Search
Search Results
-
41. [Article] Phillips Creek Watershed Assessment
Abstract -- Watershed Assessments for the Grande Ronde River Subwatersheds are being prepared for the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. This Watershed Assessment addresses the Phillips Creek Watershed ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Phillips Creek Watershed Assessment
Abstract -- Watershed Assessments for the Grande Ronde River Subwatersheds are being prepared for the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. This Watershed Assessment addresses the Phillips Creek Watershed located near Elgin, Oregon. Phillips Creek is a relatively small watershed (4th order HUC – Hydrologic Unit Classification) containing about 33 square miles or slightly over 24,000 acres. Phillips Creek empties into the Grande Ronde River in Elgin. It is an intermittent stream in some reaches, but water flows year around in other reaches. In this Assessment the main emphasis is on the nonfederal lands. The USDA Forest Service – Umatilla National Forest recently completed a watershed assessment on the National Forest area that includes Phillips, Cabin, Gordon and Dry Creeks. For more complete information on watershed condition on federal lands, please refer to the Umatilla National Forest’s Phillips-Gordon Ecosystem Analysis (PGEA). This assessment will describe the Phillips Creek watershed and help to identify the stream processes and features that are working well, and those that are not. Information that is already available from state and federal agencies as well as from private sources (including people that live in the area) will be used. Several public meetings were held to obtain information and insights from people that live in the area. The assessment will identify human’s positive and negative influences to the immediate stream environment. The assessment should provide enough information to develop project plans and monitoring plans that will help to protect and improve water quality and fish habitat in Phillips Creek and its tributaries. This assessment includes a description of Phillips Creek Watershed, historical conditions assessment, channel habitat type classification, hydrology and water use, riparian assessment, wetlands assessment, sediment sources assessment, channel modification assessment, water quality assessment, water rights assessment, fish and fish habitat assessment, upland conditions assessment – Forest, upland conditions assessment – Range, developed area assessment, noxious weeds assessment, and a watershed condition evaluation.
-
42. [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.
-
43. [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
- 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).
-
44. [Article] Oregon Chub Investigations, Progress Report 2001
Abstract -- Populations of Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, endemic to the Willamette Valley, have been drastically reduced. Factors in the decline of this fish include changes in flow regimes and habitat ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Oregon Chub Investigations, Progress Report 2001
Abstract -- Populations of Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, endemic to the Willamette Valley, have been drastically reduced. Factors in the decline of this fish include changes in flow regimes and habitat characteristics resulting from the construction of flood control dams, revetments, channelization, diking, and the drainage of wetlands. The Oregon chub is further threatened by predation and competition by non-native species such as largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, small mouth bass M. dolomieui, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We surveyed in the Willamette River drainage in April-October 2000 to quantify existing Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations. We sampled a total of 77 sites in 2000. We collected Oregon chub for the first time from Barnard Slough in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage. Oregon chub were last collected from this location in 1983 (Bond 1984). Thirty-one of the 77 sites were new sites that were sampled for the first time in 2000. Forty-six sites, sampled in 1991-1999, were revisited. Three sites were sampled twice. We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 20 locations. These include naturally occurring populations in the Santiam drainage (Geren Island, Santiam Conservation Easement, Gray Slough, Santiam 1-5 backwaters, Pioneer Park backwater, Santiam Public Works Pond), Mid-Willamette drainage (Finley Gray Creek Swamp) and Middle Fork Willamette drainage (Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Buckhead Creek, Oakridge Slough, Elijah Bristow State Park, Rattlesnake Creek, and Hospital Pond) and introduced populations in the Middle Fork Willamette (Wicopee Pond, Fall Creek Spillway Ponds), Santiam (Foster Pullout Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Dunn Wetland, Finley Display Pond). Oregon chub were not found at several locations (Jasper Park Slough, Wallace Slough, East Ferrin Pond, Dexter East Alcove, Hospital lmpoundment Pond, Logan Slough, Green's Bridge Backwater, Camas Swale) where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-1999 (Scheerer et. al. 