Search
Search Results
-
71. [Article] Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation; Annual Progress Report 1994 - 1995
Abstract -- This report summarizes the activities of the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project (UBNPME) from September 30, 1994 to September 29, 1995. This program was funded ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation; Annual Progress Report 1994 - 1995
Abstract -- This report summarizes the activities of the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project (UBNPME) from September 30, 1994 to September 29, 1995. This program was funded by Bonneville Power Administration and was managed under the Fisheries Program, Department of Natural Resources, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. An estimated 36.7 km (22.6 miles) of stream habitat were inventoried on the Umatilla River, Moonshine, Mission, Cottonwood and Coonskin Creeks. A total of 384 of 3,652 (10.5%) habitat units were electrofished. The number of juvenile fish captured follows: 2,953 natural summer steelhead (including resident rainbow tout; Oncorhynchus mykiss), one hatchery steelhead, 341 natural chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha), 163 natural coho salmon (0. kisutch), five bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), 185 mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), and six northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis). The expanded population estimate for the areas surveyed was 73,716 salmonids with a mean density of 0.38 fish/m2. The following number of non-salmonids were visually estimated: 7,572 speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), 5,196 sculpin (Cottus spp.), 532 suckers (Catostomus spp.) and 191 redside shiners (Richardsonius balteatus). The gross estimated density of all non-salmonids combined was 0.84 fish/m2. The estimated ratio of non-salmonids to salmonids was 2.4: 1. Relative salmonid abundance, seasonal distribution and habitat utilization were monitored at index sites throughout the basin. During index site monitoring, the following species were collected in addition to those listed above: american shad (Alosa sapidissima), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), carp (Cyprinus Carpio) and chiselmouth (Acrocheilus alutaceus). Thirty nine sites were electrofished during the spring and summer seasons, while 36 sites were sampled in the fall season. Index sites with the. highest mean salmonid catch/minute (fish/min.) during the three sample periods were located at the following sites: East Birch Creek (3.4 fish/min.), Boston Canyon Creek (3.2 fish/min.), Spring Creek (3.1 fish/min.) and upper Squaw Creek (3.0 fish/min.). The highest electrofishing catch rates were observed in the Umatilla River tributaries above river mile (RM) 70 in the August and September sample period (Table J-2 catalogs river miles with associated landmarks). During the November sample period, catch rates were highest in Birch Creek tributaries. Most salmonids were captured in slow water near the bank during the November and March sampling periods. A study of the migration movements and homing requirements of adult salmonids in the Umatilla River was conducted during the 1994-95 return years. Radio telemetry was used to evaluate the movements of adult salmonids past diversion dams in the lower Umatilla River and to determine migrational movements of salmonids following upstream transport. Radio transmitters were placed in 30 summer steelhead, 15 spring chinook, nine fall chinook, and eight coho salmon. Salmon were released at Three Mile Falls Dam (TMD). An additional 11 summer steelhead and ten spring chinook salmon were tagged, hauled upstream, and released at either Barnhart, Nolin, Thornhollow, or Imeques C-mem-ini-kem. On average, summer steelhead required 36 days to successfully migrate from TMD to Stanfield Dam. Spring chinook required 18 days. Average passage times for summer steelhead (hours and minutes) at Westland, Feed Canal, and Stanfield Dams were 13:06, 83:24, and 2:58, respectively. Spring chinook salmon required 04:30 at Westland, 89:42 at Feed Canal, and 04:01 at Stanfield Dams. Migrational delays were observed at Feed Canal Dam at flows ranging from 563 to 1,601 cubic feet/second (cfs). Thirty-eight percent of the fish ladder at Westland Dam, 75% at Feed canal, and 31% at Stanfield Dam. Average passage times at Feed Canal Dam (1995) were more than 15 times those at Stanfield Dam in 1994 and more than 20 times those at Stanfield Dam in 1995. Data related to homing and passage needs of Umatilla River salmonids was investigated in an attempt to maximize homing to the Umatilla River. Straying rates of adult summer steelhead and spring chinook salmon were found to be low while coho and fall chinook salmon stray rates were high in some groups, particularly adult returns from subyearling smolt releases of fall chinook salmon. Attraction flows of from the mouth of the Umatilla River of at least 150 cfs were required to encourage migration and reduce straying of fall chinook and coho salmon. Significant numbers of summer steelhead entered when flows exceeded 500 cfs. Spring chinook salmon entry was variable with fish entering at flows ranging from 150 to more than 2,000 cfs. Adult anadromous salmonids potentially available to spawn above TMD from August 26, 1994 to June 27, 1995 included: 593 adult and 530 jack fall chinook salmon (1994 brood), 879 adult and 54 jack coho salmon (1994 brood), 784 natural and 509 hatchery summer steelhead (1995 brood), and 378 adult and 62 jack spring chinook