willamette Valley Hatchery Mitigation Program. These hatchery stocks, as well as all naturally spawned spring Chinook salmon in the Upper Willamette Basin, are included in the Upper Willamette River Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). The Upper Willamette Summer Steelhead Hatchery Program is managed to provide fish for sport fisheries and to replace loss of fisheries caused by habitat and passage loss/degradation in the Willamette and other lower Columbia basins. The hatchery program currently includes annual smolt releases into the North Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette rivers. Lack of access to historical habitat and degradation of remaining habitat below the dams, especially in the North and South Santiam (the “core” populations) are the key limiting factors shared between winter steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. In addition, summer steelhead are not native to the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls and a third, unique, limiting factor is the potential for competition, predation and genetic introgression from out-of-ESU hatchery fish interacting with and spawning in the wild with the native winter-run(Johnson et al. 2013). Summer steelhead were first introduced to the South Santiam River as mitigation for lost winter steelhead production in areas inundated by Foster and Green Peter reservoirs. The scope of work actually directed towards risks posed by summer steelhead is much smaller than that directed towards issues faced by spring Chinook salmon. The Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOP; NMFS 2008) required the USACE to collect information to describe the nature and extent of these potential effects but beyond relatively small-scale studies often integrated into much larger studies involving spring Chinook salmon, more focused work on steelhead will only follow commitment of significantly more effort and funds. This report fulfills a requirement under Task Order W9127N-12-2-0004-1009 covering activities of May 2013–June 2014, that were implemented by ODFW on behalf of the Corps to assist with meeting requirements of the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) and measures prescribed in the Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOp) of July 2008 (NOAA 2008). The Corps provided funding to continue ongoing monitoring activities and initiate long-term planning. The conceptual relationship between spring Chinook salmon prioritized objectives, RPAs, and 2013 work tasks is depicted in Figure 2. In future work, the intent is to expand the conceptual framework provided in Figure 2 and develop specific numerical goals in terms of, for example, adult returns desired per subbasin. A detailed list of tasks associated with the work is provided in Appendix 1.
-
27. [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
- 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.
-
28. [Article] Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 2000-01 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2003-08
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
- Title:
- Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 2000-01 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2003-08
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 1990; 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 2000. 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. Directed sampling began in 1999 and the findings from 1999 were reported by Satterthwaite (2002a).
-
29. [Article] Oregon Chub Investigations, Progress Report 2001
Abstract -- Populations of Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, endemic to the Willamette Valley, have been drastically reduced. Factors in the decline of this fish include changes in flow regimes and habitat ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Oregon Chub Investigations, Progress Report 2001
Abstract -- Populations of Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, endemic to the Willamette Valley, have been drastically reduced. Factors in the decline of this fish 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, small mouth bass M. dolomieui, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We surveyed in the Willamette River drainage in April-October 2000 to quantify existing Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations. We sampled a total of 77 sites in 2000. We collected Oregon chub for the first time from Barnard Slough in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage. Oregon chub were last collected from this location in 1983 (Bond 1984). Thirty-one of the 77 sites were new sites that were sampled for the first time in 2000. Forty-six sites, sampled in 1991-1999, were revisited. Three sites were sampled twice. We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 20 locations. These include naturally occurring populations in the Santiam drainage (Geren Island, Santiam Conservation Easement, Gray Slough, Santiam 1-5 backwaters, Pioneer Park backwater, Santiam Public Works Pond), Mid-Willamette drainage (Finley Gray Creek Swamp) and Middle Fork Willamette drainage (Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Buckhead Creek, Oakridge Slough, Elijah Bristow State Park, Rattlesnake Creek, and Hospital Pond) and introduced populations in the Middle Fork Willamette (Wicopee Pond, Fall Creek Spillway Ponds), Santiam (Foster Pullout Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Dunn Wetland, Finley Display Pond). Oregon chub were not found at several locations (Jasper Park Slough, Wallace Slough, East Ferrin Pond, Dexter East Alcove, Hospital lmpoundment Pond, Logan Slough, Green's Bridge Backwater, Camas Swale) where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-1999 (Scheerer et. al. 