Search

Search Results

• 51. [Article] Hood River Bull Trout Abundance, Life History, and Habitat Connectivity, 2007 Progress Reports 2007

  Abstract -- Hood River bull trout are thought to exist as two independent reproductive units (USFWS 2004), known as local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1995). The Clear Branch local population is isolated ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Hood River Bull Trout Abundance, Life History, and Habitat Connectivity, 2007 Progress Reports 2007 Abstract -- Hood River bull trout are thought to exist as two independent reproductive units (USFWS 2004), known as local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1995). The Clear Branch local population is isolated above Clear Branch Dam, which provides limited downstream fish passage during infrequent and sporadic periods of spill and no upstream passage. Bull trout in this population inhabit Laurance Lake Reservoir and tributaries upstream of Clear Branch Dam. The Hood River local population occurs in the mainstem Hood River and Middle Fork Hood River downstream of the Clear Branch Dam and a small number of adult bull trout migrate each year into the Hood River from the Columbia River (Figure 1). The status of both populations is extremely precarious. The Clear Branch population is at risk of a random extinction event due to low numbers, negative interactions with non-native smallmouth bass, isolation and limited spawning habitat (USFWS, 1998). The Hood River population also appears to be small and is threatened by passage barriers, unscreened irrigation systems, impaired water quality and periodic siltation of spawning substrate by glacial outbursts. Clear Branch bull trout spawn in Clear Branch and Pinnacle Creek. After rearing in these two natal streams for an unknown time period, most are believed to migrate downstream to Laurance Lake Reservoir. Clear Branch bull trout have been documented passing over the dam spillway during high water events (Pribyl et al. 1996) and may provide a recruitment source for the Hood River local population. Adult bull trout tagged at Powerdale Dam have been observed at Coe Branch irrigation diversion and in a trap at the base of Clear Branch dam. These fish may have been attempting to reach spawning areas located upstream of the dam. However, the success of bull trout migrating downstream via the spillway or the possibility of successfully navigating through the diversion network has never been determined. Depending on the water year, the Middle Fork Irrigation District (MFID) may not spill at all, or the timing of the spill may not coincide with the timing of downstream migration, which is currently unknown (East Fork Hood River and Middle Fork Hood River Watershed analysis). Smallmouth bass were discovered in Lake Laurance Reservoir in the 1990s. Creel surveys have shown that large adult bass are caught occasionally in the reservoir and schools of bass fry have been seen by district fish biologist (Rod French, ODFW, personal communication), suggesting that they are spawning successfully. This illegal introduction poses a potential threat to the Clear Branch bull trout population, but its magnitude is unknown because the bass population size and degree of interaction between the two species are unknown. Bull trout and smallmouth bass have significantly different temperature preferences and tolerances, with bull trout being one of the most sensitive coldwater species and bass being a warm water species. Lake Laurance, a relatively high-altitude reservoir at 890 m (2,920 feet), does not provide ideal bass habitat so these two species may have largely non-overlapping distributions or differing activity periods (Terry Shrader, ODFW warmwater fish biologist, personal communication). However, based on past reservoir temperature data (Berger et al. 2005), there are periods in the reservoir when there is potential for bull trout and bass interaction: periods when bull trout are susceptible to bass predation and when juvenile fish might compete for resources. Spawning activity of the Hood River local population has been observed in a few locations within the Middle Fork of Hood River (Figure 1). Although consistent and extensive spawning areas for this population are not known, some of the locations where juvenile rearing or potential bull trout redds have been observed include the Middle Fork Hood River and some of its tributaries: Bear Creek, Compass Creek and Coe Branch (USFWS 2004). However, Coe Branch, Compass Creek, and the Middle Fork are glacial streams with a high volume of sand and silt which may compromise spawning success. No bull trout spawning or rearing has been observed on the East and West Forks of Hood River. The Middle Fork and mainstem Hood River provide foraging, migration and overwintering habitat. Hood River bull trout are also known to migrate into the Columbia River. Two bull trout tagged at Powerdale Dam (RK 7.2 of mainstem Hood River) were recovered near Drano Lake in Washington State; and one was captured 11 kilometers downstream of the confluence of the Hood and Columbia Rivers (USFWS 2004). Every year (usually between May and July), adult bull trout, presumably migrating upstream from the Columbia River, are captured and anchor tagged at Powerdale Dam. Although some of these tagged fish have been observed