Search
Search Results
-
291. [Article] Status and Distribution of Native Fishes in the Goose Lake Basin Information Reports number 2008-02
Abstract -- This study describes the current distribution of the nine native fish species in the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake basin (Lake County): Goose Lake redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp., ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Status and Distribution of Native Fishes in the Goose Lake Basin Information Reports number 2008-02
Abstract -- This study describes the current distribution of the nine native fish species in the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake basin (Lake County): Goose Lake redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp., Goose Lake lamprey Entosphenus sp., Goose Lake tui chub Siphateles bicolor thalassinus, Goose Lake sucker Catostomus occidentalis lacusanserinus, Modoc sucker Catostomus microps, Pit-Klamath brook lamprey Entosphenus lethophagus, speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus, Pit roach Lavinia symmetricus mitrulus, and Pit sculpin Cottus pitensis. The Goose Lake basin is an endorheic, or topographically closed basin located in south central Oregon and northeastern California. The basin is within the usually closed northeastern extremity of the adjoining Sacramento River basin, astride the Oregon-California boundary. Although most of the lake lies in California, most of its valley and nearly two-thirds of the total drainage area (~722 sq. mi.) are in Oregon. The largest streams in the basin are Drews, Cottonwood, and Thomas Creeks. Annual precipitation averages about 36 cm per year (Phillips and van Denburgh 1971). Goose Lake overflowed briefly into the North Fork Pit River in 1868 and 1881, but storage and diversion of irrigation water has substantially reduced the inflow and future overflow is unlikely (USGS 1971). The lakebed was dry in the summers of 1926, 1929- 1934, and 1992. About half the basin is forestland, 20% is hay fields and pastureland, and 16% is shrub and rangeland. Currently, almost 35% of the inflow is diverted for irrigation (OWRD 1989). The Goose Lake basin is home to four endemic fish taxa: the Goose Lake redband trout, lamprey, sucker, and tui chub. Endemic fishes of the Goose Lake basin split their life histories between Goose Lake and its tributaries, as opposed to the five native but non-endemic species that primarily occupy stream habitats. Pit roach and all endemic fishes except Goose Lake tui chub are listed as a “species of concern” by the USFWS, a designation that implies there is concern about species viability, but not enough information is known to initiate a listing review for threatened or endangered status. The Modoc sucker was listed as a federally endangered species in 1985 (USFWS 1985). No formal recovery plan was required due to an existing “Action Plan for the Recovery of the Modoc Sucker” (USFWS 1984). Most of the recovery actions outlined in the action plan were either completed or are no longer relevant (Stewart Reid, Western Fishes, personal communication). However, actions 26 and 27 pertaining to range expansion remain incomplete. Action 26 suggests reclassification to threatened upon establishment of safe populations (for 3-5 years) throughout the Rush and Turner Creek watersheds in the Pit River basin. Action 27 suggests delisting upon establishing safe populations in two other historic streams. At the time of listing, the historic range of Modoc sucker was thought to have included only two small tributaries of the Pit River in Modoc and Lassen Counties, Ash and Turner Creeks (USFWS 1985). Therefore, a major recovery goal was to expand the species’ range with additional populations (USFWS 1984). In 2001, reexamination of historical documents and museum specimens established that Modoc suckers had also historically occupied Thomas Creek in the Goose Lake basin. Field collections in 2001, with subsequent morphological and genetic analysis, confirmed that the population was still present in Thomas Creek (Stewart Reid, Western Fishes, personal communication); however, the broader range of Modoc sucker in the Goose Lake watershed was not known. In 1995, the Goose Lake Fishes Working Group drafted a conservation plan for “prelisting” recovery of all native fish in response to severe drought and habitat degradation (GLFWG 1995). The Aquatic Inventories Project of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) conducted habitat and fish distribution surveys (1991-1995) to obtain baseline information to help inform recovery efforts (ODFW, unpublished data). Since then, field work to monitor the distribution and abundance of Goose Lake fishes has been limited and sporadic, targeting only Goose Lake redband trout and Modoc sucker (Dambacher 2001; Reid 2007). No comprehensive follow up work has been conducted to evaluate fish response to climatic conditions, habitat restoration projects, and continued irrigation activities. ODFW recently drafted a status review of native fish of Oregon (ODFW 2005). Except for redband trout, Goose Lake fishes were not included in the status review due to a lack of new information since the previous status review in 1995 (Kostow et al. 1995). Further, the review of Goose Lake redband trout was limited by a lack of long-term data series. The first objective of this study was to document the current distribution of native fishes in Oregon’s portion of the Goose Lake basin and assess changes in distribution that may have occurred since the last surveys were conducted 12 years ago. The second objective was to provide new information about the distribution of Modoc suckers within the basin. The third objective was to determine relative abundance and age-class diversity of native fishes at randomly selected sample sites. All objectives were addressed throughout the potential riverine distribution of fish in the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake basin. Information gathered in this study is critical to effective conservation and management of each species and its habitat. In addition, this report describes the distribution and relative abundance of nonnative fishes (fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)) in the basin. Unlike prior efforts, this study used a statisticallybased design to select sample points with the aim of achieving a representative sample across the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake watershed. Additionally, a wide array of fish sampling gear was employed to maximize our ability to capture all fish species present across the diversity of habitat types encountered.