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1998; 1999; 2000; Scheerer and Jones 1997). Non-native fish were common in off-channel habitats that were surveyed in the Willamette River drainage. Non-native fish were collected from 23 of the 31 new sites sampled in 1999 (74%); no fish were collected at three locations (10%). Western mosquitofish and centrarchids (largemouth bass and bluegill) were the most common non-native fish collected. Oregon chub were introduced into Menear's Bend Pond in the Santiam River drainage in the October 2000. Additional Oregon chub were introduced into Foster Pullout Pond in October 2000, to supplement the 85 fish introduced in 1999. In the summer of 2000, a habitat enhancement project creating new habitat to benefit Oregon chub was completed in the Long Tom drainage (Mid-Willamette River). Seven potential Oregon chub reintroduction sites were monitored and evaluated. These included four sites in the Mid-Willamette River drainage (Finley National Wildlife Refuge Beaver and Cattail Ponds, Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge Dunlin-Woodduck Pond, Long Tom Ranch Pond), one site in the Santiam River drainage (Menear's Bend Pond), one site in the McKenzie River drainage (Russell Pond), and one site in the Coast Fork Willamette drainage (Layng Pond). Estimates of abundance were obtained for naturally occurring populations of Oregon chub in East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Elijah Bristow State Park Sloughs, Hospital Pond, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Buckhead Creek, Oakridge Slough, Santiam Conservation Easement Sloughs, Geren Island Ponds, and Finley Gray Creek Swamp. Five of these populations showed an increase in abundance in 2000 (East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Middle Buckhead Creek, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Finley Gray Creek Swamp). Four populations decreased in abundance (or remain depressed) in 2000 (Geren Island, Santiam Conservation Easement, Elijah Bristow Sloughs, Oakridge Slough) (Table 1 ). Abundance estimates for introduced populations of Oregon chub were also obtained. The Oregon chub population in East Ferrin Pond declined from 7,200 fish in 1997 to O fish in 2000, and is presumed extinct. The Oregon chub population in the Fall Creek Spillway Pond totaled 5,030 fish in 2000, compared to 6,300 fish in 1999. The Oregon chub population in Wicopee Pond expanded dramatically from ~50 fish in 1999 to 4,580 fish in 2000. The Oregon chub population in the Dunn Wetland Ponds increased from 4,860 fish in 1999 to 14,090 fish in 2000. The Oregon chub population in Finley Display Pond increased from 360 fish in 1999 to 1,750 fish in 2000. Three of the four largest populations in 2000 were introduced populations. The Middle Fork Willamette River drainage supported the largest number of Oregon chub populations (n=12), followed by the Santiam drainage (n=B), and the Mid-Willamette drainage (n=5). The most abundant Oregon chub populations were found in the Middle Fork Willamette and Mid-Willamette drainages. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set a recovery goal for downlisting the species to "threatened" and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species was to establish and manage ten populations of at least 500 adult fish. All populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years. At least three populations must be located in each of the three sub-basins (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2000, there were 11 populations totaling 500 or more individuals and six of these populations exhibited a stable or increasing trend for the past five years (Table 1 ). Five of these six populations were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage. In summary, Oregon chub remain at risk due to their limited distribution compared with their historic geographic range in the Willamette Valley, the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, unauthorized fill and removal operations, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications.
-
30. [Article] Hood River Bull Trout Abundance, Life History, and Habitat Connectivity, 2007 Progress Reports 2007
Abstract -- Hood River bull trout are thought to exist as two independent reproductive units (USFWS 2004), known as local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1995). The Clear Branch local population is isolated ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Hood River Bull Trout Abundance, Life History, and Habitat Connectivity, 2007 Progress Reports 2007
Abstract -- Hood River bull trout are thought to exist as two independent reproductive units (USFWS 2004), known as local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1995). The Clear Branch local population is isolated above Clear Branch Dam, which provides limited downstream fish passage during infrequent and sporadic periods of spill and no upstream passage. Bull trout in this population inhabit Laurance Lake Reservoir and tributaries upstream of Clear Branch Dam. The Hood River local population occurs in the mainstem Hood River and Middle Fork Hood River downstream of the Clear Branch Dam and a small number of adult bull trout migrate each year into the Hood River from the Columbia River (Figure 1). The status of both populations is extremely precarious. The Clear Branch population is at risk of a random extinction event due to low numbers, negative interactions with non-native smallmouth bass, isolation and limited spawning habitat (USFWS, 1998). The Hood River population also appears to be small and is threatened by passage barriers, unscreened irrigation systems, impaired water quality and periodic siltation of spawning substrate by glacial outbursts. Clear Branch bull trout spawn in Clear Branch and Pinnacle Creek. After rearing in these two natal streams for an unknown time period, most are believed to migrate downstream to Laurance Lake Reservoir. Clear Branch bull trout have been documented passing over the dam spillway during high water events (Pribyl et al. 1996) and may provide a recruitment source for the Hood River local population. Adult bull trout tagged at Powerdale Dam have been observed at Coe Branch irrigation diversion and in a trap at