upstream (one in Coe Branch and three below Clear Branch dam), the spawning destination of fluvial adults within the Hood River basin is largely unknown. Dispersing juvenile bull trout and migrating adults in this local population are threatened by flow diversions with inadequate screening and passage facilities. Several structures are suspected to impede upstream migration or entrain juvenile and adult bull trout into irrigation works (Pribyl et al. 1996, HRWG 1999). These structures include: the diversion at Clear Branch Dam (passage and screening), Coe Branch (passage and screening), and the Farmers Irrigation District diversion (screening) on the mainstem Hood River (HRWG 1999). However, little research has been conducted to assess the impacts of these structures on migrating bull trout. Beyond a general knowledge of the distribution of Hood River bull trout and the nature of anthropogenic factors that potentially restrict their life history and habitat connectivity, little is known about this recovery unit. Baseline information about adult abundance is lacking for both local populations, the potential of a source (Clear Branch) and sink (Hood River) relationship between the two local populations has not been explored, and the migratory life history of adult fish caught at Powerdale Dam is unknown. The degree to which irrigation and hydropower diversions hamper connectivity within the Hood River basin is also poorly understood. Migratory life histories have been viewed as key to species persistence (Rieman and McIntyre 1995; Dunham and Rieman 1999), and understanding movement patterns and associated habitat requirements are critical to maintaining those migratory forms (Muhlfeld and Morotz 2005; Hostettler 2005). Gaining this information is also critical to evaluating bull trout recovery in the Hood River Subbasin (Coccoli 2004). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated a study in 2006 to improve our understanding of the abundance, life history, and potential limiting factors of the bull trout in this recovery unit. This report describes findings for the first two years of the study (2006-2007). Specific study objectives for the first two years were: 1. Determine the migratory life history of Hood River bull trout and assess the potential impacts of flow diversions and two new falls on the Middle Fork Hood River (scoured by the November 2006 glacial outburst) on bull trout migrations. 2. Determine current distribution of bull trout reproduction and early rearing in historical and potential bull trout streams in the Hood River Subbasin. 3. Determine the juvenile and adult life history the Clear Branch local population and develop a statistically reliable and cost-effective protocol for monitoring the abundance of adult Clear Branch bull trout. 4. Assess the potential impact of smallmouth bass on bull trout in Laurance Lake Reservoir. Title: Hood River Bull Trout Abundance, Life History, and Habitat Connectivity, 2007 Progress Reports 2007 Abstract -- Hood River bull trout are thought to exist as two independent reproductive units (USFWS 2004), known as local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1995). The Clear Branch local population is isolated above Clear Branch Dam, which provides limited downstream fish passage during infrequent and sporadic periods of spill and no upstream passage. Bull trout in this population inhabit Laurance Lake Reservoir and tributaries upstream of Clear Branch Dam. The Hood River local population occurs in the mainstem Hood River and Middle Fork Hood River downstream of the Clear Branch Dam and a small number of adult bull trout migrate each year into the Hood River from the Columbia River (Figure 1). The status of both populations is extremely precarious. The Clear Branch population is at risk of a random extinction event due to low numbers, negative interactions with non-native smallmouth bass, isolation and limited spawning habitat (USFWS, 1998). The Hood River population also appears to be small and is threatened by passage barriers, unscreened irrigation systems, impaired water quality and periodic siltation of spawning substrate by glacial outbursts. Clear Branch bull trout spawn in Clear Branch and Pinnacle Creek. After rearing in these two natal streams for an unknown time period, most are believed to migrate downstream to Laurance Lake Reservoir. Clear Branch bull trout have been documented passing over the dam spillway during high water events (Pribyl et al. 1996) and may provide a recruitment source for the Hood River local population. Adult bull trout tagged at Powerdale Dam have been observed at Coe Branch irrigation diversion and in a trap at the base of Clear Branch dam. These fish may have been attempting to reach spawning areas located upstream of the dam. However, the success of bull trout migrating downstream via the spillway or the possibility of successfully navigating through the diversion network has never been determined. Depending on the water year, the Middle Fork Irrigation District (MFID) may not spill at all, or the timing of the spill may not coincide with the timing of downstream migration, which is currently unknown (East Fork Hood River and Middle Fork Hood River Watershed analysis). Smallmouth bass were discovered in Lake Laurance Reservoir in the 1990s. Creel surveys have shown that large adult bass