Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] The Oregon Conservation Strategy, 2006

  Abstract -- State and federal agencies, as well as other organizations, have developed and led many plans during the years to guide conservation of Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats. Most of ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Oregon Conservation Strategy, 2006 Abstract -- State and federal agencies, as well as other organizations, have developed and led many plans during the years to guide conservation of Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats. Most of these plans have focused on a particular species, area or natural resource. Although wildlife conservation often has been an implicit concern of these plans, many were developed primarily for other purposes. With the creation of this Oregon Conservation Strategy, Oregon has its first overarching state strategy for conserving fish and wildlife. The Conservation Strategy is an effort to use the best available science to create a broad vision and conceptual framework for long-term conservation of Oregon's native fish and wildlife, as well as various in­vertebrates and native plants. As a guide to conserving the species and habitats that have defined the nature of Oregon, this strategy can help ensure that Oregon's natural treasures are passed on to future generations. The Conservation Strategy emphasizes proactively conserving declining species and habitats to reduce the possibility of future federal or state listings. It is not a regulatory document, but instead presents issues and opportunities, and recommends voluntary actions that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of conservation in Oregon. Healthy fish and wildlife populations require adequate habitat, which is provided in natural systems and, for many species, in landscapes managed for forestry, agriculture, range and urban uses. The goals of the Conservation Strategy are to maintain healthy fish and wildlife populations by maintaining and restoring functioning habitats, preventing declines of at-risk species, and reversing declines in these resources where possible. These goals fit well with ODFW's statutory obligation to protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. However, this is not a management plan for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Instead, it is a broad strategy for all of Oregon, offering potential roles and opportunities for residents, agencies and organizations. It incorporates information and insights from a broad range of natural resources assessments and conservation plans, supple­mented by the professional expertise and practical experiences of a cross-section of Oregon's resource managers and conservation interests. It is designed to have a variety of applications both inside and outside of state government. Most important, perhaps, it establishes the basis for a common understanding of the challenges facing Oregon's fish and wildlife, and provides a shared set of priorities for addressing the state's conservation needs. The heart of the Conservation Strategy is a blueprint for voluntary action to address the long-term needs of Oregon's fish and wildlife. The future for many species will depend on landowners' and land managers' willingness to voluntarily take action on their own to protect and improve fish and wildlife habitat. The strategy outlined in this document considers fish and wildlife from a statewide perspective, establishing a broader context for decisions about the species and habitats in greatest need of conservation attention. It also recognizes that these issues vary in different regions, requiring conservation actions to be tailored to the unique needs of the fish, wildlife and human communities that coexist throughout Oregon. Much good work already is being done by private landowners. water-shed councils, conservation organizations and agencies like the many soil and water conservation districts. This strategy continues building on the solid foundation these groups have set for Oregon's conservation future. This document is called a strategy, not a plan, because its purpose is to help people make decisions more strategically about how they can invest time and resources in fish and wildlife conservation. To that end, the Conservation Strategy focuses on a suite of species and habitats, many of them closely linked, that are in greatest need of conservation attention. The strategy provides guidance on the types of actions most likely to benefit these species and habitats, and describes a variety of non-regulatory programs that can help landowners and land managers with implementation. For agencies and organizations working on a larger scale, the Conservation Strategy highlights specific geographic "Conservation Opportunity Areas" that provide good opportunities to address the conservation needs of high-priority habitats and species. These landscape-scale areas include both public and private ownership where targeted investments in conservation actions and incentives for private landowners are likely to generate the greatest long-term benefits for fish and wildlife. The expanding footprint of human development and 150 years of landscape alteration have left much of Oregon's fish and wildlife at varying degrees of risk. For example, the song of Oregon's state bird, the western meadowlark, is rarely heard in the Willamette Valley any more. A grassland bird still common in eastern Oregon, the meadowlark is not going to be a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act any time soon. But the state bird is in trouble across a significant portion of its historic range in Oregon. Like most of Oregon's wildlife, it retains a natural resilience and will respond to improved habitat conditions. However, the meadowlark needs some conservation attention. For the western meadowlark and dozens of other similarly vulnerable species including fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, invertebrates and plants, the Oregon Conservation Strategy offers hope for a more secure future. Title: The Oregon Conservation Strategy, 2006 Abstract -- State and federal agencies, as well as other organizations, have developed and led many plans during the years to guide conservation of Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats. Most of these plans have focused on a particular species, area or natural resource. Although wildlife conservation often has been an implicit concern of these plans, many were developed primarily for other purposes. With the creation of this Oregon Conservation Strategy, Oregon has its first overarching state strategy for conserving fish and wildlife. The Conservation Strategy is an effort to use the best available science to create a broad vision and conceptual framework for long-term conservation of Oregon's native fish and wildlife, as well as various in­vertebrates and native plants. As a guide to conserving the species and habitats that have defined the nature of Oregon, this strategy can help ensure that Oregon's natural treasures are passed on to future generations. The Conservation Strategy emphasizes proactively conserving declining species and habitats to reduce the possibility of future federal or state listings. It is not a regulatory document, but instead presents issues and opportunities, and recommends voluntary actions that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of conservation in Oregon. Healthy fish and wildlife populations require adequate habitat, which is provided in natural systems and, for many species, in landscapes managed for forestry, agriculture, range and urban uses. The goals of the Conservation Strategy are to maintain healthy fish and wildlife populations by maintaining and restoring functioning habitats, preventing declines of at-risk species, and reversing declines in these resources where possible. These goals fit well with ODFW's statutory obligation to protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. However, this is not a management plan for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Instead, it is a broad strategy for all of Oregon, offering potential roles and opportunities for residents, agencies and organizations. It incorporates information and insights from a broad range of natural resources assessments and conservation plans, supple­mented by the professional expertise and practical experiences of a cross-section of Oregon's resource managers and conservation interests. It is designed to have a variety of applications both inside and outside of state government. Most important, perhaps, it establishes the basis for a common understanding of the challenges facing Oregon's fish and wildlife, and provides a shared set of priorities for addressing the state's conservation needs. The heart of the Conservation Strategy is a blueprint for voluntary action to address the long-term needs of Oregon's fish and wildlife. The future for many species will depend on landowners' and land managers' willingness to voluntarily take action on their own to protect and improve fish and wildlife habitat. The strategy outlined in this document considers fish and wildlife from a statewide perspective, establishing a broader context for decisions about the species and habitats in greatest need of conservation attention. It also recognizes that these issues vary in different regions, requiring conservation actions to be tailored to the unique needs of the fish, wildlife and human communities that coexist throughout Oregon. Much good work already is being done by private landowners. water-shed councils, conservation organizations and agencies like the many soil and water conservation districts. This strategy continues building on the solid foundation these groups have set for Oregon's conservation future. This document is called a strategy, not a plan, because its purpose is to help people make decisions more strategically about how they can invest time and resources in fish and wildlife conservation. To that end, the Conservation Strategy focuses on a suite of species and habitats, many of them closely linked, that are in greatest need of conservation attention. The strategy provides guidance on the types of actions most likely to benefit these species and habitats, and describes a variety of non-regulatory programs that can help landowners and land managers with implementation. For agencies and organizations working on a larger scale, the Conservation Strategy highlights specific geographic "Conservation Opportunity Areas" that provide good opportunities to address the conservation needs of high-priority habitats and species. These landscape-scale areas include both public and private ownership where targeted investments in conservation actions and incentives for private landowners are likely to generate the greatest long-term benefits for fish and wildlife. The expanding footprint of human development and 150 years of landscape alteration have left much of Oregon's fish and wildlife at varying degrees of risk. For example, the song of Oregon's state bird, the western meadowlark, is rarely heard in the Willamette Valley any more. A grassland bird still common in eastern Oregon, the meadowlark is not going to be a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act any time soon. But the state bird is in trouble across a significant portion of its historic range in Oregon. Like most of Oregon's wildlife, it retains a natural resilience and will respond to improved habitat conditions. However, the meadowlark needs some conservation attention. For the western meadowlark and dozens of other similarly vulnerable species including fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, invertebrates and plants, the Oregon Conservation Strategy offers hope for a more secure future. Close

