Search

Search Results

• 331. [Article] Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Summer Steelhead Evaluation Studies - 2015 Annual Progress Report

  Abstract -- The objectives of this report are to document fish culture practices, describe adult returns, and assess progress toward meeting LSRCP goals for Grande Ronde and Imnaha steelhead (Oncorhynchus ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Summer Steelhead Evaluation Studies - 2015 Annual Progress Report Abstract -- The objectives of this report are to document fish culture practices, describe adult returns, and assess progress toward meeting LSRCP goals for Grande Ronde and Imnaha steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). We report on juvenile steelhead rearing and release activities for the 2014 brood year (BY) released in 2015. Included are collection, spawning, and adult characteristics for the 2015 returns, returns from experimental releases, supplementation in Little Sheep Creek, and success toward achieving compensation goals. The Grande Ronde and Imnaha river steelhead hatchery programs were initiated in 1976 and 1982 in response to the rapid decline in Snake River steelhead abundance. Annual adult mitigation, brood year specific smolt-to-adult return and total smolt-to-adult survival rates, and annual smolt production goals were established to compensate for the estimated annual loss of 48% of adult production. Adaptive management has resulted in current interim smolt production goals of 800,000 (ODFW Wallowa stock released into the Grande Ronde) and 215,000 (Imnaha stock) smolts; less than the original goals of 1,350,000 and 330,000 smolts. Based on original smolt production goals it was assumed that 27,552 Wallowa stock and 6,000 Imnaha stock adults would be produced annually. Furthermore, 66.7% of these fish were expected to be harvested below the compensation area, defined as the watershed above Lower Granite Dam, resulting in compensation area adult return goals of 9,184 Wallowa stock and 2,000 Imnaha stock. In general, the data in this report were derived from hatchery inventories and standard databases (e.g., Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Regional Mark Information System (RMIS), ODFW mark recovery) or through standard measuring techniques. As such, specific protocols are usually not described. In cases where expansions of data or unique methodologies were used, protocols are described in more detail. Additional descriptions of protocols can be found in our work statements (Carmichael et al. 2012, Carmichael et al. 2013). Coded-wire tag (CWT) data collected from 2015 adult returns were used to evaluate smolt-to-adult survival rates in experimental rearing and release groups. In 2015, the only experimental treatments from which fish returned were second generation progeny from early returning (fall-collected) broodstock. In 2015, smolts were released at Wallowa Hatchery that were third generation progeny of early returning (fall-collected) broodstock for an experimental comparison with progeny of standard production broodstock. Methods for the fall broodstock experiment are described in Warren et al. (2011a). Analysis of specific survival studies will be completed and published in separate reports once all brood years have returned and CWT data are complete for each experiment. In addition, much of the data that we discuss in this report will be used in separate and specific evaluations of ongoing supplementation programs for steelhead in the Imnaha River basin. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW- Eastern Oregon Fish Research (EOFR) Title: Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Summer Steelhead Evaluation Studies - 2015 Annual Progress Report Abstract -- The objectives of this report are to document fish culture practices, describe adult returns, and assess progress toward meeting LSRCP goals for Grande Ronde and Imnaha steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). We report on juvenile steelhead rearing and release activities for the 2014 brood year (BY) released in 2015. Included are collection, spawning, and adult characteristics for the 2015 returns, returns from experimental releases, supplementation in Little Sheep Creek, and success toward achieving compensation goals. The Grande Ronde and Imnaha river steelhead hatchery programs were initiated in 1976 and 1982 in response to the rapid decline in Snake River steelhead abundance. Annual adult mitigation, brood year specific smolt-to-adult return and total smolt-to-adult survival rates, and annual smolt production goals were established to compensate for the estimated annual loss of 48% of adult production. Adaptive management has resulted in current interim smolt production goals of 800,000 (ODFW Wallowa stock released into the Grande Ronde) and 215,000 (Imnaha stock) smolts; less than the original goals of 1,350,000 and 330,000 smolts. Based on original smolt production goals it was assumed that 27,552 Wallowa stock and 6,000 Imnaha stock adults would be produced annually. Furthermore, 66.7% of these fish were expected to be harvested below the compensation area, defined as the watershed above Lower Granite Dam, resulting in compensation area adult return goals of 9,184 Wallowa stock and 2,000 Imnaha stock. In general, the data in this report were derived from hatchery inventories and standard databases (e.g., Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Regional Mark Information System (RMIS), ODFW mark recovery) or through standard measuring techniques. As such, specific protocols are usually not described. In cases where expansions of data or unique methodologies were used, protocols are described in more detail. Additional descriptions of protocols can be found in our work statements (Carmichael et al. 2012, Carmichael et al. 2013). Coded-wire tag (CWT) data collected from 2015 adult returns were used to evaluate smolt-to-adult survival rates in experimental rearing and release groups. In 2015, the only experimental treatments from which fish returned were second generation progeny from early returning (fall-collected) broodstock. In 2015, smolts were released at Wallowa Hatchery that were third generation progeny of early returning (fall-collected) broodstock for an experimental comparison with progeny of standard production broodstock. Methods for the fall broodstock experiment are described in Warren et al. (2011a). Analysis of specific survival studies will be completed and published in separate reports once all brood years have returned and CWT data are complete for each experiment. In addition, much of the data that we discuss in this report will be used in separate and specific evaluations of ongoing supplementation programs for steelhead in the Imnaha River basin. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW- Eastern Oregon Fish Research (EOFR) Close