are caught occasionally in the reservoir and schools of bass fry have been seen by district fish biologist (Rod French, ODFW, personal communication), suggesting that they are spawning successfully. This illegal introduction poses a potential threat to the Clear Branch bull trout population, but its magnitude is unknown because the bass population size and degree of interaction between the two species are unknown. Bull trout and smallmouth bass have significantly different temperature preferences and tolerances, with bull trout being one of the most sensitive coldwater species and bass being a warm water species. Lake Laurance, a relatively high-altitude reservoir at 890 m (2,920 feet), does not provide ideal bass habitat so these two species may have largely non-overlapping distributions or differing activity periods (Terry Shrader, ODFW warmwater fish biologist, personal communication). However, based on past reservoir temperature data (Berger et al. 2005), there are periods in the reservoir when there is potential for bull trout and bass interaction: periods when bull trout are susceptible to bass predation and when juvenile fish might compete for resources. Spawning activity of the Hood River local population has been observed in a few locations within the Middle Fork of Hood River (Figure 1). Although consistent and extensive spawning areas for this population are not known, some of the locations where juvenile rearing or potential bull trout redds have been observed include the Middle Fork Hood River and some of its tributaries: Bear Creek, Compass Creek and Coe Branch (USFWS 2004). However, Coe Branch, Compass Creek, and the Middle Fork are glacial streams with a high volume of sand and silt which may compromise spawning success. No bull trout spawning or rearing has been observed on the East and West Forks of Hood River. The Middle Fork and mainstem Hood River provide foraging, migration and overwintering habitat. Hood River bull trout are also known to migrate into the Columbia River. Two bull trout tagged at Powerdale Dam (RK 7.2 of mainstem Hood River) were recovered near Drano Lake in Washington State; and one was captured 11 kilometers downstream of the confluence of the Hood and Columbia Rivers (USFWS 2004). Every year (usually between May and July), adult bull trout, presumably migrating upstream from the Columbia River, are captured and anchor tagged at Powerdale Dam. Although some of these tagged fish have been observed upstream (one in Coe Branch and three below Clear Branch dam), the spawning destination of fluvial adults within the Hood River basin is largely unknown. Dispersing juvenile bull trout and migrating adults in this local population are threatened by flow diversions with inadequate screening and passage facilities. Several structures are suspected to impede upstream migration or entrain juvenile and adult bull trout into irrigation works (Pribyl et al. 1996, HRWG 1999). These structures include: the diversion at Clear Branch Dam (passage and screening), Coe Branch (passage and screening), and the Farmers Irrigation District diversion (screening) on the mainstem Hood River (HRWG 1999). However, little research has been conducted to assess the impacts of these structures on migrating bull trout. Beyond a general knowledge of the distribution of Hood River bull trout and the nature of anthropogenic factors that potentially restrict their life history and habitat connectivity, little is known about this recovery unit. Baseline information about adult abundance is lacking for both local populations, the potential of a source (Clear Branch) and sink (Hood River) relationship between the two local populations has not been explored, and the migratory life history of adult fish caught at Powerdale Dam is unknown. The degree to which irrigation and hydropower diversions hamper connectivity within the Hood River basin is also poorly understood. Migratory life histories have been viewed as key to species persistence (Rieman and McIntyre 1995; Dunham and Rieman 1999), and understanding movement patterns and associated habitat requirements are critical to maintaining those migratory forms (Muhlfeld and Morotz 2005; Hostettler 2005). Gaining this information is also critical to evaluating bull trout recovery in the Hood River Subbasin (Coccoli 2004). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated a study in 2006 to improve our understanding of the abundance, life history, and potential limiting factors of the bull trout in this recovery unit. This report describes findings for the first two years of the study (2006-2007). Specific study objectives for the first two years were: 1. Determine the migratory life history of Hood River bull trout and assess the potential impacts of flow diversions and two new falls on the Middle Fork Hood River (scoured by the November 2006 glacial outburst) on bull trout migrations. 2. Determine current distribution of bull trout reproduction and early rearing in historical and potential bull trout streams in the Hood River Subbasin. 3. Determine the juvenile and adult life history the Clear Branch local population and develop a statistically reliable and cost-effective protocol for monitoring the abundance of adult Clear Branch bull trout. 4. Assess the potential impact of smallmouth bass on bull trout in Laurance Lake Reservoir. Close