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1998; 1999; 2000; Scheerer and Jones 1997). Non-native fish were common in off-channel habitats that were surveyed in the Willamette River drainage. Non-native fish were collected from 23 of the 31 new sites sampled in 1999 (74%); no fish were collected at three locations (10%). Western mosquitofish and centrarchids (largemouth bass and bluegill) were the most common non-native fish collected. Oregon chub were introduced into Menear's Bend Pond in the Santiam River drainage in the October 2000. Additional Oregon chub were introduced into Foster Pullout Pond in October 2000, to supplement the 85 fish introduced in 1999. In the summer of 2000, a habitat enhancement project creating new habitat to benefit Oregon chub was completed in the Long Tom drainage (Mid-Willamette River). Seven potential Oregon chub reintroduction sites were monitored and evaluated. These included four sites in the Mid-Willamette River drainage (Finley National Wildlife Refuge Beaver and Cattail Ponds, Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge Dunlin-Woodduck Pond, Long Tom Ranch Pond), one site in the Santiam River drainage (Menear's Bend Pond), one site in the McKenzie River drainage (Russell Pond), and one site in the Coast Fork Willamette drainage (Layng Pond). Estimates of abundance were obtained for naturally occurring populations of Oregon chub in East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Elijah Bristow State Park Sloughs, Hospital Pond, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Buckhead Creek, Oakridge Slough, Santiam Conservation Easement Sloughs, Geren Island Ponds, and Finley Gray Creek Swamp. Five of these populations showed an increase in abundance in 2000 (East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Middle Buckhead Creek, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Finley Gray Creek Swamp). Four populations decreased in abundance (or remain depressed) in 2000 (Geren Island, Santiam Conservation Easement, Elijah Bristow Sloughs, Oakridge Slough) (Table 1 ). Abundance estimates for introduced populations of Oregon chub were also obtained. The Oregon chub population in East Ferrin Pond declined from 7,200 fish in 1997 to O fish in 2000, and is presumed extinct. The Oregon chub population in the Fall Creek Spillway Pond totaled 5,030 fish in 2000, compared to 6,300 fish in 1999. The Oregon chub population in Wicopee Pond expanded dramatically from ~50 fish in 1999 to 4,580 fish in 2000. The Oregon chub population in the Dunn Wetland Ponds increased from 4,860 fish in 1999 to 14,090 fish in 2000. The Oregon chub population in Finley Display Pond increased from 360 fish in 1999 to 1,750 fish in 2000. Three of the four largest populations in 2000 were introduced populations. The Middle Fork Willamette River drainage supported the largest number of Oregon chub populations (n=12), followed by the Santiam drainage (n=B), and the Mid-Willamette drainage (n=5). The most abundant Oregon chub populations were found in the Middle Fork Willamette and Mid-Willamette drainages. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set a recovery goal for downlisting the species to "threatened" and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species was to establish and manage ten populations of at least 500 adult fish. All populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years. At least three populations must be located in each of the three sub-basins (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2000, there were 11 populations totaling 500 or more individuals and six of these populations exhibited a stable or increasing trend for the past five years (Table 1 ). Five of these six populations were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage. In summary, Oregon chub remain at risk due to their limited distribution compared with their historic geographic range in the Willamette Valley, the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, unauthorized fill and removal operations, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications.