• 332. [Article] Spawning distribution and habitat use of adult Pacific and western brook lamprey in Smith River, Oregon Information Reports 2006-1

  Abstract -- Coastal Oregon populations of Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata and western brook lamprey L. richardsoni are considered depressed due to habitat loss and passage problems (Close et al. 2002, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Spawning distribution and habitat use of adult Pacific and western brook lamprey in Smith River, Oregon Information Reports 2006-1 Abstract -- Coastal Oregon populations of Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata and western brook lamprey L. richardsoni are considered depressed due to habitat loss and passage problems (Close et al. 2002, Nawa 2003, ODFW 2006). Pacific lamprey was listed as an Oregon state sensitive species in 1993 and in 1996 was protected through restriction of harvest (ODFW 2006). Western brook lamprey is not protected and has no special state status. Abundance of Pacific lamprey throughout the coast and Columbia River has declined dramatically since the1960s. Dam counts at Winchester, Bonneville, and Leaburg dams show a dramatic decrease from historical levels (Kostow 2002, Nawa 2003, ODFW 2006). In 2003, eleven environmental groups petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list Pacific, western brook, and two other lamprey species as endangered in the Pacific Northwest and California (Nawa 2003). Even though the petition cited habitat losses due to reduced in-stream flows, water diversions, dredging, scour and channnelization issues, pollution and degradation of riparian communities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the petition did not contain adequate information to warrant a listing (Federal Register, 69 (27 December 2004) 77158-77167). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recently reviewed the status of western brook and Pacific lamprey and found populations to be ‘at risk’ of extinction (ODFW 2006) due to habitat loss, passage barriers and pollution. However data necessary to conduct a thorough and detailed assessment are lacking. Much of the data lacking are critical to the effective management and conservation of Oregon’s coastal lamprey species. The Columbia River Basin Lamprey Technical Workgroup (CRBLTW 2005) and members of Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC 2004) have identified and prioritized critical data gaps for Pacific lamprey, many of which also apply to western brook lamprey. Among these are 1) methods to assess distribution and abundance of all life stages and appropriate techniques for monitoring population status; 2) population structure and delineation; 3) population dynamics; 4) basic biology including interspecific and community level relationships; 5) limiting factors and threats including passage issues, and 6) habitat needs and requirements. This study addresses information needs pertaining to distribution and habitat use in addition to providing basic descriptive ecology. Our goal was to identify habitat variables associated with spawning Pacific and western brook lamprey in order to infer distribution throughout coastal Oregon. The objectives of this study were to 1) determine distribution of spawning Pacific and western brook lamprey in the Smith River basin; 2) describe redds of both species; and 3) describe associations of spawning Pacific and western brook lamprey in relation to habitat unit and reach scale habitat characteristics. Title: Spawning distribution and habitat use of adult Pacific and western brook lamprey in Smith River, Oregon Information Reports 2006-1 Abstract -- Coastal Oregon populations of Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata and western brook lamprey L. richardsoni are considered depressed due to habitat loss and passage problems (Close et al. 2002, Nawa 2003, ODFW 2006). Pacific lamprey was listed as an Oregon state sensitive species in 1993 and in 1996 was protected through restriction of harvest (ODFW 2006). Western brook lamprey is not protected and has no special state status. Abundance of Pacific lamprey throughout the coast and Columbia River has declined dramatically since the1960s. Dam counts at Winchester, Bonneville, and Leaburg dams show a dramatic decrease from historical levels (Kostow 2002, Nawa 2003, ODFW 2006). In 2003, eleven environmental groups petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list Pacific, western brook, and two other lamprey species as endangered in the Pacific Northwest and California (Nawa 2003). Even though the petition cited habitat losses due to reduced in-stream flows, water diversions, dredging, scour and channnelization issues, pollution and degradation of riparian communities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the petition did not contain adequate information to warrant a listing (Federal Register, 69 (27 December 2004) 77158-77167). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recently reviewed the status of western brook and Pacific lamprey and found populations to be ‘at risk’ of extinction (ODFW 2006) due to habitat loss, passage barriers and pollution. However data necessary to conduct a thorough and detailed assessment are lacking. Much of the data lacking are critical to the effective management and conservation of Oregon’s coastal lamprey species. The Columbia River Basin Lamprey Technical Workgroup (CRBLTW 2005) and members of Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC 2004) have identified and prioritized critical data gaps for Pacific lamprey, many of which also apply to western brook lamprey. Among these are 1) methods to assess distribution and abundance of all life stages and appropriate techniques for monitoring population status; 2) population structure and delineation; 3) population dynamics; 4) basic biology including interspecific and community level relationships; 5) limiting factors and threats including passage issues, and 6) habitat needs and requirements. This study addresses information needs pertaining to distribution and habitat use in addition to providing basic descriptive ecology. Our goal was to identify habitat variables associated with spawning Pacific and western brook lamprey in order to infer distribution throughout coastal Oregon. The objectives of this study were to 1) determine distribution of spawning Pacific and western brook lamprey in the Smith River basin; 2) describe redds of both species; and 3) describe associations of spawning Pacific and western brook lamprey in relation to habitat unit and reach scale habitat characteristics. Close