• 52. [Article] Abundance, Life History, and Distribution of Bull Trout in the Hood River Basin: A Summary of Findings from 2006 to 2009 Information Reports number 2010-01

  Abstract -- Bull trout have been adversely affected by many land, water, and fisheries management activities throughout the range of the species. Degraded and fragmented habitat and negative interactions with ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Abundance, Life History, and Distribution of Bull Trout in the Hood River Basin: A Summary of Findings from 2006 to 2009 Information Reports number 2010-01 Abstract -- Bull trout have been adversely affected by many land, water, and fisheries management activities throughout the range of the species. Degraded and fragmented habitat and negative interactions with nonnative fishes have led to a decline in bull trout distribution and abundance, several local extirpations, and a federal listing in 1998 as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2002). Distribution and abundance of bull trout also have declined in Oregon, and most management units in the state are considered to be threatened by conservation risks (ODFW 2005). One of these at-risk management units exists in the Hood River basin (ODFW 2005). Bull trout in Hood River basin currently are thought to exist as two independent reproductive units (USFWS 2002), known as local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1995). The Clear Branch local population was isolated from the rest of the basin by the construction of Clear Branch Dam in 1968. This dam provides limited downstream fish passage during periods of spill and no voluntary upstream passage. Bull trout in this population inhabit Laurance Lake reservoir and the tributaries Pinnacle Creek and upper Clear Branch, which flow into the reservoir. The Hood River local population is distributed in the mainstem Hood River, Middle Fork Hood River (Middle Fork), and a few Middle Fork tributaries. Fluvial migrants from Hood River basin also forage and winter in the Columbia River (Pribyl et al. 1996, Buchanan et al. 1997). Bull trout have been observed in the East and West Fork basins of the Hood River, but these sightings have been rare. Presently, there is little evidence to suggest local populations exist in these tributary basins (USFWS 2002, Reagan and Olsen 2008). The status of both local populations is extremely precarious. Threats that put the Clear Branch population at risk of extirpation include low abundance, negative interactions with illegally introduced smallmouth bass, isolation from upstream migration and immigration, and diminished spawning and rearing habitat (USFW 1998). The Hood River population also appears to be small and is affected by passage barriers, unscreened irrigation diversions, impaired water quality, and periodic debris flows during glacial outbursts (USFWS 1998). As mandated by their federally designated threatened status, recovery plans were drafted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for each distinct population segment, including for Hood River bull trout in 2002. This draft plan listed four goals for recovery in this basin: 1) establish at least one more local population in addition to the two existing populations, 2) increase the estimated adult population in the basin to at least 500 individuals, 3) achieve a stable or increasing trend at the population recovery level for at least two generations (=10 years), and 4) improve habitat connectivity by addressing problems with passage and screening at diversions and seasonal water quality barriers (USFWS 2002). The recovery plan also sets out research and monitoring needs critical to the recovery of these populations. Needed are accurate adult abundance estimates; a standardized monitoring program; more life history information for each local population, including how Hood River bull trout use of the Columbia River and the effects of potential passage obstructions on movement; and more information on the threat posed to the Clear Branch population by the illegal introduction of smallmouth bass in Lake Laurance reservoir. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), with the help of the USDA Forest Service (USFS), initiated a four-year study in 2006 seeking to address these needs by synthesizing available data and conducting further studies to improve our understanding of the abundance, life history, and potential limiting factors of bull trout in the Hood River recovery unit. This report describes our findings, summarizes previous studies in the context of new information, and recommends a standardized monitoring protocol and future research. Our specific study objectives were as follows: 1. Assess adult abundance of the Clear Branch local population and develop a monitoring protocol to track abundance trends that is statistically reliable, cost-effective, and that minimizes potential adverse effects on this small isolated population. 2. Describe the juvenile and adult life history patterns of the Clear Branch local population. 3. Assess the potential impact of smallmouth bass on bull trout in Laurance Lake reservoir. 4. Determine current distribution of bull trout reproduction and early rearing in potential bull trout streams in the Hood River basin. 5. Describe the migratory life history of Hood River bull trout and assess the potential impacts of Coe Diversion and two new falls on the Middle Fork Hood River (scoured by the November 2006 glacial outburst) on bull trout migrations. Title: Abundance, Life History, and Distribution of Bull Trout in the Hood River Basin: A Summary of Findings from 2006 to 2009 Information Reports number 2010-01 Abstract -- Bull trout have been adversely affected by many land, water, and fisheries management activities throughout the range of the species. Degraded and fragmented habitat and negative interactions with nonnative fishes have led to a decline in bull trout distribution and abundance, several local extirpations, and a federal listing in 1998 as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2002). Distribution and abundance of bull trout also have declined in Oregon, and most management units in the state are considered to be threatened by conservation risks (ODFW 2005). One of these at-risk management units exists in the Hood River basin (ODFW 2005). Bull trout in Hood River basin currently are thought to exist as two independent reproductive units (USFWS 2002), known as local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1995). The Clear Branch local population was isolated from the rest of the basin by the construction of Clear Branch Dam in 1968. This dam provides limited downstream fish passage during periods of spill and no voluntary upstream passage. Bull trout in this population inhabit Laurance Lake reservoir and the tributaries Pinnacle Creek and upper Clear Branch, which flow into the reservoir. The Hood River local population is distributed in the mainstem Hood River, Middle Fork Hood River (Middle Fork), and a few Middle Fork tributaries. Fluvial migrants from Hood River basin also forage and winter in the Columbia River (Pribyl et al. 1996, Buchanan et al. 1997). Bull trout have been observed in the East and West Fork basins of the Hood River, but these sightings have been rare. Presently, there is little evidence to suggest local populations exist in these tributary basins (USFWS 2002, Reagan and Olsen 2008). The status of both local populations is extremely precarious. Threats that put the Clear Branch population at risk of extirpation include low abundance, negative interactions with illegally introduced smallmouth bass, isolation from upstream migration and immigration, and diminished spawning and rearing habitat (USFW 1998). The Hood River population also appears to be small and is affected by passage barriers, unscreened irrigation diversions, impaired water quality, and periodic debris flows during glacial outbursts (USFWS 1998). As mandated by their federally designated threatened status, recovery plans were drafted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for each distinct population segment, including for Hood River bull trout in 2002. This draft plan listed four goals for recovery in this basin: 1) establish at least one more local population in addition to the two existing populations, 2) increase the estimated adult population in the basin to at least 500 individuals, 3) achieve a stable or increasing trend at the population recovery level for at least two generations (=10 years), and 4) improve habitat connectivity by addressing problems with passage and screening at diversions and seasonal water quality barriers (USFWS 2002). The recovery plan also sets out research and monitoring needs critical to the recovery of these populations. Needed are accurate adult abundance estimates; a standardized monitoring program; more life history information for each local population, including how Hood River bull trout use of the Columbia River and the effects of potential passage obstructions on movement; and more information on the threat posed to the Clear Branch population by the illegal introduction of smallmouth bass in Lake Laurance reservoir. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), with the help of the USDA Forest Service (USFS), initiated a four-year study in 2006 seeking to address these needs by synthesizing available data and conducting further studies to improve our understanding of the abundance, life history, and potential limiting factors of bull trout in the Hood River recovery unit. This report describes our findings, summarizes previous studies in the context of new information, and recommends a standardized monitoring protocol and future research. Our specific study objectives were as follows: 1. Assess adult abundance of the Clear Branch local population and develop a monitoring protocol to track abundance trends that is statistically reliable, cost-effective, and that minimizes potential adverse effects on this small isolated population. 2. Describe the juvenile and adult life history patterns of the Clear Branch local population. 3. Assess the potential impact of smallmouth bass on bull trout in Laurance Lake reservoir. 4. Determine current distribution of bull trout reproduction and early rearing in potential bull trout streams in the Hood River basin. 5. Describe the migratory life history of Hood River bull trout and assess the potential impacts of Coe Diversion and two new falls on the Middle Fork Hood River (scoured by the November 2006 glacial outburst) on bull trout migrations. Close