• 2. [Article] Greater Oregon City Watershed Assessment and Action Plan

  Abstract -- The April 2012 Greater Oregon City Watershed Assessment was produced by ICF International and Watershed Professionals Network. The Assessment gives and overview of the watershed, the habitat ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Greater Oregon City Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- The April 2012 Greater Oregon City Watershed Assessment was produced by ICF International and Watershed Professionals Network. The Assessment gives and overview of the watershed, the habitat types, risks to the watershed, water quality, species within the watershed and reccomendations proposed for the watershed. In addition there is a proposed action plan that covers a watershed and subwatershed overview that includes conditions, limitations and opportunities, watershed strategy and priorities, previous project accomplishments by the GOCWC, budgets and action plan priorities. Title: Greater Oregon City Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Abstract -- The April 2012 Greater Oregon City Watershed Assessment was produced by ICF International and Watershed Professionals Network. The Assessment gives and overview of the watershed, the habitat types, risks to the watershed, water quality, species within the watershed and reccomendations proposed for the watershed. In addition there is a proposed action plan that covers a watershed and subwatershed overview that includes conditions, limitations and opportunities, watershed strategy and priorities, previous project accomplishments by the GOCWC, budgets and action plan priorities. Close

• 3. [Article] Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The 2011 Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment was produced by ABR, Inc got the Gilliam-East John Day Watershed Council and the Gilliam Soil and Water Conservation District. The purpose ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The 2011 Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment was produced by ABR, Inc got the Gilliam-East John Day Watershed Council and the Gilliam Soil and Water Conservation District. The purpose of the document was to give an overview on watershed history, current condition, purpose and scope of the project, Methods used for the assessment, the habitat types within the watershed, hydrology and water use within the watershed, risks to the watershed and proposed changes. In addition it gives a overview on the salmonid species found in the watershed and gives proposed changes to their management. Title: Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The 2011 Rock and Lonerock Creeks Watershed Assessment was produced by ABR, Inc got the Gilliam-East John Day Watershed Council and the Gilliam Soil and Water Conservation District. The purpose of the document was to give an overview on watershed history, current condition, purpose and scope of the project, Methods used for the assessment, the habitat types within the watershed, hydrology and water use within the watershed, risks to the watershed and proposed changes. In addition it gives a overview on the salmonid species found in the watershed and gives proposed changes to their management. Close

• 4. [Article] Oregon South Coast Estuaries: Hunter Creek, Pistol River, Chetco River, & Winchuck River Tidal Wetlands Assessment (2012-2015)

  Abstract -- Although tidal wetlands on the Oregon South Coast are limited in extent, they may be particularly valuable for a variety of wetland functions. This assessment combines the Brophy (2007) and ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon South Coast Estuaries: Hunter Creek, Pistol River, Chetco River, & Winchuck River Tidal Wetlands Assessment (2012-2015) Abstract -- Although tidal wetlands on the Oregon South Coast are limited in extent, they may be particularly valuable for a variety of wetland functions. This assessment combines the Brophy (2007) and Adamus (2005) approaches to quantify the extent and causes of habitat loss and hydrogeomorphic changes in tidal wetlands of four Oregon South Coast Estuaries. The potential for restoring critical habitat and wetland functions is ranked using Ecological Prioritization Criteria (Brophy, 2007), while indicators of function, risk, and integrity are evaluated using scoring models from the Adamus (2005) Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Rapid Assessment Method. The extent of inundation (head of tide) during King Tide conditions was observed and documented by staff and volunteers. Field measurements of salinity concentrations and stratification during high and low flow were tabulated. The historic aerial photo record was examined to detect channel migration, floodplain re-vegetation, and human-caused alterations. Related studies were combined with these observations to provide a summary of estuary hydrology, sedimentation, and channel stability related to wetland establishment and loss in each of the four estuaries. Ecological priority scores (Brophy, 2007) varied with wetland size, tidal channel condition, connectivity, and diversity of vegetation classes. Wetlands were categorized as restoration or conservation types, and priority ranks for wetlands were depicted on orthophoto base maps. Tidal wetlands and nearby floodplain wetlands in a variety of geomorphic settings were surveyed using the HGM protocol, including one “reference” and one restoration site . The HGM survey scores 55 indicators, including botanical transects, used to rank wetland functions (calculated by indicator scoring models). Risks to wetlands include human disturbances in close proximity to the wetlands and floodplains, resulting from the narrow valley floors in this tectonically active region. Wetland integrity is threatened by a surprising large proportion of non-native species in the botanical transects, 40%. Wetland indicators that scored low, and could be restored or enhanced, are discussed in a restoration considerations narrative. Wetland descriptions include lists of plant species, grouped by wetland status, native/non-native, and perennial/annual persistence. In addition to the HGM scores, an analysis of cover and diversity of all plant species in plots, off-transect species diversity, and waterfowl food distribution was completed using a wetland vegetation database developed for the Oregon South Coast. Title: Oregon South Coast Estuaries: Hunter Creek, Pistol River, Chetco River, & Winchuck River Tidal Wetlands Assessment (2012-2015) Abstract -- Although tidal wetlands on the Oregon South Coast are limited in extent, they may be particularly valuable for a variety of wetland functions. This assessment combines the Brophy (2007) and Adamus (2005) approaches to quantify the extent and causes of habitat loss and hydrogeomorphic changes in tidal wetlands of four Oregon South Coast Estuaries. The potential for restoring critical habitat and wetland functions is ranked using Ecological Prioritization Criteria (Brophy, 2007), while indicators of function, risk, and integrity are evaluated using scoring models from the Adamus (2005) Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Rapid Assessment Method. The extent of inundation (head of tide) during King Tide conditions was observed and documented by staff and volunteers. Field measurements of salinity concentrations and stratification during high and low flow were tabulated. The historic aerial photo record was examined to detect channel migration, floodplain re-vegetation, and human-caused alterations. Related studies were combined with these observations to provide a summary of estuary hydrology, sedimentation, and channel stability related to wetland establishment and loss in each of the four estuaries. Ecological priority scores (Brophy, 2007) varied with wetland size, tidal channel condition, connectivity, and diversity of vegetation classes. Wetlands were categorized as restoration or conservation types, and priority ranks for wetlands were depicted on orthophoto base maps. Tidal wetlands and nearby floodplain wetlands in a variety of geomorphic settings were surveyed using the HGM protocol, including one “reference” and one restoration site . The HGM survey scores 55 indicators, including botanical transects, used to rank wetland functions (calculated by indicator scoring models). Risks to wetlands include human disturbances in close proximity to the wetlands and floodplains, resulting from the narrow valley floors in this tectonically active region. Wetland integrity is threatened by a surprising large proportion of non-native species in the botanical transects, 40%. Wetland indicators that scored low, and could be restored or enhanced, are discussed in a restoration considerations narrative. Wetland descriptions include lists of plant species, grouped by wetland status, native/non-native, and perennial/annual persistence. In addition to the HGM scores, an analysis of cover and diversity of all plant species in plots, off-transect species diversity, and waterfowl food distribution was completed using a wetland vegetation database developed for the Oregon South Coast. Close

• 5. [Article] Length and age at maturity of female yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes rubberimus) and cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) from Oregon waters based on histological evaluation of maturity Information Report number 2009-04