• 333. [Article] Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys: Aquatic Inventories Project Information Reports 2007-01

  Abstract -- The Aquatic Inventories Project is designed to provide quantitative information on habitat condition for streams throughout Oregon. This information is used to provide basic information for ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys: Aquatic Inventories Project Information Reports 2007-01 Abstract -- The Aquatic Inventories Project is designed to provide quantitative information on habitat condition for streams throughout Oregon. This information is used to provide basic information for biologists and land managers, to establish monitoring programs, and to direct or focus habitat restoration efforts. Development of an Aquatic Inventories Project began within the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in 1989 with sponsorship by the Restoration and Enhancement Program. Drafting of stream survey methods and implementation of field work began in 1990. The conceptual background for this work came from the experience of project staff and from interactions with Oregon State University, forest industry, and USFS PNW research scientists (Bisson et al. 1982, Grant 1986, Everest et al. 1987, Hankin and Reeves 1988, Moore and Gregory 1989, and Gregory et al. 1991). Significant contributions and review of these methods were provided by ODFW research staff, and from consultation with ODFW and United States Forest Service (USFS) biologists working on similar programs. Members of the Umpqua Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative and the Oregon Forest Industry Council have provided additional review and consultation. This methodology was designed to be compatible with other stream habitat inventories and classification systems (i.e., Rosgen 1985, Frissell et al. 1986, Cupp 1989, Ralph 1989, USFS Region 6 Level II Inventory 1992, and Hawkins et al. 1993). This compatibility is achieved by systematically identifying and quantifying valley and stream geomorphic features. The resulting matrix of measurements and spatial relationships can then be generalized into frequently occurring valley and channel types or translated into the nomenclature of a particular system. For example, information summarized at the reach level (valley width, channel type, slope, terrace height and width, sinuosity, width, depth, substrate, eroding banks, etc.) can be used to characterize the stream into one of the types described by Rosgen (1985) or to match the parameters collected in other quantitative (USFS) or historic (U.S. Bureau of Fisheries) surveys. The process of conducting a stream survey involves collection of general information from maps and other sources and the direct observation of stream characteristics in the field. This information is both collected and analyzed based on a hierarchical system of regions, basins, streams, reaches, and habitat units. Supervisors are responsible for collecting the general information on regions and basins and for directing the activities of the survey crews. Survey teams will collect field data based on stream, reach and channel unit characteristics. Region and basin data will primarily come from ODFW-EPA region and sub region classifications, and from map analysis. The following instructions and definitions provide the outline for these activities and a description of the tasks involved in conducting ODFW’s stream habitat inventory. Each field crew is comprised of two people with each member responsible for specific tasks. The "Estimator" will focus on the identification of channel unit characteristics. The "Numerator" will focus on the counts and relative distribution of several unit attributes and will verify the length and width estimates for a subset of units. The "Estimator" and "Numerator" share the responsibility for describing reach characteristics, riparian conditions, identifying habitat unit types, and for quantifying the amount of large woody debris. Crew members may switch responsibility for estimator or numerator when they start a