-
Abstract -- Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is represented by a single population that inhabits a 4.1 hectare geothermally-heated alkaline lake in Harney County, Oregon. The Borax Lake chub is a small ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- 2006 Borax Lake Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006
Abstract -- Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is represented by a single population that inhabits a 4.1 hectare geothermally-heated alkaline lake in Harney County, Oregon. The Borax Lake chub is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in Oregon’s Alvord Basin (Williams and Bond 1980). Borax Lake is a natural lake, perched 10 meters above the desert floor on sinter deposits, which is fed almost exclusively by thermal groundwater. The Borax Lake chub was listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act in 1982 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Population abundance estimates obtained in 1991-1996 indicated a fluctuating population ranging from a low of 8,144 fish to a high of 34,634 fish (Salzer 1997). The basis for the Borax Lake chub’s listed status was not population size, but the security of a very limited, unique, isolated, and vulnerable habitat. Because Borax Lake is situated above salt deposits on the desert floor, alteration of the salt crust shoreline could reduce lake levels and the habitat quantity and quality available to Borax Lake chub. At the time of the listing, Borax Lake was threatened by habitat alteration caused by geothermal energy development and alteration of the lake shore crust to provide irrigation to surrounding pasture lands. The Borax Lake chub federal recovery plan, completed in 1987, advocated protection of the lake ecosystem through the acquisition of key private lands, protection of groundwater and surface waters, controls on access, and the removal of livestock grazing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). Numerous recovery measures implemented since listing have improved the conservation status of Borax Lake chub and protection of its habitat (Williams and Macdonald 2003). When the species was listed, critical habitat was designated on 259 hectares of land surrounding the lake, including 129 hectares of public lands and two 65- hectare parcels of private land. In 1983, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management designated the public land as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The Nature Conservancy began leasing the private lands in 1983 and purchased them in 1993, bringing the entire critical habitat into public or conservation ownership. The Nature Conservancy ended water diversion from the lake for irrigation and livestock grazing within the critical habitat. Passage of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 removed the public BLM lands from mineral and geothermal development within a majority of the basin. These actions, combined with detailed studies of the chub and their habitat have added substantially to our knowledge of the Borax Lake ecosystem (Scoppettone et al. 1995, Salzer 1992, Perkins et al. 1996). However, three primary threats remain. These include the threat to the fragile lake shoreline, wetlands, and soils from a recent increase in recreational use around the lake (particularly off-road vehicle usage), the threat of introduction of nonnative species, and potential negative impacts to the aquifer from geothermal groundwater withdrawal if groundwater pumping were to occur on private lands outside the protected areas (Williams and Macdonald 2003). Although an increase in abundance is not a goal in the successful recovery of this species, monitoring trends in abundance over time is an important management tool to assess species status. From 1998-2004, data describing the abundance of the Borax Lake chub population are not available. Abundance estimates were obtained from 1986- 1997 by The Nature Conservancy (Salzer 1997) (Figure 1). Abundance estimates for 1986-1990 are not comparable with those obtained in 1991-1997. Prior to 1991, estimates were obtained only from traps set around the perimeter of the lake. In 1991, estimates were obtained from traps set on a regularly spaced grid throughout the lake. A study comparing the methods suggests that prior to 1991 abundance was under estimated, perhaps by as much as 50 percent (Salzer 1992). A recent review of the conservation status of the Borax Lake chub by Williams and Macdonald (2003) cited the lack of recent and ongoing population and ecosystem monitoring as one argument against downlisting or delisting the species at this time. The chub population has experienced substantial fluctuations in abundance over the time period (1986-1997) when abundance data are available (Figure 1). At the time of the review, the most recent abundance estimates that were obtained in 1996 and 1997 were some of the lowest estimates since 1991. Borax Lake chub population abundance estimates from 1986 to 1997 and 2005 to 2006. Horizontal bars represent 95% confidence limits. In 1986-1990 (solid symbols), only the perimeter of the lake was trapped. After 1990 (open symbols) the entire lake was trapped. Estimates are not directly comparable across these time periods. There are limited data on population age structure that offer valuable insight into the productivity of Borax Lake chub. Williams and Bond (1983) examined lengthfrequency data and concluded that the population consisted primarily of age 1 fish, with few age 2 and age 3 fish present. Limited opercle bone aging of chub collected in 1992- 1993 also indicated that most Borax Lake were less than one year of age (67-79%), yet a few individuals were aged at 10+ years (Scoppettone 1995). Because Borax Lake chub are only found in one location and the population is apparently dominated by a single year-class of adults, the species has a high inherent risk of extinction. 3 The objectives of this study were to: 1) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate of Borax Lake chub, and 2) to evaluate ways to reduce handling of Borax Lake chub when monitoring population abundance both by modifying previous mark-recapture protocols and by developing snorkeling survey protocols to use as an alternative to mark-recapture estimates. In addition, we collected data regarding lake temperatures, chub size (age) structure, and the condition of the fragile lake shoreline and outflows.