• 53. [Article] OWEB Project Number 216-5042-12451 Phase IV - Wallowa Mountains Bull Trout Monitoring, Final Report

  Abstract -- Bull trout were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 due to declining populations. Spawning survey data is important for determining relative abundance and distribution ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: OWEB Project Number 216-5042-12451 Phase IV - Wallowa Mountains Bull Trout Monitoring, Final Report Abstract -- Bull trout were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 due to declining populations. Spawning survey data is important for determining relative abundance and distribution trends in bull trout populations. Without adequate funding, it has been difficult to find sufficient numbers of experienced bull trout surveyors and packers for surveys in the back-country, and to obtain adequate supplies to get the work accomplished. OWEB funding supported the continued survey of bull trout spawning areas in years 2016 through 2018 in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha drainages of northeast Oregon. Surveys were conducted by fisheries consultants, the Service, Nez Perce Tribe, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, Freshwater Trust, Wallowa Resources, Anderson Perry, Inc., Grande Ronde Model Watershed, and volunteers. Timing of spawning, total redds, redd sizes, and redd locations are documented in the attached report. In 2016-2018, surveys were located on the Lostine and Imnaha Rivers, and Big Sheep and Bear Creeks. In addition, the Upper Minam and Wenaha were surveyed in 2018. OWEB funding helped to accomplish a total of 43.3, 41.1, and 71.7 stream miles surveyed in 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. Title: OWEB Project Number 216-5042-12451 Phase IV - Wallowa Mountains Bull Trout Monitoring, Final Report Abstract -- Bull trout were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 due to declining populations. Spawning survey data is important for determining relative abundance and distribution trends in bull trout populations. Without adequate funding, it has been difficult to find sufficient numbers of experienced bull trout surveyors and packers for surveys in the back-country, and to obtain adequate supplies to get the work accomplished. OWEB funding supported the continued survey of bull trout spawning areas in years 2016 through 2018 in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha drainages of northeast Oregon. Surveys were conducted by fisheries consultants, the Service, Nez Perce Tribe, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, Freshwater Trust, Wallowa Resources, Anderson Perry, Inc., Grande Ronde Model Watershed, and volunteers. Timing of spawning, total redds, redd sizes, and redd locations are documented in the attached report. In 2016-2018, surveys were located on the Lostine and Imnaha Rivers, and Big Sheep and Bear Creeks. In addition, the Upper Minam and Wenaha were surveyed in 2018. OWEB funding helped to accomplish a total of 43.3, 41.1, and 71.7 stream miles surveyed in 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. Close