salmon (1995 brood). During escapement surveys (fall of 1994), a total of 82 fall chinook salmon redds, 24 coho salmon redds and seven unidentified salmon redds (112 redds total, 2.6/mile) were enumerated along 42.3 miles of the mainstem above TMD. In 1995, we enumerated and flagged 126 summer steelhead redds (3.6 redds/mile) along 35.3 miles of lateral tributaries of the Umatilla River. Also enumerated were 90 spring chinook salmon redds (1.6 redds/mile) along 55.8 miles of the mainstem. Ninety-six percent of the adult fall chinook salmon carcasses examined had spawned while 94% of the coho had spawned; 66.8 % of the spring chinook salmon carcasses examined bad spawned. A total of 49.3% of spring chinook salmon released above TMD were sampled during spawning ground surveys and 60 coded wire tags (CWTs) were recovered from 78 adipose clipped fish. The rotary screw trap in the Umatilla River (RM 76) operated 63 of 113 days from September 21, 1994 to January 13, 1995. The trap captured 596 juvenile steelhead with a mean trap efficiency rate of 9.9%. A total of 1,368 juvenile chinook salmon were captured with a mean trap efficiency rate of 28. 8 % . The rotary screw trap at the Imeques C-mem-ini-kem site (RM 79.5) operated 43 out of 43 days from May 5 through June 16, 1995. The trap captured 304 natural juvenile steelhead with a mean trap efficiency rate of 6.6%. A total of 102 natural juvenile chinook salmon were captured with a mean trap efficiency rate of 10.5%. The rotary screw trap at the Barnhart site (RM 42,2) operated 87 out of 125 days from March 3 to June I, 1995. The trap captured 105 natural juvenile steelhead, 247 natural juvenile chinook salmon, five natural coho salmon, 6,265 hatchery juvenile chinook salmon, 467 hatchery steelhead and 16,844 hatchery coho salmon. Mean trap efficiency rates ranged from 2.3 to 5.7% . Harvest monitors estimated that tribal anglers harvested 25 hatchery and five natural summer steelhead during the spring of 1995. There was no spring chinook salmon fishery in the Umatilla River during 1995 because of the low number of returning adults. Scale analysis determined that over 85 .0% of naturally produced juvenile summer steelhead sampled during biological and index surveys were age O+ or l +. Naturally produced summer steelhead adults, returning to the Umatilla River in 1994-95, were mostly from the 1990 (46.4%) and 1991 (33.9%) brood years.
-
72. [Article] Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program, 1999-2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2010-6
Abstract -- State and federal agencies have invested millions of dollars to restore streams and watersheds in the Pacific Northwest over the past two decades. In Oregon alone, over 500 million dollars ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program, 1999-2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2010-6
Abstract -- State and federal agencies have invested millions of dollars to restore streams and watersheds in the Pacific Northwest over the past two decades. In Oregon alone, over 500 million dollars has been spent on completed projects from 1995 to 2007 (Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 2009). Restoration practitioners have distributed the investment among watershed scale activities such as road repair, dam removal, and upland management, and stream scale activities such as passage, instream complexity, and riparian plantings. The Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program (WOSRP) was established to work in cooperation with private and corporate landowners to restore stream habitat for juvenile and adult salmonids. In addition to the WOSRP, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) funds restoration projects with local watershed councils, who commonly partner with state and federal agencies. Eight WOSRP restoration biologists in Tillamook, Newport, Charleston, Gold Beach, Roseburg, Clackamas, and Salem select sites and implement projects consistent with the criteria described in Thom et al (2001). A monitoring component is integrated in the program, with surveys coordinated and reported by a biologist in Corvallis. The goal of the monitoring program is to assess the long term effectiveness of instream restoration projects implemented by WOSRP, and to evaluate progress towards salmon conservation and recovery goals in Oregon’s coastal basins. The WOSRP restoration sites are distributed throughout the Willamette, Lower Columbia, and coastal drainage's. Restoration treatments added large wood and/or boulders, improved fish passage, planted trees in riparian areas, or were a combination of the three. Large wood was placed in complex jams at intervals throughout the stream to increase stream roughness and complexity. Boulders were sometimes used in conjunction with wood jams to provide stability to the structures, and prevent large wood from moving downstream and posing a hazard to culverts and bridges. Bedrock dominated streams were often treated with boulders to collect gravel and cobble, intended to aggrade the streambed. In the future, large wood may be added to these streams. Fish passage projects opened previously inaccessible habitat to juvenile and/or adult salmonids while riparian plantings and fencing were designed to improve riparian vegetation and bank structure. The project length varied from site to site. Fish passage sites were quite short, but provided access to kilometers of fish habitat, and large wood sites were up to several kilometers in length. Large wood and boulder placement projects have become commonplace in the Pacific Northwest to