-
46. [Article] Recovery of Wild Coho Salmon in Salmon River Basin, 2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2009-10
Abstract -- Recovery and conservation of naturally self-sustaining salmon populations is a central goal of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. In 1998, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Recovery of Wild Coho Salmon in Salmon River Basin, 2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2009-10
Abstract -- Recovery and conservation of naturally self-sustaining salmon populations is a central goal of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. In 1998, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated a comprehensive program to monitor the status of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations and aquatic habitat in coastal drainages of Oregon (OWEB 2003). A 2005 assessment by ODFW concluded that Oregon coastal coho were viable at the scale of the Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) and demonstrated resilience in response to improving ocean conditions. Yet 7 of 21 (33%) individual populations within the ESU failed one or more of five criteria used to assess viability (Chilcote et al. 2005), and it is uncertain whether productivity levels across the ESU will recover sufficiently to withstand future periods of poor ocean conditions. The coho population in Salmon River was the only population in the ESU to fail all five viability criteria. Uncertainty remains about the response of Oregon coastal coho salmon to different combinations of freshwater and marine limiting factors, complicating recovery efforts (Lawson 1993; Lawson et al. 2004; IMST 2006). Such uncertainty cannot be resolved entirely by existing Oregon Plan monitoring programs, which target only a portion of the habitats and coho salmon life stages in large river basins, and with few exceptions (e.g., Johnson et al. 2005), were not designed to test population responses to individual management manipulations. In 2007, in response to the failure of viability criteria, ODFW managers discontinued releases of hatchery coho salmon into Salmon River as one of the primary management actions under the Oregon Conservation Plan for the Oregon Coast Coho Evolutionarily Significant Unit (hereafter “coho plan,” Nicholas 2006). This change affords the first opportunity in Oregon to monitor the results of a large scale experiment in removing hatchery coho salmon from a basin for at least four generations (twelve years). Hatchery production has been a centerpiece of salmon management for decades, but rarely has full recovery from hatchery influence been given a chance to succeed. Salmon River offers a test basin to explore whether an independent population of coho salmon can recover from a prolonged period of very low abundance following removal of the primary factor limiting productivity. Here we describe the first year of a study to monitor the dynamics of the coho salmon population in the Salmon River basin on the central Oregon coast and to determine whether management changes targeting both hatchery influence and stream habitat complexity improve population viability. This research will validate assumptions about factors limiting coho recovery and determine whether recovery measures proposed by the Coho Plan have been effective. Our research is designed to document changes in population abundance, distribution, and life history structure of coho salmon following the removal of hatchery coho salmon from the watershed. It integrates adult, juvenile, and habitat components to establish links and describe variability between juvenile performance and adult recovery. It also monitors the coho salmon population across habitat types and life history stages to identify population responses at a landscape scale. We will establish the link between productivity and survival at each salmon life stage and recovery of the adult population. From these indicators, we will determine the potential resiliency of coho salmon, detail the biological benefits/tradeoffs of returning the ecosystem to natural salmon production, and assess whether supplementation should remain an option in Salmon River. As a conceptual framework, our research design and analyses are guided by the “viable salmonid population” criteria identified by McElhany (2000) and modified by Chilcote et al. (2005) and Nicholas (2006), including abundance, productivity, distribution, diversity, and habitat quality. The results of our new research will be integrated with habitat survey and adult population data collected under the existing Oregon Plan monitoring program and coho salmon population and life history data available from previous Salmon River surveys (Mullen 1978, 1979; Cornwell et al. 2001; Bottom et al 2005; Volk et al. in review). Together these data will address four principal objectives: 1. Quantify viability of the coho salmon population before and after hatchery coho salmon are removed from Salmon River. 2. Assess whether viability of the Salmon River coho population is limited by quantity 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 alternate juvenile life history to adult returns. 4. Determine salmonid use and benefits of restored tidal wetlands before and after hatchery coho salmon are removed from Salmon River. By synthesizing historic data with new information for the Salmon River basin, we will compare population structure during three distinct periods – pre-hatchery (1974-77), hatchery (1990-2008), and post-hatchery (2009-2013). This annual report discusses the activities and findings from 2008, the first year of the multi-year project, including coho salmon distribution and abundance on the Salmon River spawning grounds, juvenile abundance and distribution in the watershed and estuary, migration timing, and life history diversity.
-
47. [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.
-
48. [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
- 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.