new stream. They will not, however, switch estimator and numerator jobs on the same stream. Title: Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys: Aquatic Inventories Project Information Reports 2007-01 Abstract -- The Aquatic Inventories Project is designed to provide quantitative information on habitat condition for streams throughout Oregon. This information is used to provide basic information for biologists and land managers, to establish monitoring programs, and to direct or focus habitat restoration efforts. Development of an Aquatic Inventories Project began within the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in 1989 with sponsorship by the Restoration and Enhancement Program. Drafting of stream survey methods and implementation of field work began in 1990. The conceptual background for this work came from the experience of project staff and from interactions with Oregon State University, forest industry, and USFS PNW research scientists (Bisson et al. 1982, Grant 1986, Everest et al. 1987, Hankin and Reeves 1988, Moore and Gregory 1989, and Gregory et al. 1991). Significant contributions and review of these methods were provided by ODFW research staff, and from consultation with ODFW and United States Forest Service (USFS) biologists working on similar programs. Members of the Umpqua Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative and the Oregon Forest Industry Council have provided additional review and consultation. This methodology was designed to be compatible with other stream habitat inventories and classification systems (i.e., Rosgen 1985, Frissell et al. 1986, Cupp 1989, Ralph 1989, USFS Region 6 Level II Inventory 1992, and Hawkins et al. 1993). This compatibility is achieved by systematically identifying and quantifying valley and stream geomorphic features. The resulting matrix of measurements and spatial relationships can then be generalized into frequently occurring valley and channel types or translated into the nomenclature of a particular system. For example, information summarized at the reach level (valley width, channel type, slope, terrace height and width, sinuosity, width, depth, substrate, eroding banks, etc.) can be used to characterize the stream into one of the types described by Rosgen (1985) or to match the parameters collected in other quantitative (USFS) or historic (U.S. Bureau of Fisheries) surveys. The process of conducting a stream survey involves collection of general information from maps and other sources and the direct observation of stream characteristics in the field. This information is both collected and analyzed based on a hierarchical system of regions, basins, streams, reaches, and habitat units. Supervisors are responsible for collecting the general information on regions and basins and for directing the activities of the survey crews. Survey teams will collect field data based on stream, reach and channel unit characteristics. Region and basin data will primarily come from ODFW-EPA region and sub region classifications, and from map analysis. The following instructions and definitions provide the outline for these activities and a description of the tasks involved in conducting ODFW’s stream habitat inventory. Each field crew is comprised of two people with each member responsible for specific tasks. The "Estimator" will focus on the identification of channel unit characteristics. The "Numerator" will focus on the counts and relative distribution of several unit attributes and will verify the length and width estimates for a subset of units. The "Estimator" and "Numerator" share the responsibility for describing reach characteristics, riparian conditions, identifying habitat unit types, and for quantifying the amount of large woody debris. Crew members may switch responsibility for estimator or numerator when they start a new stream. They will not, however, switch estimator and numerator jobs on the same stream. Close

• 334. [Article] Migration and Passage of Redband Trout in the Donner und Blitzen River, 2007-2009, Information Reports Number 2009-05