the base of Clear Branch dam. These fish may have been attempting to reach spawning areas located upstream of the dam. However, the success of bull trout migrating downstream via the spillway or the possibility of successfully navigating through the diversion network has never been determined. Depending on the water year, the Middle Fork Irrigation District (MFID) may not spill at all, or the timing of the spill may not coincide with the timing of downstream migration, which is currently unknown (East Fork Hood River and Middle Fork Hood River Watershed analysis). Smallmouth bass were discovered in Lake Laurance Reservoir in the 1990s. Creel surveys have shown that large adult bass are caught occasionally in the reservoir and schools of bass fry have been seen by district fish biologist (Rod French, ODFW, personal communication), suggesting that they are spawning successfully. This illegal introduction poses a potential threat to the Clear Branch bull trout population, but its magnitude is unknown because the bass population size and degree of interaction between the two species are unknown. Bull trout and smallmouth bass have significantly different temperature preferences and tolerances, with bull trout being one of the most sensitive coldwater species and bass being a warm water species. Lake Laurance, a relatively high-altitude reservoir at 890 m (2,920 feet), does not provide ideal bass habitat so these two species may have largely non-overlapping distributions or differing activity periods (Terry Shrader, ODFW warmwater fish biologist, personal communication). However, based on past reservoir temperature data (Berger et al. 2005), there are periods in the reservoir when there is potential for bull trout and bass interaction: periods when bull trout are susceptible to bass predation and when juvenile fish might compete for resources. Spawning activity of the Hood River local population has been observed in a few locations within the Middle Fork of Hood River (Figure 1). Although consistent and extensive spawning areas for this population are not known, some of the locations where juvenile rearing or potential bull trout redds have been observed include the Middle Fork Hood River and some of its tributaries: Bear Creek, Compass Creek and Coe Branch (USFWS 2004). However, Coe Branch, Compass Creek, and the Middle Fork are glacial streams with a high volume of sand and silt which may compromise spawning success. No bull trout spawning or rearing has been observed on the East and West Forks of Hood River. The Middle Fork and mainstem Hood River provide foraging, migration and overwintering habitat. Hood River bull trout are also known to migrate into the Columbia River. Two bull trout tagged at Powerdale Dam (RK 7.2 of mainstem Hood River) were recovered near Drano Lake in Washington State; and one was captured 11 kilometers downstream of the confluence of the Hood and Columbia Rivers (USFWS 2004). Every year (usually between May and July), adult bull trout, presumably migrating upstream from the Columbia River, are captured and anchor tagged at Powerdale Dam. Although some of these tagged fish have been observed upstream (one in Coe Branch and three below Clear Branch dam), the spawning destination of fluvial adults within the Hood River basin is largely unknown. Dispersing juvenile bull trout and migrating adults in this local population are threatened by flow diversions with inadequate screening and passage facilities. Several structures are suspected to impede upstream migration or entrain juvenile and adult bull trout into irrigation works (Pribyl et al. 1996, HRWG 1999). These structures include: the diversion at Clear Branch Dam (passage and screening), Coe Branch (passage and screening), and the Farmers Irrigation District diversion (screening) on the mainstem Hood River (HRWG 1999). However, little research has been conducted to assess the impacts of these structures on migrating bull trout. Beyond a general knowledge of the distribution of Hood River bull trout and the nature of anthropogenic factors that potentially restrict their life history and habitat connectivity, little is known about this recovery unit. Baseline information about adult abundance is lacking for both local populations, the potential of a source (Clear Branch) and sink (Hood River) relationship between the two local populations has not been explored, and the migratory life history of adult fish caught at Powerdale Dam is unknown. The degree to which irrigation and hydropower diversions hamper connectivity within the Hood River basin is also poorly understood. Migratory life histories have been viewed as key to species persistence (Rieman and McIntyre 1995; Dunham and Rieman 1999), and understanding movement patterns and associated habitat requirements are critical to maintaining those migratory forms (Muhlfeld and Morotz 2005; Hostettler 2005). Gaining this information is also critical to evaluating bull trout recovery in the Hood River Subbasin (Coccoli 2004). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated a study in 2006 to improve our understanding of the abundance, life history, and potential limiting factors of the bull trout in this recovery unit. This report describes findings for the first two years of the study (2006-2007). Specific study objectives for the first two years were: 1. Determine the migratory life history of Hood River bull trout and assess the potential impacts of flow diversions and two new falls on the Middle Fork Hood River (scoured by the November 2006 glacial outburst) on bull trout migrations. 2. Determine current distribution of bull trout reproduction and early rearing in historical and potential bull trout streams in the Hood River Subbasin. 3. Determine the juvenile and adult life history the Clear Branch local population and develop a statistically reliable and cost-effective protocol for monitoring the abundance of adult Clear Branch bull trout. 4. Assess the potential impact of smallmouth bass on bull trout in Laurance Lake Reservoir.