restore complex stream habitat for juvenile coho and other salmonids (Katz et al. 2007, Roni et al. 2008). Detailed assessments have been published for individual projects or experiments (e.g. Moore and Gregory, 1988, Nickelson et al. 1992, Cederholm et al.1997). More extensive evaluations have used a post treatment design (Hicks et al 1991, Roni and Quinn 2001), but none have used a pre- and post treatment design. In this paper we evaluate habitat changes at 103 restoration projects in western Oregon from pre-treatment to one year post treatment to 6 years following treatment. Projects commonly treated 0.5 – 1 km of stream, but some extended up to 6 km. The projects we evaluated in this paper were treated with large logs, usually arranged in jams, and were not cabled or driven into banks or bottom. As of 2008, the OWEB and WOSRP projects have treated approximately 750 km of stream with large wood (Figure 1), 120 km with boulders, and over 4,000 km of stream have been made accessible by replacing and/or removing culverts. Each year, OWEB receives 210 grant applications for restoration projects. These projects generally adhere to a similar selection process and design, so the results of this study can be expected to apply more broadly within the Pacific Northwest. Roni et al (2008), in a synthesis paper, summarized many of the potential physical benefits of restoration; these include pool depth and frequency, habitat complexity, woody debris, and sediment retention and quality of spawning gravel. Some projects in deeply incised channels have reduced the incision and increased bed elevation. Evaluations of biological responses have been confounded by natural variability of populations, duration of study, or length of stream examined. For example, determination of success based on spawning ground counts is problematic because of variation in ocean survival. However, longer duration and watershed scale studies have shown positive responses of juvenile and adult salmon (Johnson et al 2005). Burnett et al. (2008) conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles to examine the effects of large wood placement on salmonid abundance, growth, or survival, or on overall stream habitat complexity. Few publications were both relevant and met the rigorous standards outlined in their review. Although the review supported short term improvements in habitat complexity, the relationship to salmonid productivity was less definitive. Notable exceptions included Johnson et al. (2005) cited above, and Solazzi et al. (2000). An alternative approach to directly assessing biological response is to model potential changes in abundance or productivity. The Habitat Limiting Factors Model (Reeves et al. 1989, Nickelson et al.1992a, Nickelson 1998) was developed to quantify the carrying capacity of coastal streams for juvenile coho during the summer and winter. Use of this model is appropriate because most of the instream restoration projects in western Oregon were intended to improve habitat for juvenile coho. In this paper, we evaluated the physical response directly, and quantified the potential response of juvenile coho salmon by application of the Habitat Limiting Factors Model. Project effectiveness monitoring requires linking the restoration treatment to improved physical conditions for and biological response of salmon (Katz et al. 2007) and defining desired outcomes (Rumps et al. 2007). Because the WOSRP projects were designed to improve ecological and hydrologic stream function specifically for salmonids, we evaluated 1) retention of wood structures, 2) natural recruitment of additional wood, 3) increase in pool number, area, and depth, 4) retention of gravels and sorting of finer substrates, and 5) increase in channel complexity – secondary channels and off-channel habitats. Biological evaluation was based on estimates of the potential carrying capacity for juvenile coho during the overwinter life stage. The primary objectives of this evaluation are to test for these changes one year following treatment and 6 years following treatment. Secondarily, we evaluated the response of the projects by geographic location and position along the stream network. Previous WOSRP monitoring reports (e.g. Jacobsen and Jones 2003, Jacobsen et al. 2007) have focused on conditions one year following treatment, with relatively few sites assessed 2-3 years following restoration. Since 2003, the restoration projects have increased in complexity – more and larger pieces and jams, and treated more kilometers of stream length per site. The WOSRP program has provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the effects of restoration projects over longer times and broader geographic scales than previously feasible. We have been surveying the restoration sites in both summer and winter to monitor changes in stream habitat and evaluate the success of treatments, such as the placement of wood and/or boulders and fish passage. Surveys are logistically easier to manage in the summer, but surveys conducted during the winter provide a more timely and accurate assessment of over-winter rearing potential for juvenile coho. Because we have paired surveys, we are able to assess the added value of revisits across seasons. We test the hypothesis that habitat characteristics at the restoration sites do not change from summer to winter. The findings permit us to modify the survey program if the information is duplicative, and use the resources in another fashion.
-
73. [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
- 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