  Abstract -- Movement of redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) was tracked between March 2007 and June 2009 in the Donner und Blitzen River (Blitzen River). We had three primary study objectives: ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Migration and Passage of Redband Trout in the Donner und Blitzen River, 2007-2009, Information Reports Number 2009-05 Abstract -- Movement of redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) was tracked between March 2007 and June 2009 in the Donner und Blitzen River (Blitzen River). We had three primary study objectives: 1) examine redband trout spawning locations and spawning migration timing, 2) evaluate redband trout passage at diversion dams, and 3) investigate seasonal migration patterns of redband trout as they relate to stream temperature dynamics. We tagged 96 redband trout with radio transmitters and 706 with PIT tags. Radio tracking included both mobile and fixed station detections. We established PIT tag readers at Cato Bridge (Rkm 1), Busse Dam (Rkm 35), Grain Camp Dam (Rkm 48), and Page Dam (Rkm 76) for additional data on large-scale movement patterns. With the PIT antennas at the three diversion dams, we placed one antenna below the dam and one at the upstream exit of the fish ladders to evaluate the passage delays at each dam. Stream temperature was recorded at 10 locations in the Blitzen River throughout the study. Scales of 257 migratory trout were interpreted for age and spawning history. Our results indicated that the majority of Blitzen redband trout migrated upstream of Page Dam to spawn and that most trout spawned in the mainstem and not the tributaries. Upstream trout migration occurred from March to July, but the peak migration occurred during late April and early May. Passage problems were recorded at two of the three dams evaluated. Trout were delayed longest at Busse Dam and 44% of radio-tagged trout that approached the dam were never able to pass. Trout experienced less delay at Grain Camp Dam and only 8% of radio-tagged trout failed to pass the dam. At Page Dam, which has a recently upgraded fish ladder, trout delays were short and only 5% of trout that approached the dam were unable to pass. Potentially stressful or lethal temperatures (>24.3°C) were recorded at all monitoring locations downstream of Fish Creek, except at the site just below Page Springs. The migratory population ranged in age from 1+ to 5+, but only age 3+ and older trout were reproductively mature. This suggests that the spring upstream migration includes both adult trout seeking suitable spawning habitats and immature trout making a seasonal habitat shift for thermal refuge. A fraction of the PIT-tagged fish were observed to make two or three migrations from below Busse Dam to above Page Dam in the spring and returning back to the lower river in the fall. We recommend prioritizing fish passage at the Busse Dam and Grain Camp Dam for conservation and enhancement efforts. Title: Migration and Passage of Redband Trout in the Donner und Blitzen River, 2007-2009, Information Reports Number 2009-05 Abstract -- Movement of redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) was tracked between March 2007 and June 2009 in the Donner und Blitzen River (Blitzen River). We had three primary study objectives: 1) examine redband trout spawning locations and spawning migration timing, 2) evaluate redband trout passage at diversion dams, and 3) investigate seasonal migration patterns of redband trout as they relate to stream temperature dynamics. We tagged 96 redband trout with radio transmitters and 706 with PIT tags. Radio tracking included both mobile and fixed station detections. We established PIT tag readers at Cato Bridge (Rkm 1), Busse Dam (Rkm 35), Grain Camp Dam (Rkm 48), and Page Dam (Rkm 76) for additional data on large-scale movement patterns. With the PIT antennas at the three diversion dams, we placed one antenna below the dam and one at the upstream exit of the fish ladders to evaluate the passage delays at each dam. Stream temperature was recorded at 10 locations in the Blitzen River throughout the study. Scales of 257 migratory trout were interpreted for age and spawning history. Our results indicated that the majority of Blitzen redband trout migrated upstream of Page Dam to spawn and that most trout spawned in the mainstem and not the tributaries. Upstream trout migration occurred from March to July, but the peak migration occurred during late April and early May. Passage problems were recorded at two of the three dams evaluated. Trout were delayed longest at Busse Dam and 44% of radio-tagged trout that approached the dam were never able to pass. Trout experienced less delay at Grain Camp Dam and only 8% of radio-tagged trout failed to pass the dam. At Page Dam, which has a recently upgraded fish ladder, trout delays were short and only 5% of trout that approached the dam were unable to pass. Potentially stressful or lethal temperatures (>24.3°C) were recorded at all monitoring locations downstream of Fish Creek, except at the site just below Page Springs. The migratory population ranged in age from 1+ to 5+, but only age 3+ and older trout were reproductively mature. This suggests that the spring upstream migration includes both adult trout seeking suitable spawning habitats and immature trout making a seasonal habitat shift for thermal refuge. A fraction of the PIT-tagged fish were observed to make two or three migrations from below Busse Dam to above Page Dam in the spring and returning back to the lower river in the fall. We recommend prioritizing fish passage at the Busse Dam and Grain Camp Dam for conservation and enhancement efforts. Close