  Abstract -- Accurate estimates of female age or length at maturity are critical for the conservation of exploited fish stocks. Age at maturity is particularly important, as it strongly influences population ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Length and age at maturity of female yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes rubberimus) and cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) from Oregon waters based on histological evaluation of maturity Information Report number 2009-04 Abstract -- Accurate estimates of female age or length at maturity are critical for the conservation of exploited fish stocks. Age at maturity is particularly important, as it strongly influences population model estimates of sustainable harvest rates (Clark 1991) and, along with mean body size, is an important predictor of the risk of overexploitation (Reynolds et al. 2005). For many U.S. west coast groundfish stocks, data on age and length at maturity is of poor quality. The age at maturity curves used in many stock assessments are currently based on macroscopic (visual) assessment of ovary condition. However, there is abundant evidence that histological evaluation of ovarian thin-sections, especially if combined with optimal seasonal sampling, is much more accurate (Gunderson et al. 1980, Wyllie Echeverria 1987, West 1990, Nichol and Pikitch 1994, Hannah and Parker 2007). The age data that have been used to develop curves of age at maturity for some species is also based on outdated ageing methods, such as surface aging of otoliths, as opposed to the more accurate “break and burn” technique (Barss 1989, Wyllie Echeverria 1987, Chilton and Beamish 1982). For other species, such as cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), accurate age and growth data, based on thin-sectioning of otoliths, have just recently been developed (Grebel and Cailliet 2003). Information on age and length at maturity that is based on histological evaluation of maturity status and modern ageing techniques is therefore needed for many U.S. west coast groundfish species. Histology-based maturity data has been developed for some U.S. west coast groundfish species. These include darkblotched rockfish (Sebastes crameri, Nichol and Pikitch 1994), petrale sole (Eopsetta jordani, Hannah et al. 2002), greenstriped rockfish (Sebastes elongatus, Shaw and Gunderson 2006), Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus, Hannah and Parker 2007) and rosethorn rockfish (Sebastes helvomaculatus, Shaw and Gunderson 2008). We report here on the development of similar data for female yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes rubberimus) and cabezon. Title: Length and age at maturity of female yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes rubberimus) and cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) from Oregon waters based on histological evaluation of maturity Information Report number 2009-04 Abstract -- Accurate estimates of female age or length at maturity are critical for the conservation of exploited fish stocks. Age at maturity is particularly important, as it strongly influences population model estimates of sustainable harvest rates (Clark 1991) and, along with mean body size, is an important predictor of the risk of overexploitation (Reynolds et al. 2005). For many U.S. west coast groundfish stocks, data on age and length at maturity is of poor quality. The age at maturity curves used in many stock assessments are currently based on macroscopic (visual) assessment of ovary condition. However, there is abundant evidence that histological evaluation of ovarian thin-sections, especially if combined with optimal seasonal sampling, is much more accurate (Gunderson et al. 1980, Wyllie Echeverria 1987, West 1990, Nichol and Pikitch 1994, Hannah and Parker 2007). The age data that have been used to develop curves of age at maturity for some species is also based on outdated ageing methods, such as surface aging of otoliths, as opposed to the more accurate “break and burn” technique (Barss 1989, Wyllie Echeverria 1987, Chilton and Beamish 1982). For other species, such as cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), accurate age and growth data, based on thin-sectioning of otoliths, have just recently been developed (Grebel and Cailliet 2003). Information on age and length at maturity that is based on histological evaluation of maturity status and modern ageing techniques is therefore needed for many U.S. west coast groundfish species. Histology-based maturity data has been developed for some U.S. west coast groundfish species. These include darkblotched rockfish (Sebastes crameri, Nichol and Pikitch 1994), petrale sole (Eopsetta jordani, Hannah et al. 2002), greenstriped rockfish (Sebastes elongatus, Shaw and Gunderson 2006), Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus, Hannah and Parker 2007) and rosethorn rockfish (Sebastes helvomaculatus, Shaw and Gunderson 2008). We report here on the development of similar data for female yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes rubberimus) and cabezon. Close

• 6. [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

• 7. [Article] Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2009 Annual Report

  Abstract -- This report fulfills a requirement under Task Order NWPPM-09-FH-05, covering activities of July 2009–May 2010 that were implemented by ODFW on behalf of the Corps to assist with meeting the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2009 Annual Report Abstract -- This report fulfills a requirement under Task Order NWPPM-09-FH-05, covering activities of July 2009–May 2010 that were implemented by ODFW on behalf of the Corps to assist with meeting the requirements of the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) and measures prescribed in the Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOp) of July 2008 (NOAA 2008). The Corps provided funding to continue ongoing monitoring activities and initiate long-term planning. Primary tasks by species included: Spring Chinook salmon Task 1.1: Determine abundance, distribution, and percent hatchery-origin fish on spawning grounds downstream of federal dams. Task 1.2: Monitor clipped & unclipped fish passing Leaburg and Upper Bennett dams. Task 2.1: Collection, spawn timing, and hatchery/wild composition for broodstock management. Task 2.2: Determine survival of outplanted fish (upstream of federal dams) and abundance of spawners. Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2009 Annual Report Abstract -- This report fulfills a requirement under Task Order NWPPM-09-FH-05, covering activities of July 2009–May 2010 that were implemented by ODFW on behalf of the Corps to assist with meeting the requirements of the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) and measures prescribed in the Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOp) of July 2008 (NOAA 2008). The Corps provided funding to continue ongoing monitoring activities and initiate long-term planning. Primary tasks by species included: Spring Chinook salmon Task 1.1: Determine abundance, distribution, and percent hatchery-origin fish on spawning grounds downstream of federal dams. Task 1.2: Monitor clipped & unclipped fish passing Leaburg and Upper Bennett dams. Task 2.1: Collection, spawn timing, and hatchery/wild composition for broodstock management. Task 2.2: Determine survival of outplanted fish (upstream of federal dams) and abundance of spawners. Close

• 8. [Article] Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2002 Annual Report

  Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2002 Annual Report Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, providing a genetic reserve in the case of extirpation, and providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). The objective of this project is to evaluate the potential effects hatchery programs on naturally spawning populations of Spring Chinook and winter Steelhead within the Upper Willamette River ESU. The project employs four types of activities to achieve this goal: sampling of returns to hatcheries, creels to assess fisheries, monitoring of adult and juvenile migration through the use of traps and video observations, and monitoring natural production through spawning ground surveys. Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2002 Annual Report Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, providing a genetic reserve in the case of extirpation, and providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). The objective of this project is to evaluate the potential effects hatchery programs on naturally spawning populations of Spring Chinook and winter Steelhead within the Upper Willamette River ESU. The project employs four types of activities to achieve this goal: sampling of returns to hatcheries, creels to assess fisheries, monitoring of adult and juvenile migration through the use of traps and video observations, and monitoring natural production through spawning ground surveys. Close

• 9. [Article] Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2002-03 Addendum

  Abstract -- This report is an addendum to the report on activities in 2002 that was generated in December of that year. This report also presents results of spawning surveys and stomach content analysis ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2002-03 Addendum Abstract -- This report is an addendum to the report on activities in 2002 that was generated in December of that year. This report also presents results of spawning surveys and stomach content analysis that were completed in 2003. A complete report for the 2003 survey season will be prepared after the seasons trapping and angler surveys have ended. Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2002-03 Addendum Abstract -- This report is an addendum to the report on activities in 2002 that was generated in December of that year. This report also presents results of spawning surveys and stomach content analysis that were completed in 2003. A complete report for the 2003 survey season will be prepared after the seasons trapping and angler surveys have ended. Close

• 10. [Article] Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2003 Annual Report

  Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2003 Annual Report Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, providing a genetic reserve in the case of extirpation, and providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). The objective of this project is to evaluate the potential effects of hatchery programs on naturally spawning populations of spring chinook and winter steelhead within the Upper Willamette River ESU. The project employs four types of activities to achieve this goal: sampling of returns to hatcheries, creels to assess fisheries, monitoring of adult and juvenile migration through the use of traps and video observations, and monitoring natural production through spawning ground surveys. Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2003 Annual Report Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, providing a genetic reserve in the case of extirpation, and providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). The objective of this project is to evaluate the potential effects of hatchery programs on naturally spawning populations of spring chinook and winter steelhead within the Upper Willamette River ESU. The project employs four types of activities to achieve this goal: sampling of returns to hatcheries, creels to assess fisheries, monitoring of adult and juvenile migration through the use of traps and video observations, and monitoring natural production through spawning ground surveys. Close

• 11. [Article] Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2007 Interim Activities Report

  Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2007 Interim Activities Report Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, by providing a genetic reserve as well as providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). The objective of this project is to evaluate the potential effects of hatchery programs on naturally spawning populations of spring Chinook within the Upper Willamette River ESU. The project employs three types of activities to achieve this goal: sampling of returns to hatcheries, monitoring of adult migration through the use video observations, and monitoring natural production through spawning ground surveys. Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2007 Interim Activities Report Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, by providing a genetic reserve as well as providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). The objective of this project is to evaluate the potential effects of hatchery programs on naturally spawning populations of spring Chinook within the Upper Willamette River ESU. The project employs three types of activities to achieve this goal: sampling of returns to hatcheries, monitoring of adult migration through the use video observations, and monitoring natural production through spawning ground surveys. Close

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

  Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette Valley, were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Factors implicated in the decline ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2007 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2007 Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette Valley, were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Factors implicated in the decline of this species include changes in flow regimes and habitat characteristics resulting from the construction of flood control dams, revetments, channelization, diking, and the drainage of wetlands. The Oregon chub is further threatened by predation and competition by non-native species such as largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We continued surveys initiated in 1991 in the Willamette River drainage to quantify the abundance of known Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations as part of the implementation of the Oregon Chub Recovery Plan. We sampled a total of 70 sites in 2007. New populations of Oregon chub were discovered at Green Island in the lower McKenzie River and in the Muddy Creek drainage (Linn County). We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 34 locations. These included 23 naturally occurring and 11 introduced populations. We did not find Oregon chub at nine locations where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-2006. Nonnative fish were collected at most of these locations. We obtained abundance estimates of 18 naturally occurring populations and 11 introduced populations of Oregon chub located in the Middle Fork Willamette, Santiam, McKenzie, and Mid-Willamette drainages (Table 1). We introduced additional Oregon chub into the South Stayton Pond in the Santiam drainage and into Cheadle and Display Ponds in the Mid-Willamette drainage. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set recovery criteria for downlisting the species to “threatened” and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species are: 1) establish and manage 10 populations of at least 500 adult fish, 2) all of these populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years, and 3) at least three populations meeting criterion 1 and 2 must be located in each of the three recovery areas (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, and Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2007, there were 20 populations totaling 500 or more individuals (Table 1). Fifteen of these populations also met the second criteria. Of the 15 populations meeting criteria 1 and 2, eight were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage, four were located in the Mid-Willamette drainage, and three were located in the Santiam drainage. In 2007, we met the downlisting criteria. Findings to date indicate that Oregon chub remain at risk due to the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, accelerated sedimentation, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications. Their status has improved in recent years, resulting primarily from successful introductions and the discovery of previously undocumented populations. Title: 2007 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2007 Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette Valley, were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Factors implicated in the decline of this species include changes in flow regimes and habitat characteristics resulting from the construction of flood control dams, revetments, channelization, diking, and the drainage of wetlands. The Oregon chub is further threatened by predation and competition by non-native species such as largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We continued surveys initiated in 1991 in the Willamette River drainage to quantify the abundance of known Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations as part of the implementation of the Oregon Chub Recovery Plan. We sampled a total of 70 sites in 2007. New populations of Oregon chub were discovered at Green Island in the lower McKenzie River and in the Muddy Creek drainage (Linn County). We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 34 locations. These included 23 naturally occurring and 11 introduced populations. We did not find Oregon chub at nine locations where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-2006. Nonnative fish were collected at most of these locations. We obtained abundance estimates of 18 naturally occurring populations and 11 introduced populations of Oregon chub located in the Middle Fork Willamette, Santiam, McKenzie, and Mid-Willamette drainages (Table 1). We introduced additional Oregon chub into the South Stayton Pond in the Santiam drainage and into Cheadle and Display Ponds in the Mid-Willamette drainage. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set recovery criteria for downlisting the species to “threatened” and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species are: 1) establish and manage 10 populations of at least 500 adult fish, 2) all of these populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years, and 3) at least three populations meeting criterion 1 and 2 must be located in each of the three recovery areas (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, and Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2007, there were 20 populations totaling 500 or more individuals (Table 1). Fifteen of these populations also met the second criteria. Of the 15 populations meeting criteria 1 and 2, eight were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage, four were located in the Mid-Willamette drainage, and three were located in the Santiam drainage. In 2007, we met the downlisting criteria. Findings to date indicate that Oregon chub remain at risk due to the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, accelerated sedimentation, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications. Their status has improved in recent years, resulting primarily from successful introductions and the discovery of previously undocumented populations. Close

• 13. [Article] Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers, October 2003 through September 2004

  Abstract -- The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers, October 2003 through September 2004 Abstract -- The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy recognizes that naturally produced native fish are the foundation for long-term sustainability of native species and hatchery programs, and the fisheries they support. In the past, hatchery programs and fish passage issues were the focus of spring Chinook salmon management in the Willamette and Sandy basins. Limited information was collected on the genetic structure among basin populations, on abundance and distribution of natural spawning, on rearing and migrating of juvenile salmon, or on strategies for reducing risks that large hatchery programs pose for wild salmon populations. This study was implemented to gather this information. Annual reports (available for 1996-2004 for this project) summarize data and are available at the above website. Title: Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers, October 2003 through September 2004 Abstract -- The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy recognizes that naturally produced native fish are the foundation for long-term sustainability of native species and hatchery programs, and the fisheries they support. In the past, hatchery programs and fish passage issues were the focus of spring Chinook salmon management in the Willamette and Sandy basins. Limited information was collected on the genetic structure among basin populations, on abundance and distribution of natural spawning, on rearing and migrating of juvenile salmon, or on strategies for reducing risks that large hatchery programs pose for wild salmon populations. This study was implemented to gather this information. Annual reports (available for 1996-2004 for this project) summarize data and are available at the above website. Close

• 14. [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

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

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

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

• 16. [Article] Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2010 Annual Report