-
292. [Article] Recovery of Wild Coho Salmon In Salmon River Basin, 2008-2010 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2011-10
Abstract -- Hatcheries have been a centerpiece of salmon management in the Pacific Northwest for more than a century but recent evidence of adverse interactions between hatchery and naturally-produced ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Recovery of Wild Coho Salmon In Salmon River Basin, 2008-2010 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2011-10
Abstract -- Hatcheries have been a centerpiece of salmon management in the Pacific Northwest for more than a century but recent evidence of adverse interactions between hatchery and naturally-produced salmon have resulted in substantial changes in many hatchery programs. In 2007 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife terminated a 30-year artificial propagation program for coho salmon in the Salmon River basin after a status assessment concluded that wild population viability was threatened by hatchery effects on salmon productivity (Chilcote et al. 2005). Hatchery-reared coho comprised 50-100% of the naturally spawning population in recent years. Low productivity was reflected in a low spawner to recruit ratio, and life-stage specific survival was lower than that of nearby populations. The temporal distribution of adult spawning in the basin was truncated and peaked 1.5 months earlier relative to the pre-hatchery period and adjacent coastal populations. The cessation of hatchery releases into Salmon River not only removed the primary factor believed to limit productivity of the local population, it also constituted a rare management experiment to test whether a naturally-spawning population can recover from a prolonged period of low abundance after interactions with hatchery-produced coho salmon are eliminated. This report summarizes the results of coho population studies at Salmon River for the first three years after the hatchery program was discontinued. The study in Salmon River is timely because ecological interactions between hatchery and wild fish have been implicated in the reduced survival and decreased productivity of wild coho and other salmonid populations (Nickelson 2003, Buhle et al. 2009, Chilcote et al. 2011). Recent studies involving a diversity of salmonid species and watersheds have shown a negative relationship between hatchery spawner abundance and wild population productivity regardless of the duration of hatchery influence (Chilcote et al. 2011). Yet neither the mechanisms of these productivity declines nor their potential reversibility have been investigated. Recent management changes at Salmon River provide an opportunity to experimentally evaluate coho salmon survival and productivity following the elimination of a decades-long hatchery program. The results will provide new insights into the reversibility of hatchery effects and the rate, mechanisms, and trajectory of response by a naturally spawning coho salmon population. Hatchery programs have been shown to change the timing and distribution of naturally spawning adults, but ecological and genetic influences on the spatial structure and life history diversity of juvenile populations are poorly understood. Conventional understanding of the life history of juvenile coho has presumed a relatively fixed pattern of rearing and migration. However, recent studies have found much greater variation in juvenile life history and habitat-use patterns than previously expected (Miller and Sadro 2003, Koski 2009), including evidence that estuaries may play a prominent role in the life histories of some coho salmon populations. A recent study in the Salmon River basin found considerable diversity in the life histories of juvenile Chinook salmon, including extended rearing by fry and other subyearling migrants within the complex network of natural and restored estuarine wetlands (Bottom et al. 2005). Unfortunately, interpretation of juvenile life history variations at Salmon River was confounded by the Chinook hatchery program, which has concentrated spawning activity in the lower river near the hatchery and may directly influence juvenile migration and rearing patterns. Discontinuation of the coho hatchery program at Salmon River provides an opportunity to quantify changes in juvenile life history following the elimination of all hatchery-fish interactions with the naturally spawning population. Such responses may provide important insights into the mechanisms of hatchery influence on wild salmon productivity and population resilience. Our research integrates adult and juvenile life stages, examines linkages to physical habitat conditions in fresh water and the estuary, and describes variability between juvenile performance and adult returns. It also monitors the coho salmon population across habitat types and life history stages to identify population responses at a landscape scale. We will determine productivity and survival at each salmon life stage and monitor the response of the adult population following the cessation of the coho salmon hatchery program. From these indicators, we will determine the potential resiliency of the coho salmon population, and evaluate the biological benefits or tradeoffs of returning the ecosystem to natural salmon production. Our study design encompasses four population phases: (1) pre-hatchery conditions (Mullen 1979), (2) dominance by hatchery-reared spawners (2008), (3) first generation naturally produced juveniles (2009-2011), and (4) second generation naturally produced juveniles (starting in 2012). This research will validate assumptions about factors limiting coho recovery and determine whether recovery actions have been effective. Here, we report on findings from 2008-2010 to address four principal objectives: 1. Quantify life stage specific survival and recruits per spawner ratio of the coho salmon population before and after hatchery coho salmon are removed from Salmon River. 2. Assess whether the Salmon River coho population is limited by capacity and complexity of stream habitat. 3. Describe the diversity of juvenile and adult life histories of coho salmon in the Salmon River basin, and estimate the relative contributions of various juvenile life histories to adult returns. 4. Determine seasonal use of the Salmon River estuary and its tidally-inundated wetlands by juvenile coho salmon. The field sampling that supported the study on coho salmon also captured Chinook salmon and steelhead and cutthroat trout during routine sampling in the watershed and estuary. This report emphasizes coho salmon results, but also summarizes catch, distribution, and migration data for other salmonids to compare densities and abundances in freshwater and the estuary. Additional results for Chinook, steelhead, and cutthroat are presented in Appendix A. See Stein et al. (2011) for more detailed information on life history diversity, migration patterns, habitat use, and abundance of cutthroat trout.
-
293. [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.
-
294. [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.