• 54. [Article] Lower Deschutes River Resident Trout Population Inventory 1997

  Abstract -- Abundance of redband trout in the Deschutes River has been estimated since 1971 with multiple mark-and-recapture methods. No estimates were done from 1988 to 1995. The 1997 estimates were done ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower Deschutes River Resident Trout Population Inventory 1997 Abstract -- Abundance of redband trout in the Deschutes River has been estimated since 1971 with multiple mark-and-recapture methods. No estimates were done from 1988 to 1995. The 1997 estimates were done using the same methods as those previously used and described by Schroeder (1989). Data discussed here were collected during February and March, 1997. Data Collection: Redband trout were captured using electrofishing gear mounted in a driftboat. Each side of the river was sampled, for the length of the study area, by collecting and recording captured redband trout in approximately 1.0 mile intervals. Redband trout 19.0 cm . or larger were tagged with sequentially numbered, colored floy tags. River mile, bank (east or west), species, sex and maturity, injuries or scars, tag number placed on fish, tag number of recaptured fish, and fork length to the nearest O .1 cm were recorded for all fish captured. Fish were returned to the river at the midpoint of the 1 mile sample area, using a jet boat to transport them back upstream. Title: Lower Deschutes River Resident Trout Population Inventory 1997 Abstract -- Abundance of redband trout in the Deschutes River has been estimated since 1971 with multiple mark-and-recapture methods. No estimates were done from 1988 to 1995. The 1997 estimates were done using the same methods as those previously used and described by Schroeder (1989). Data discussed here were collected during February and March, 1997. Data Collection: Redband trout were captured using electrofishing gear mounted in a driftboat. Each side of the river was sampled, for the length of the study area, by collecting and recording captured redband trout in approximately 1.0 mile intervals. Redband trout 19.0 cm . or larger were tagged with sequentially numbered, colored floy tags. River mile, bank (east or west), species, sex and maturity, injuries or scars, tag number placed on fish, tag number of recaptured fish, and fork length to the nearest O .1 cm were recorded for all fish captured. Fish were returned to the river at the midpoint of the 1 mile sample area, using a jet boat to transport them back upstream. Close

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

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

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

• 56. [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

• 57. [Article] Life history variability, habitat use, and migratory behavior of coastal cutthroat trout in the Salmon River, Oregon Annual Progress Report