  Abstract -- Task 1.1: Distribution, Abundance, and Proportion of Hatchery and Natural-Origin Chinook Salmon: Counts of spring Chinook redds were similar in 2010 compared to the 2002–2009 averages for the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2010 Annual Report Abstract -- Task 1.1: Distribution, Abundance, and Proportion of Hatchery and Natural-Origin Chinook Salmon: Counts of spring Chinook redds were similar in 2010 compared to the 2002–2009 averages for the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie and the North Santiam rivers and significantly higher in the South Santiam River Preliminary analyses indicate that the proportions of hatchery fish recovered as carcasses from the spawning grounds varied significantly among all four surveyed sub-basins (South Santiam > M. Fork Willamette > North Santiam > McKenzie) Task 1.2: Monitor fin-clipped & unclipped fish passing Leaburg and Upper Bennett dams. Adult fish passage at Leaburg and Upper Bennett dams was continuously monitored in 2010. We estimated that 2,696 spring Chinook (52% unclipped) passed above Leaburg Dam and 5,956 passed above upper Bennett Dam (14% unclipped). Passage at Leaburg Dam of fin-clipped fish was strongly bimodal with peaks in June (coincident with passage of the majority of unclipped fish) and September (coincident with a smaller proportion of unclipped fish). This bimodal peak suggests that hatchery fish might be removed in September to reduce the proportion of hatchery origin spawners while simultaneously reducing the impacts of handling wild fish. Task 2.1: Collection, spawn timing, and Hatchery/Wild (H/W ) composition for broodstock management. Collection, spawn timing, and H/W composition for broodstock management were successfully monitored at all facilities in 2010. Task 2.2: Determine Survival of Outplanted Fish and Abundance of Spawners. Patterns of pre-spawning mortality were similar to results in 2009 with mortality below project dams significantly higher than that above project dams. We did not detect significant differences in mortality between clipped and unclipped spring Chinook. In comparisons of pre-spawning mortality among sub-basins above project dams, pre-spawning mortality was uniformly low in the Breitenbush and N. Santiam above Detroit, S. Santiam above Foster, and in the S. Fork McKenzie. Pre-spawning mortality was uniformly higher above project dams in the N. Fork Mid. Fork Willamette, Fall Creek and the Little N. Fork Santiam. No comprehensive surveys were conducted in the Middle Fork Willamette. Task 3.1: Determine the extent of summer steelhead reproduction in the wild: We developed a formal study plan to analyze and interpret genetic results from a collection of 299 tissue samples from unclipped juvenile steelhead at Willamette Falls, five from the mainstem Willamette River, and two from the South Santiam River in 2010 in addition to a single sample from an unclipped adult steelhead at the Minto fish collection facility. Samples were preserved 7 and cataloged and then shipped to the NOAA Fisheries Manchester, Washington (WA) laboratory for analysis. Task 3.2: Evaluate release strategies for summer steelhead to increase migration and reduce impacts on wild fish. Study plans to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of volitional release strategies were completed and presented in the 2009 annual report to USACE (Cannon et al. 2010). Funding to process the tissue samples was not available in 2010, and no progress was made in executing the proposed work. Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2010 Annual Report Abstract -- Task 1.1: Distribution, Abundance, and Proportion of Hatchery and Natural-Origin Chinook Salmon: Counts of spring Chinook redds were similar in 2010 compared to the 2002–2009 averages for the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie and the North Santiam rivers and significantly higher in the South Santiam River Preliminary analyses indicate that the proportions of hatchery fish recovered as carcasses from the spawning grounds varied significantly among all four surveyed sub-basins (South Santiam > M. Fork Willamette > North Santiam > McKenzie) Task 1.2: Monitor fin-clipped & unclipped fish passing Leaburg and Upper Bennett dams. Adult fish passage at Leaburg and Upper Bennett dams was continuously monitored in 2010. We estimated that 2,696 spring Chinook (52% unclipped) passed above Leaburg Dam and 5,956 passed above upper Bennett Dam (14% unclipped). Passage at Leaburg Dam of fin-clipped fish was strongly bimodal with peaks in June (coincident with passage of the majority of unclipped fish) and September (coincident with a smaller proportion of unclipped fish). This bimodal peak suggests that hatchery fish might be removed in September to reduce the proportion of hatchery origin spawners while simultaneously reducing the impacts of handling wild fish. Task 2.1: Collection, spawn timing, and Hatchery/Wild (H/W ) composition for broodstock management. Collection, spawn timing, and H/W composition for broodstock management were successfully monitored at all facilities in 2010. Task 2.2: Determine Survival of Outplanted Fish and Abundance of Spawners. Patterns of pre-spawning mortality were similar to results in 2009 with mortality below project dams significantly higher than that above project dams. We did not detect significant differences in mortality between clipped and unclipped spring Chinook. In comparisons of pre-spawning mortality among sub-basins above project dams, pre-spawning mortality was uniformly low in the Breitenbush and N. Santiam above Detroit, S. Santiam above Foster, and in the S. Fork McKenzie. Pre-spawning mortality was uniformly higher above project dams in the N. Fork Mid. Fork Willamette, Fall Creek and the Little N. Fork Santiam. No comprehensive surveys were conducted in the Middle Fork Willamette. Task 3.1: Determine the extent of summer steelhead reproduction in the wild: We developed a formal study plan to analyze and interpret genetic results from a collection of 299 tissue samples from unclipped juvenile steelhead at Willamette Falls, five from the mainstem Willamette River, and two from the South Santiam River in 2010 in addition to a single sample from an unclipped adult steelhead at the Minto fish collection facility. Samples were preserved 7 and cataloged and then shipped to the NOAA Fisheries Manchester, Washington (WA) laboratory for analysis. Task 3.2: Evaluate release strategies for summer steelhead to increase migration and reduce impacts on wild fish. Study plans to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of volitional release strategies were completed and presented in the 2009 annual report to USACE (Cannon et al. 2010). Funding to process the tissue samples was not available in 2010, and no progress was made in executing the proposed work. Close

• 17. [Article] Work Completed for Compliance with the Biological Opinion for Hatchery Programs in the Willamette Basin USACE funding: 2004 Annual Report

  Abstract -- The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has listed spring chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and winter steelhead (O. mykiss) in the Upper Willamette River Evolutionarily Significant ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Work Completed for Compliance with the Biological Opinion for Hatchery Programs in the Willamette Basin USACE funding: 2004 Annual Report Abstract -- The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has listed spring chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and winter steelhead (O. mykiss) in the Upper Willamette River Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 64 FRN 14308; 64 FRN 14517). Concomitant with this listing, any actions taken or funded by a federal agency must be evaluated to assess whether these actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered species, or result in the destruction or impairment of critical habitat. Several fish hatcheries operate within the ESU and may impact wild populations of listed species. Although all of the artificial propagation programs that potentially affect listed salmonids in the Upper Willamette River ESUs are operated by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW), 90% of the funding for these operations comes from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation,increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, providing a genetic reserve in the case of extirpation, and providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). The objective of this project is to evaluate the potential effects of hatchery programs on naturally spawning populations of spring chinook and winter steelhead within the Upper Willamette River ESU. The project employs four types of activities to achieve this goal: sampling of returns to hatcheries, creels to assess fisheries, monitoring of adult and juvenile migration through the use of traps and video observations, and monitoring natural production through spawning ground surveys. Title: Work Completed for Compliance with the Biological Opinion for Hatchery Programs in the Willamette Basin USACE funding: 2004 Annual Report Abstract -- The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has listed spring chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and winter steelhead (O. mykiss) in the Upper Willamette River Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 64 FRN 14308; 64 FRN 14517). Concomitant with this listing, any actions taken or funded by a federal agency must be evaluated to assess whether these actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered species, or result in the destruction or impairment of critical habitat. Several fish hatcheries operate within the ESU and may impact wild populations of listed species. Although all of the artificial propagation programs that potentially affect listed salmonids in the Upper Willamette River ESUs are operated by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW), 90% of the funding for these operations comes from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation,increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, providing a genetic reserve in the case of extirpation, and providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). The objective of this project is to evaluate the potential effects of hatchery programs on naturally spawning populations of spring chinook and winter steelhead within the Upper Willamette River ESU. The project employs four types of activities to achieve this goal: sampling of returns to hatcheries, creels to assess fisheries, monitoring of adult and juvenile migration through the use of traps and video observations, and monitoring natural production through spawning ground surveys. Close

• 18. [Article] Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2008 Interim Activities Report

  Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2008 Interim Activities Report Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, by providing a genetic reserve as well as providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). The objective of this project is to evaluate the potential effects of hatchery programs on naturally spawning populations of spring Chinook within the Upper Willamette River ESU. ODFW submits this report in fulfillment of Task Order NWPOD-08-FH-05 (per Task 3). This report covers activities of July 2008–May 2009 that were implemented by ODFW on behalf of the Corps to assist with meeting the requirements of the reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures prescribed in the Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOp) of July 2008 (NOAA 2008). Although a strategy to implement actions identified on the BiOp has not yet been completed, the Corps provided interim funding to continue certain monitoring activities and initiate long-term planning as detailed below: Task 1 (a–f). Monitor straying of hatchery fish on natural spawning grounds in the North Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette rivers to determine the distribution, abundance and proportion of hatchery and natural-origin fish spawning by: (1) conducting spawning ground surveys downstream of projects and upstream of Detroit and Foster reservoirs; (2) conducting re-surveys to assess variability in redd counts among crews; (3) estimating pre-spawning mortality; (4) estimating the percentage of hatchery-origin spawners using otolith analysis; (5) monitoring fin-clipped and unclipped fish passing Leaburg and upper Bennett dams. Task 2 (a–c). Monitor fin-clipped and unclipped fish entering hatcheries and collection facilities (i.e., record number, origin, length, date of return); determine origin using otolith analysis; collect tissue samples for genetic analysis. Task 4. Work with Corps and/or contractors to develop coordinated monitoring plan for Corps-funded hatchery programs based on requirements in the 2008 BiOp. Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2008 Interim Activities Report Abstract -- Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, by providing a genetic reserve as well as providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). The objective of this project is to evaluate the potential effects of hatchery programs on naturally spawning populations of spring Chinook within the Upper Willamette River ESU. ODFW submits this report in fulfillment of Task Order NWPOD-08-FH-05 (per Task 3). This report covers activities of July 2008–May 2009 that were implemented by ODFW on behalf of the Corps to assist with meeting the requirements of the reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures prescribed in the Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOp) of July 2008 (NOAA 2008). Although a strategy to implement actions identified on the BiOp has not yet been completed, the Corps provided interim funding to continue certain monitoring activities and initiate long-term planning as detailed below: Task 1 (a–f). Monitor straying of hatchery fish on natural spawning grounds in the North Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette rivers to determine the distribution, abundance and proportion of hatchery and natural-origin fish spawning by: (1) conducting spawning ground surveys downstream of projects and upstream of Detroit and Foster reservoirs; (2) conducting re-surveys to assess variability in redd counts among crews; (3) estimating pre-spawning mortality; (4) estimating the percentage of hatchery-origin spawners using otolith analysis; (5) monitoring fin-clipped and unclipped fish passing Leaburg and upper Bennett dams. Task 2 (a–c). Monitor fin-clipped and unclipped fish entering hatcheries and collection facilities (i.e., record number, origin, length, date of return); determine origin using otolith analysis; collect tissue samples for genetic analysis. Task 4. Work with Corps and/or contractors to develop coordinated monitoring plan for Corps-funded hatchery programs based on requirements in the 2008 BiOp. Close

• 19. [Article] 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 ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy 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. 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. Close

• 20. [Article] Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers, Progress Reports 2003, F-163-R-08

  Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers, Progress Reports 2003, F-163-R-08 Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases of 5–8 million juveniles. Hatchery programs exist in the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, North and South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers mainly as mitigation for dams that blocked natural production areas. Some natural spawning occurs in most of the major basins and a few smaller tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy recognizes that naturally produced native fish are the foundation for long-term sustainability of native species and hatchery programs, and the fisheries they support. In the past, hatchery programs and fish passage issues were the focus of spring chinook salmon management in the Willamette and Sandy basins. Limited information was collected on the genetic structure among basin populations, on abundance and distribution of natural spawning, on rearing and migrating of juvenile salmon, or on strategies for reducing risks that large hatchery programs pose for wild salmon populations. This study is being implemented to gather this information. A schematic of the study plan is shown in APPENDIX A. We conducted work in the main-stem Willamette River at Willamette Falls, and in the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie, Calapooia, North Santiam, South Santiam, Molalla, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers in 2003. Basin descriptions and background information on management and fish runs can be found in subbasin plans developed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW 1988, ODFW 1992a, ODFW 1992b, and ODFW 1996). Task headings below cross reference the study plan outlined in APPENDIX A. This report covers tasks that were worked on in late 2002 through early fall 2003. Title: Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers, Progress Reports 2003, F-163-R-08 Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases of 5–8 million juveniles. Hatchery programs exist in the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, North and South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers mainly as mitigation for dams that blocked natural production areas. Some natural spawning occurs in most of the major basins and a few smaller tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy recognizes that naturally produced native fish are the foundation for long-term sustainability of native species and hatchery programs, and the fisheries they support. In the past, hatchery programs and fish passage issues were the focus of spring chinook salmon management in the Willamette and Sandy basins. Limited information was collected on the genetic structure among basin populations, on abundance and distribution of natural spawning, on rearing and migrating of juvenile salmon, or on strategies for reducing risks that large hatchery programs pose for wild salmon populations. This study is being implemented to gather this information. A schematic of the study plan is shown in APPENDIX A. We conducted work in the main-stem Willamette River at Willamette Falls, and in the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie, Calapooia, North Santiam, South Santiam, Molalla, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers in 2003. Basin descriptions and background information on management and fish runs can be found in subbasin plans developed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW 1988, ODFW 1992a, ODFW 1992b, and ODFW 1996). Task headings below cross reference the study plan outlined in APPENDIX A. This report covers tasks that were worked on in late 2002 through early fall 2003. Close

• 21. [Article] Spring Chinook in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers with 1996-2004 summaries; Progress Report 2005

  Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Spring Chinook in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers with 1996-2004 summaries; Progress Report 2005 Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases of 5-8 million juveniles. Hatchery programs exist in the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, North and South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers mainly as mitigation for dams that blocked natural production areas. Some natural spawning occurs in most of the major basins and a few smaller tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy recognizes that naturally produced native fish are the foundation for long-term sustainability of native species and hatchery programs, and the fisheries they support. In the past, hatchery programs and fish passage issues were the focus of spring Chinook salmon management in the Willamette and Sandy basins. Limited information was collected on the genetic structure among basin populations, on abundance and distribution of natural spawning, on rearing and migrating of juvenile salmon, or on strategies for reducing risks that large hatchery programs pose for wild salmon populations. This study is being implemented to gather this information. We conducted work in the main-stem Willamette River at Willamette Falls, and in the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie, North Santiam, South Santiam, Molalla, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers in 2004-2005. Task headings below cross reference the study plan outlined in APPENDIX A. This report covers tasks that were worked on in late 2004 through early fall 2005, and summarizes data from 1996-2004. Title: Spring Chinook in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers with 1996-2004 summaries; Progress Report 2005 Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases of 5-8 million juveniles. Hatchery programs exist in the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, North and South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers mainly as mitigation for dams that blocked natural production areas. Some natural spawning occurs in most of the major basins and a few smaller tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy recognizes that naturally produced native fish are the foundation for long-term sustainability of native species and hatchery programs, and the fisheries they support. In the past, hatchery programs and fish passage issues were the focus of spring Chinook salmon management in the Willamette and Sandy basins. Limited information was collected on the genetic structure among basin populations, on abundance and distribution of natural spawning, on rearing and migrating of juvenile salmon, or on strategies for reducing risks that large hatchery programs pose for wild salmon populations. This study is being implemented to gather this information. We conducted work in the main-stem Willamette River at Willamette Falls, and in the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie, North Santiam, South Santiam, Molalla, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers in 2004-2005. Task headings below cross reference the study plan outlined in APPENDIX A. This report covers tasks that were worked on in late 2004 through early fall 2005, and summarizes data from 1996-2004. Close

• 22. [Article] Spring Chinook in the Willamette and Sandy Basins, Progress Reports 2006-2007

  Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Spring Chinook in the Willamette and Sandy Basins, Progress Reports 2006-2007 Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases of 5–8 million juveniles. Hatchery programs exist in the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, North and South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers mainly as mitigation for dams that blocked natural production areas. Some natural spawning occurs in most of the major basins and a few smaller tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy recognizes that naturally produced native fish are the foundation for long-term sustainability of native species and hatchery programs, and the fisheries they support. Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, by providing a genetic reserve as well as providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). In the past, hatchery programs and fish passage issues were the focus of spring Chinook salmon management in the Willamette and Sandy basins. Limited information was collected on the genetic structure among basin populations, on abundance and distribution of natural spawning, on rearing and migrating of juvenile salmon, or on strategies for reducing risks that large hatchery programs pose for wild salmon populations. This study is being implemented to gather this information. A schematic of the study plan is shown in APPENDIX A. We conducted work in the main-stem Willamette River above Willamette Falls, and in the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie, North Santiam, South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers in 2006 and 2007. Basin descriptions and background information on management and fish runs can be found in subbasin plans developed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW 1988, ODFW 1992a, ODFW 1992b, and ODFW 1996). Task headings below cross reference the study plan outlined in APPENDIX A. This report covers tasks that were worked on in late 2005 through early fall 2007. Title: Spring Chinook in the Willamette and Sandy Basins, Progress Reports 2006-2007 Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases of 5–8 million juveniles. Hatchery programs exist in the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, North and South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers mainly as mitigation for dams that blocked natural production areas. Some natural spawning occurs in most of the major basins and a few smaller tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy recognizes that naturally produced native fish are the foundation for long-term sustainability of native species and hatchery programs, and the fisheries they support. Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, by providing a genetic reserve as well as providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). In the past, hatchery programs and fish passage issues were the focus of spring Chinook salmon management in the Willamette and Sandy basins. Limited information was collected on the genetic structure among basin populations, on abundance and distribution of natural spawning, on rearing and migrating of juvenile salmon, or on strategies for reducing risks that large hatchery programs pose for wild salmon populations. This study is being implemented to gather this information. A schematic of the study plan is shown in APPENDIX A. We conducted work in the main-stem Willamette River above Willamette Falls, and in the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie, North Santiam, South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers in 2006 and 2007. Basin descriptions and background information on management and fish runs can be found in subbasin plans developed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW 1988, ODFW 1992a, ODFW 1992b, and ODFW 1996). Task headings below cross reference the study plan outlined in APPENDIX A. This report covers tasks that were worked on in late 2005 through early fall 2007. Close

• 23. [Article] Oregon North Coast Spring Chinook Stock Assessment – 2005-06 Information Reports 2008-01

  Abstract -- Chinook salmon populations of the Oregon coast exhibit two general life history types, classified as either spring-run or fall-run depending on adult life-history traits. Fall chinook are present ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon North Coast Spring Chinook Stock Assessment – 2005-06 Information Reports 2008-01 Abstract -- Chinook salmon populations of the Oregon coast exhibit two general life history types, classified as either spring-run or fall-run depending on adult life-history traits. Fall chinook are present in most Oregon coastal basins, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified 28 fall chinook populations in this area (ODFW 2005). Spring chinook salmon are found in larger river basins on the Oregon coast, and the upper portions of the Umpqua and Rogue rivers. This is a more limited distribution than coastal fall chinook and includes only 10 populations (ODFW 2005). Oregon coastal fall chinook stocks have been monitored through a set of 56 standard spawning ground surveys, many conducted since the 1950’s. There has not been a similar, consistent, coast-wide monitoring program for Oregon coastal spring chinook spawners. Abundance of these populations has been monitoring through a variety of methods including; freshwater harvest estimates, counts at dams and weirs, summer resting hole counts, and spawning ground surveys. In 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed west coast chinook salmon populations in regards to status under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The NMFS identified a total of 15 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of chinook salmon (Myers et al. 1998). Oregon coastal chinook are predominantly in the Oregon Coast ESU (Necanicum River to Elk River). This ESU includes both spring and fall chinook, and was determined to not warrant listing (Federal Register Notice 1998). In 2005, ODFW conducted a review of Oregon native fish status, in regards to the State’s Native Fish Conservation Policy. This review grouped populations by Species Management Unit (SMU), and examined coastal spring and fall chinook populations separately. The review determined the near-term sustainability of the Coastal Fall Chinook SMU was not at risk, but the Coastal Spring Chinook SMU was at risk (ODFW 2005). The Tillamook and Nestucca spring chinook populations were of particular concern because they failed to pass the interim criteria for abundance, productivity, and reproductive independence. Hatchery supplementation of spring chinook has occurred in the Tillamook and Nestucca basins since the early 1900’s. Currently, approximately 450,000 spring chinook smolts are released annually from Trask Hatchery, Cedar Creek Hatchery (Nestucca), and from a STEP program at Whiskey Creek. These hatchery smolts have been mass marked with an adipose fin clip since the 1998 brood year. Therefore, hatchery origin adult spring chinook may now be positively identified by the lack of an adipose fin. Declining trends in wild coastal spring chinook populations have resulted in management actions to target harvest on adipose fin clipped hatchery fish, and to restrict harvest of wild origin fish. Results of status reviews, and changes in management practices have required a more thorough evaluation of stock status for the Tillamook and Nestucca spring chinook populations (Keith Braun, personal communication). Therefore, ODFW developed a monitoring plan for spring chinook in these basins. The monitoring plan identified four project objectives; 1) Determine adult spring chinook abundance in the Trask, Wilson, and Nestucca Rivers, 2) Determine hatchery vs. wild ratios for these three basins, 3) Determine age structure and sex ratios for adult spawners, and 4) Determine distribution and abundance for spring chinook recycled from local ODFW hatcheries. This project began in 2004 with an exploratory season to determine distribution, survey methodology, and feasibility of the proposed protocol. In 2005 and 2006 a more intensive sampling effort was implemented, designed to cover the entire distribution of spring chinook spawning in the Nestucca, Trask, and Wilson rivers. Since 2004, project field work has been funded with Restoration and Enhancement Program (R&E) funds, administered by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Project administration is covered through existing funding for the ODFW Oregon Adult Salmonid Inventory and Sampling Project (OASIS). Funding from R&E is scheduled to continue through the 2008 spawning season. Further monitoring will require a new funding source for project field work. This report documents results for project Objectives 1 to 4, including the abundance and distribution of spring chinook spawners during 2005 and 2006 in Oregon’s Trask, Wilson, and Nestucca river basins. Title: Oregon North Coast Spring Chinook Stock Assessment – 2005-06 Information Reports 2008-01 Abstract -- Chinook salmon populations of the Oregon coast exhibit two general life history types, classified as either spring-run or fall-run depending on adult life-history traits. Fall chinook are present in most Oregon coastal basins, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified 28 fall chinook populations in this area (ODFW 2005). Spring chinook salmon are found in larger river basins on the Oregon coast, and the upper portions of the Umpqua and Rogue rivers. This is a more limited distribution than coastal fall chinook and includes only 10 populations (ODFW 2005). Oregon coastal fall chinook stocks have been monitored through a set of 56 standard spawning ground surveys, many conducted since the 1950’s. There has not been a similar, consistent, coast-wide monitoring program for Oregon coastal spring chinook spawners. Abundance of these populations has been monitoring through a variety of methods including; freshwater harvest estimates, counts at dams and weirs, summer resting hole counts, and spawning ground surveys. In 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed west coast chinook salmon populations in regards to status under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The NMFS identified a total of 15 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of chinook salmon (Myers et al. 1998). Oregon coastal chinook are predominantly in the Oregon Coast ESU (Necanicum River to Elk River). This ESU includes both spring and fall chinook, and was determined to not warrant listing (Federal Register Notice 1998). In 2005, ODFW conducted a review of Oregon native fish status, in regards to the State’s Native Fish Conservation Policy. This review grouped populations by Species Management Unit (SMU), and examined coastal spring and fall chinook populations separately. The review determined the near-term sustainability of the Coastal Fall Chinook SMU was not at risk, but the Coastal Spring Chinook SMU was at risk (ODFW 2005). The Tillamook and Nestucca spring chinook populations were of particular concern because they failed to pass the interim criteria for abundance, productivity, and reproductive independence. Hatchery supplementation of spring chinook has occurred in the Tillamook and Nestucca basins since the early 1900’s. Currently, approximately 450,000 spring chinook smolts are released annually from Trask Hatchery, Cedar Creek Hatchery (Nestucca), and from a STEP program at Whiskey Creek. These hatchery smolts have been mass marked with an adipose fin clip since the 1998 brood year. Therefore, hatchery origin adult spring chinook may now be positively identified by the lack of an adipose fin. Declining trends in wild coastal spring chinook populations have resulted in management actions to target harvest on adipose fin clipped hatchery fish, and to restrict harvest of wild origin fish. Results of status reviews, and changes in management practices have required a more thorough evaluation of stock status for the Tillamook and Nestucca spring chinook populations (Keith Braun, personal communication). Therefore, ODFW developed a monitoring plan for spring chinook in these basins. The monitoring plan identified four project objectives; 1) Determine adult spring chinook abundance in the Trask, Wilson, and Nestucca Rivers, 2) Determine hatchery vs. wild ratios for these three basins, 3) Determine age structure and sex ratios for adult spawners, and 4) Determine distribution and abundance for spring chinook recycled from local ODFW hatcheries. This project began in 2004 with an exploratory season to determine distribution, survey methodology, and feasibility of the proposed protocol. In 2005 and 2006 a more intensive sampling effort was implemented, designed to cover the entire distribution of spring chinook spawning in the Nestucca, Trask, and Wilson rivers. Since 2004, project field work has been funded with Restoration and Enhancement Program (R&E) funds, administered by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Project administration is covered through existing funding for the ODFW Oregon Adult Salmonid Inventory and Sampling Project (OASIS). Funding from R&E is scheduled to continue through the 2008 spawning season. Further monitoring will require a new funding source for project field work. This report documents results for project Objectives 1 to 4, including the abundance and distribution of spring chinook spawners during 2005 and 2006 in Oregon’s Trask, Wilson, and Nestucca river basins. Close