• 335. [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

• 336. [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 Citation Abstract Copy 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). 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). Close

• 337. [Article] Abundance, distribution, and migratory behavior of coastal cutthroat trout in two lower Columbia River tributaries

  Abstract -- Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) exhibit multiple life history types characterized by diverse migratory strategies, including anadromous, potomodromous, and freshwater resident ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Abundance, distribution, and migratory behavior of coastal cutthroat trout in two lower Columbia River tributaries Abstract -- Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) exhibit multiple life history types characterized by diverse migratory strategies, including anadromous, potomodromous, and freshwater resident forms. The factors contributing to life history variation within populations are not well understood, but probably are not strictly genetic (e.g. Johnson et al, in review). Variation in migration tendency within cutthroat populations may result from phenotype plasticity, influenced by density, frequency, or condition dependent processes (Hendry et al. 2004). For example, an individual cutthroat’s choice to migrate at a given time or age may be a response to environmental conditions mediated by a genetically determined reaction norm (Hutchings 2004). This report summarizes a study undertaken to describe the expression of migratory behavior within coastal cutthroat trout populations, the relationship among migratory and non-migratory individuals, and the implications of life history diversity for management of cutthroat trout in tributaries of the lower Columbia River. The relationship between resident and migratory populations (or resident and migratory individuals within populations) is of central importance for management of coastal cutthroat trout. In the lower Columbia River and southwest Washington State a proposed rule to list anadromous cutthroat as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was withdrawn after the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decided during its review process to include resident and anadromous forms in the same Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Debate over proposed ESA listing highlighted a general lack of knowledge about coastal cutthroat trout life history, relationships between resident and migratory forms, and estuarine habitat use in the lower Columbia River. In 2009, the decision not to list the DPS as threatened was remanded to the USFWS on the grounds that the Service had not adequately considered whether marine and estuarine habitats formed a significant portion of the range of the DPS (USFWS 2009). We evaluated the distribution and abundance of coastal cutthroat trout in Big Creek and Bear Creek, two tributaries that join the Columbia River estuary from the south (Oregon) side roughly 30 kilometers from the ocean, and monitored the migratory behavior of cutthroat that emigrated from these streams and entered the Columbia River estuary. Big Creek is an interesting system because a fish weir and diversion dam at an ODFW hatchery, established in 1941 and refurbished in 1957, prevent cutthroat trout from passing upstream, isolating the cutthroat spawning population above the hatchery. Despite this barrier to upstream migration, offspring of resident cutthroat in the upper watershed continue to “smolt” and migrate downstream past the barrier. We were interested in the fate of these fish and their contribution to the adult population. Bear Creek, on the other hand, has always had full access for anadromous cutthroat through much of its drainage. These two systems permit a comparison of life history characteristics, migration, and survival of coastal cutthroat rearing in streams above and below migration barriers, and provide study sites in Oregon to compliment research by USFWS of coastal cutthroat migration behavior in tributaries entering the estuary from the north side of the Columbia River (USFWS 2008; and see Hudson et al. 2008; Johnson 2008; Zydlewski et al. 2008). A major objective of our work in Big Creek and Bear Creek was to increase understanding of coastal cutthroat trout biology and the relationship between resident and migratory cutthroat in lower Columbia tributaries. Additionally, we sought to document habitat use in the Columbia River estuary by migrant cutthroat. Our specific objectives were to: • Estimate abundance of coastal cutthroat trout in Big Creek (above hatchery barrier) and Bear Creek (above and below a large dam) • Quantify the proportions of the cutthroat