  Abstract -- A previous study characterized a diversity of life history strategies of coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) in Salmon River (Krentz 2007). In contrast to life history patterns ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Life history variability, habitat use, and migratory behavior of coastal cutthroat trout in the Salmon River, Oregon Annual Progress Report Abstract -- A previous study characterized a diversity of life history strategies of coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) in Salmon River (Krentz 2007). In contrast to life history patterns in other Oregon estuaries (Giger 1972), cutthroat trout of all sizes resided for extended periods of time throughout the available channel habitats in Salmon River estuary. The estuarine resident population appeared to represent a significant portion of the migratory individuals, and included all age classes. Estuary growth was similar to that of their ocean migrant counterparts, and survival in the estuary was high. Because cutthroat were collected and marked primarily within the estuary (Krentz 2007), it is unclear what portion of the migrant population remained in the estuary relative to the ocean migrants, or whether the tagged group was representative of the anadromous populations. The current study was designed to track a representative sample of the downstream migrant population, and assess the relative success (survival) of the estuary and ocean migrants. Similar studies in the Columbia River documented directed and rapid migration through the estuary (Zydlewski et al. 2008, Hering et al. 2009). With one exception, cutthroat trout were not observed to rear in the estuary. In addition, many fish disappeared before reaching the ocean and few of the ocean migrants returned to the site of release. In this study we replicated the study design used in the Columbia River studies to allow comparison of estuary migration and rearing strategies between the two estuaries. The primary objective of our work in the Salmon River was to increase understanding of coastal cutthroat trout biology and the relationship between resident and migratory cutthroat. Study objectives were to: 1. Estimate the distribution and abundance of coastal cutthroat trout in the Salmon River watershed 2. Quantify the proportions of the cutthroat populations that are migratory, identify which individuals migrate and describe the timing of migration 3. Describe habitats used by anadromous migrants and characterize migration behavior within the Salmon River estuary 4. Estimate growth rate of estuary resident cutthroat 5. Estimate estuarine/marine survival of anadromous individuals and document return to estuary 6. Compare migratory patterns and survival with cutthroat in the Columbia River In this report, we will discuss migration patterns, habitat use, and growth. The study will be continued in 2010 to meet objectives (1), (2), and (6), and provide more detail to objectives (3), (4), and (5). Title: Life history variability, habitat use, and migratory behavior of coastal cutthroat trout in the Salmon River, Oregon Annual Progress Report Abstract -- A previous study characterized a diversity of life history strategies of coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) in Salmon River (Krentz 2007). In contrast to life history patterns in other Oregon estuaries (Giger 1972), cutthroat trout of all sizes resided for extended periods of time throughout the available channel habitats in Salmon River estuary. The estuarine resident population appeared to represent a significant portion of the migratory individuals, and included all age classes. Estuary growth was similar to that of their ocean migrant counterparts, and survival in the estuary was high. Because cutthroat were collected and marked primarily within the estuary (Krentz 2007), it is unclear what portion of the migrant population remained in the estuary relative to the ocean migrants, or whether the tagged group was representative of the anadromous populations. The current study was designed to track a representative sample of the downstream migrant population, and assess the relative success (survival) of the estuary and ocean migrants. Similar studies in the Columbia River documented directed and rapid migration through the estuary (Zydlewski et al. 2008, Hering et al. 2009). With one exception, cutthroat trout were not observed to rear in the estuary. In addition, many fish disappeared before reaching the ocean and few of the ocean migrants returned to the site of release. In this study we replicated the study design used in the Columbia River studies to allow comparison of estuary migration and rearing strategies between the two estuaries. The primary objective of our work in the Salmon River was to increase understanding of coastal cutthroat trout biology and the relationship between resident and migratory cutthroat. Study objectives were to: 1. Estimate the distribution and abundance of coastal cutthroat trout in the Salmon River watershed 2. Quantify the proportions of the cutthroat populations that are migratory, identify which individuals migrate and describe the timing of migration 3. Describe habitats used by anadromous migrants and characterize migration behavior within the Salmon River estuary 4. Estimate growth rate of estuary resident cutthroat 5. Estimate estuarine/marine survival of anadromous individuals and document return to estuary 6. Compare migratory patterns and survival with cutthroat in the Columbia River In this report, we will discuss migration patterns, habitat use, and growth. The study will be continued in 2010 to meet objectives (1), (2), and (6), and provide more detail to objectives (3), (4), and (5). Close

• 58. [Article] Chewaucan River Fish Management Plan 1983.pdf

  Abstract -- The Chewaucan River is the largest stream in the Goose and Summer lakes basin. It originates on the east slopes of Gearhart Mountain and Deadhorse and Coleman rims in the eastern Cascades and ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Chewaucan River Fish Management Plan 1983.pdf Abstract -- The Chewaucan River is the largest stream in the Goose and Summer lakes basin. It originates on the east slopes of Gearhart Mountain and Deadhorse and Coleman rims in the eastern Cascades and flows northerly and then southeasterly 52 miles to terminate in Abert Lake. Fish management and public use opportunities in this section are limited. The 25 miles of river upstream from Paisley is 62 percent federally owned, with the remainder in private ownership. It contains native redband and hatchery rainbow trout, and provides an important trout fishery. The stream has been managed primarily for hatchery fish with no special angling regulations imposed to protect wild fish populations. This plan addresses only the portion of the Chewaucan River upstream from Paisley.In September 1983, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's alternative to manage the Chewaucan River above Paisley for wild and hatchery trout. Title: Chewaucan River Fish Management Plan 1983.pdf Abstract -- The Chewaucan River is the largest stream in the Goose and Summer lakes basin. It originates on the east slopes of Gearhart Mountain and Deadhorse and Coleman rims in the eastern Cascades and flows northerly and then southeasterly 52 miles to terminate in Abert Lake. Fish management and public use opportunities in this section are limited. The 25 miles of river upstream from Paisley is 62 percent federally owned, with the remainder in private ownership. It contains native redband and hatchery rainbow trout, and provides an important trout fishery. The stream has been managed primarily for hatchery fish with no special angling regulations imposed to protect wild fish populations. This plan addresses only the portion of the Chewaucan River upstream from Paisley.In September 1983, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's alternative to manage the Chewaucan River above Paisley for wild and hatchery trout. Close