populations that are migratory, identify which individuals migrate and describe the timing of migration • Describe habitats used by anadromous migrants and characterize migration behavior within the Columbia River estuary • Measure estuarine/marine survival of anadromous individuals and document return to natal streams Title: Abundance, distribution, and migratory behavior of coastal cutthroat trout in two lower Columbia River tributaries Abstract -- Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) exhibit multiple life history types characterized by diverse migratory strategies, including anadromous, potomodromous, and freshwater resident forms. The factors contributing to life history variation within populations are not well understood, but probably are not strictly genetic (e.g. Johnson et al, in review). Variation in migration tendency within cutthroat populations may result from phenotype plasticity, influenced by density, frequency, or condition dependent processes (Hendry et al. 2004). For example, an individual cutthroat’s choice to migrate at a given time or age may be a response to environmental conditions mediated by a genetically determined reaction norm (Hutchings 2004). This report summarizes a study undertaken to describe the expression of migratory behavior within coastal cutthroat trout populations, the relationship among migratory and non-migratory individuals, and the implications of life history diversity for management of cutthroat trout in tributaries of the lower Columbia River. The relationship between resident and migratory populations (or resident and migratory individuals within populations) is of central importance for management of coastal cutthroat trout. In the lower Columbia River and southwest Washington State a proposed rule to list anadromous cutthroat as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was withdrawn after the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decided during its review process to include resident and anadromous forms in the same Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Debate over proposed ESA listing highlighted a general lack of knowledge about coastal cutthroat trout life history, relationships between resident and migratory forms, and estuarine habitat use in the lower Columbia River. In 2009, the decision not to list the DPS as threatened was remanded to the USFWS on the grounds that the Service had not adequately considered whether marine and estuarine habitats formed a significant portion of the range of the DPS (USFWS 2009). We evaluated the distribution and abundance of coastal cutthroat trout in Big Creek and Bear Creek, two tributaries that join the Columbia River estuary from the south (Oregon) side roughly 30 kilometers from the ocean, and monitored the migratory behavior of cutthroat that emigrated from these streams and entered the Columbia River estuary. Big Creek is an interesting system because a fish weir and diversion dam at an ODFW hatchery, established in 1941 and refurbished in 1957, prevent cutthroat trout from passing upstream, isolating the cutthroat spawning population above the hatchery. Despite this barrier to upstream migration, offspring of resident cutthroat in the upper watershed continue to “smolt” and migrate downstream past the barrier. We were interested in the fate of these fish and their contribution to the adult population. Bear Creek, on the other hand, has always had full access for anadromous cutthroat through much of its drainage. These two systems permit a comparison of life history characteristics, migration, and survival of coastal cutthroat rearing in streams above and below migration barriers, and provide study sites in Oregon to compliment research by USFWS of coastal cutthroat migration behavior in tributaries entering the estuary from the north side of the Columbia River (USFWS 2008; and see Hudson et al. 2008; Johnson 2008; Zydlewski et al. 2008). A major objective of our work in Big Creek and Bear Creek was to increase understanding of coastal cutthroat trout biology and the relationship between resident and migratory cutthroat in lower Columbia tributaries. Additionally, we sought to document habitat use in the Columbia River estuary by migrant cutthroat. Our specific objectives were to: • Estimate abundance of coastal cutthroat trout in Big Creek (above hatchery barrier) and Bear Creek (above and below a large dam) • Quantify the proportions of the cutthroat populations that are migratory, identify which individuals migrate and describe the timing of migration • Describe habitats used by anadromous migrants and characterize migration behavior within the Columbia River estuary • Measure estuarine/marine survival of anadromous individuals and document return to natal streams Close

• 338. [Article] 2007 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2007

  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: 2007 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2007 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 70 sites in 2007. New populations of Oregon chub were discovered at Green Island in the lower McKenzie River and in the Muddy Creek drainage (Linn County). We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 34 locations. These included 23 naturally occurring and 11 introduced populations. We did not find Oregon chub at nine locations where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-2006. Nonnative fish were collected at most of these locations. We obtained abundance estimates of 18 naturally occurring populations and 11 introduced populations of Oregon chub located in the Middle Fork Willamette, Santiam, McKenzie, and Mid-Willamette drainages (Table 1). We introduced additional Oregon chub into the South Stayton Pond in the Santiam drainage and into Cheadle and Display Ponds in the Mid-Willamette drainage. 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 2007, there were 20 populations totaling 500 or more individuals (Table 1). Fifteen of these populations also met the second criteria. Of the 15 populations meeting criteria 1 and 2, eight were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage, four were located in the Mid-Willamette drainage, and three were located in the Santiam drainage. In 2007, we met the downlisting criteria. 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: 2007 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2007 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 70 sites in 2007. New populations of Oregon chub were discovered at Green Island in the lower McKenzie River and in the Muddy Creek drainage (Linn County). We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 34 locations. These included 23 naturally occurring and 11 introduced populations. We did not find Oregon chub at nine locations where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-2006. Nonnative fish were collected at most of these locations. We obtained abundance estimates of 18 naturally occurring populations and 11 introduced populations of Oregon chub located in the Middle Fork Willamette, Santiam, McKenzie, and Mid-Willamette drainages (Table 1). We introduced additional Oregon chub into the South Stayton Pond in the Santiam drainage and into Cheadle and Display Ponds in the Mid-Willamette drainage. 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 2007, there were 20 populations totaling 500 or more individuals (Table 1). Fifteen of these populations also met the second criteria. Of the 15 populations meeting criteria 1 and 2, eight were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage, four were located in the Mid-Willamette drainage, and three were located in the Santiam drainage. In 2007, we met the downlisting criteria. 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

• 339. [Article] 2006 OPRD- Oregon Chub Population Monitoring on Oregon State Park Lands Progress Reports 2006

  Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette River drainage of western Oregon (Markle et al. 1991), were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2006 OPRD- Oregon Chub Population Monitoring on Oregon State Park Lands Progress Reports 2006 Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette River drainage of western Oregon (Markle et al. 1991), were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993 (Markle and Pearsons 1990; Rhew 1993). This species was formerly distributed throughout the Willamette River Valley (Snyder 1908) in off-channel habitats such as beaver ponds, oxbows, backwater sloughs, and flooded marshes. These habitats usually have little or no water flow, have silty and organic substrate, and have an abundance of aquatic vegetation and cover for hiding and spawning. In the last 100 years, off-channel habitats have disappeared because of changes in seasonal flows and habitat characteristics resulting from the construction of flood control dams, revetments, channelization, diking, and the drainage of wetlands for bottomland agriculture. This loss of habitat combined with the introduction of non-native species to the Willamette Valley resulted in a restricted distribution and sharp decline in Oregon chub abundance. 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. To evaluate abundance and distribution of Oregon chub populations, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has conducted surveys since 1991. Information collected also included the presence of non-native and native species, the characteristics of Oregon chub habitats, the characteristics of potential introduction sites, evaluation of Oregon chub introductions, and life history characteristics (Scheerer 2002, Scheerer and McDonald 2003, Scheerer et al. 2006). 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. Thirteen of these populations met the above criteria. 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 (Scheerer et al. 2006). The status of this species has improved substantially over the past decade and with the addition of a single Santiam population, the downlisting criteria will be met (Scheerer et al. 2006). Title: 2006 OPRD- Oregon Chub Population Monitoring on Oregon State Park Lands Progress Reports 2006 Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette River drainage of western Oregon (Markle et al. 1991), were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993 (Markle and Pearsons 1990; Rhew 1993). This species was formerly distributed throughout the Willamette River Valley (Snyder 1908) in off-channel habitats such as beaver ponds, oxbows, backwater sloughs, and flooded marshes. These habitats usually have little or no water flow, have silty and organic substrate, and have an abundance of aquatic vegetation and cover for hiding and spawning. In the last 100 years, off-channel habitats have disappeared because of changes in seasonal flows and habitat characteristics resulting from the construction of flood control dams, revetments, channelization, diking, and the drainage of wetlands for bottomland agriculture. This loss of habitat combined with the introduction of non-native species to the Willamette Valley resulted in a restricted distribution and sharp decline in Oregon chub abundance. 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. To evaluate abundance and distribution of Oregon chub populations, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has conducted surveys since 1991. Information collected also included the presence of non-native and native species, the characteristics of Oregon chub habitats, the characteristics of potential introduction sites, evaluation of Oregon chub introductions, and life history characteristics (Scheerer 2002, Scheerer and McDonald 2003, Scheerer et al. 2006). 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. Thirteen of these populations met the above criteria. 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 (Scheerer et al. 2006). The status of this species has improved substantially over the past decade and with the addition of a single Santiam population, the downlisting criteria will be met (Scheerer et al. 2006). Close

• 340. [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 Citation Abstract Copy 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. 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. Close