• 59. [Article] Management Plan of Hagg Reservoir 1986

  Abstract -- Hagg Reservoir is a Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) multi purpose reservoir on Scoggins Creek, Washington County, 6 miles southwest of Forest Grove. It was constructed in 1974 and filled the first ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Management Plan of Hagg Reservoir 1986 Abstract -- Hagg Reservoir is a Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) multi purpose reservoir on Scoggins Creek, Washington County, 6 miles southwest of Forest Grove. It was constructed in 1974 and filled the first time in 1975. The Department of Fish and Wildlife entered into an agreement with Washington County and BOR in 1973 to provide fishery management. One hatchery pond was constructed to rear trout; trout to compensate for those lost through the unscreened outlet, and paid for by Washington County. Anadromous fish trapping facilities were constructed below the dam, adjacent to the spillway. Washington County maintains public facilities around the reservoir and they are heavily used. Other major recreational activities, in addition to angling, are boating and swimming. BOR information from 1984 shows about 539,000 visitors. In November 1986, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to manage Hagg Reservoir for hatchery trout and wild hatchery warmwater species. Title: Management Plan of Hagg Reservoir 1986 Abstract -- Hagg Reservoir is a Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) multi purpose reservoir on Scoggins Creek, Washington County, 6 miles southwest of Forest Grove. It was constructed in 1974 and filled the first time in 1975. The Department of Fish and Wildlife entered into an agreement with Washington County and BOR in 1973 to provide fishery management. One hatchery pond was constructed to rear trout; trout to compensate for those lost through the unscreened outlet, and paid for by Washington County. Anadromous fish trapping facilities were constructed below the dam, adjacent to the spillway. Washington County maintains public facilities around the reservoir and they are heavily used. Other major recreational activities, in addition to angling, are boating and swimming. BOR information from 1984 shows about 539,000 visitors. In November 1986, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to manage Hagg Reservoir for hatchery trout and wild hatchery warmwater species. Close

• 60. [Article] Klamath River (Below Keno Dam) Trout Management Program Including Spencer Creek 1978

  Abstract -- The Klamath River is an extremely productive stream, but below Keno Dam it suffers from water fluctuation, poor water quality, lack of spawning gravel, and competition. The stream below Keno ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath River (Below Keno Dam) Trout Management Program Including Spencer Creek 1978 Abstract -- The Klamath River is an extremely productive stream, but below Keno Dam it suffers from water fluctuation, poor water quality, lack of spawning gravel, and competition. The stream below Keno Dam and below the Boyle powerplant fluctuates from power production and irrigation manipulation. The five-mile section immediately downstream from Boyle Dam is the only portion that remains relatively stable. Low quantitites of dissolved oxygen and high water temperatures are chronic problems in the Keno area and adversely affect the river downstream. Most spawning gravel is located in Spencer Creek. The main river has a poor gravel supply. Competition from the various fish species in Boyle Reservoir has undoubtedly impacted the trout population and the spawning run into Spencer Creek. The Klamath River may be the most productive stream in Oregon. Although it has limitations on its production capabilities, it will be managed for wild trout only. Title: Klamath River (Below Keno Dam) Trout Management Program Including Spencer Creek 1978 Abstract -- The Klamath River is an extremely productive stream, but below Keno Dam it suffers from water fluctuation, poor water quality, lack of spawning gravel, and competition. The stream below Keno Dam and below the Boyle powerplant fluctuates from power production and irrigation manipulation. The five-mile section immediately downstream from Boyle Dam is the only portion that remains relatively stable. Low quantitites of dissolved oxygen and high water temperatures are chronic problems in the Keno area and adversely affect the river downstream. Most spawning gravel is located in Spencer Creek. The main river has a poor gravel supply. Competition from the various fish species in Boyle Reservoir has undoubtedly impacted the trout population and the spawning run into Spencer Creek. The Klamath River may be the most productive stream in Oregon. Although it has limitations on its production capabilities, it will be managed for wild trout only. Close