• 24. [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 Citation Abstract Copy 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. 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. Close

• 25. [Article] Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2012 Annual Report

  Abstract -- In the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls (Figure 1), there are four distinct spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs (North Santiam [Stock 21], South Santiam [Stock 24], McKenzie ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2012 Annual Report Abstract -- In the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls (Figure 1), there are four distinct spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs (North Santiam [Stock 21], South Santiam [Stock 24], McKenzie [Stock 23], and Middle Fork Willamette [Stock 22]) that are managed for integrated harvest augmentation as part of the Willamette Valley Hatchery Mitigation Program. These hatchery stocks, as well as all naturally spawned spring Chinook salmon in the Upper Willamette Basin, are included in the Upper Willamette River Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). The Upper Willamette Summer Steelhead Hatchery Program is managed to provide fish for sport fisheries and to replace loss of fisheries caused by habitat and passage loss/degradation in the Willamette Basin and other lower Columbia basins. The hatchery program currently includes annual smolt releases into the North Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette rivers. Lack of access to historical habitat and degradation of remaining habitat below the dams, especially in the North and South Santiam (the “core” populations) are the key limiting factors shared between winter steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. In addition, summer steelhead are not native to the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls and a third, unique, limiting factor is the potential for competition, predation and genetic introgression from out-of-ESU hatchery fish interacting with and spawning in the wild with the native winter-run. Summer steelhead were first introduced to the South Santiam River as mitigation for lost winter steelhead production in areas inundated by Foster and Green Peter reservoirs. The scope of work actually directed towards risks posed by summer steelhead is much smaller than that directed towards issues faced by spring Chinook. The Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOP; NMFS 2008) required the USACE to collect information to describe the nature and extent of these potential effects but beyond relatively small-scale studies often integrated into much larger studies involving spring Chinook, more focused work will only follow commitment of significantly more effort and funds. 11 This report fulfills a requirement under Task Order NWPPM-10-FH-06, covering activities of May 2012–June 2012, that were implemented by ODFW on behalf of the Corps to assist with meeting requirements of the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) and measures prescribed in the Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOp) of July 2008 (NOAA 2008). The Corps provided funding to continue ongoing monitoring activities and initiate long-term planning. Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2012 Annual Report Abstract -- In the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls (Figure 1), there are four distinct spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs (North Santiam [Stock 21], South Santiam [Stock 24], McKenzie [Stock 23], and Middle Fork Willamette [Stock 22]) that are managed for integrated harvest augmentation as part of the Willamette Valley Hatchery Mitigation Program. These hatchery stocks, as well as all naturally spawned spring Chinook salmon in the Upper Willamette Basin, are included in the Upper Willamette River Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). The Upper Willamette Summer Steelhead Hatchery Program is managed to provide fish for sport fisheries and to replace loss of fisheries caused by habitat and passage loss/degradation in the Willamette Basin and other lower Columbia basins. The hatchery program currently includes annual smolt releases into the North Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette rivers. Lack of access to historical habitat and degradation of remaining habitat below the dams, especially in the North and South Santiam (the “core” populations) are the key limiting factors shared between winter steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. In addition, summer steelhead are not native to the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls and a third, unique, limiting factor is the potential for competition, predation and genetic introgression from out-of-ESU hatchery fish interacting with and spawning in the wild with the native winter-run. Summer steelhead were first introduced to the South Santiam River as mitigation for lost winter steelhead production in areas inundated by Foster and Green Peter reservoirs. The scope of work actually directed towards risks posed by summer steelhead is much smaller than that directed towards issues faced by spring Chinook. The Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOP; NMFS 2008) required the USACE to collect information to describe the nature and extent of these potential effects but beyond relatively small-scale studies often integrated into much larger studies involving spring Chinook, more focused work will only follow commitment of significantly more effort and funds. 11 This report fulfills a requirement under Task Order NWPPM-10-FH-06, covering activities of May 2012–June 2012, that were implemented by ODFW on behalf of the Corps to assist with meeting requirements of the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) and measures prescribed in the Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOp) of July 2008 (NOAA 2008). The Corps provided funding to continue ongoing monitoring activities and initiate long-term planning. Close

• 26. [Article] Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2013 Annual Report

  Abstract -- In the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls (Figure 1), there are four distinct spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs (North Santiam [Stock 21], South Santiam [Stock 24], McKenzie ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2013 Annual Report Abstract -- In the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls (Figure 1), there are four distinct spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs (North Santiam [Stock 21], South Santiam [Stock 24], McKenzie [Stock 23], and Middle Fork Willamette [Stock 22]) that are managed for integrated harvest augmentation as part of the Willamette Valley Hatchery Mitigation Program. These hatchery stocks, as well as all naturally spawned spring Chinook salmon in the Upper Willamette Basin, are included in the Upper Willamette River Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). The Upper Willamette Summer Steelhead Hatchery Program is managed to provide fish for sport fisheries and to replace loss of fisheries caused by habitat and passage loss/degradation in the Willamette and other lower Columbia basins. The hatchery program currently includes annual smolt releases into the North Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette rivers. Lack of access to historical habitat and degradation of remaining habitat below the dams, especially in the North and South Santiam (the “core” populations) are the key limiting factors shared between winter steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. In addition, summer steelhead are not native to the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls and a third, unique, limiting factor is the potential for competition, predation and genetic introgression from out-of-ESU hatchery fish interacting with and spawning in the wild with the native winter-run(Johnson et al. 2013). Summer steelhead were first introduced to the South Santiam River as mitigation for lost winter steelhead production in areas inundated by Foster and Green Peter reservoirs. The scope of work actually directed towards risks posed by summer steelhead is much smaller than that directed towards issues faced by spring Chinook salmon. The Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOP; NMFS 2008) required the USACE to collect information to describe the nature and extent of these potential effects but beyond relatively small-scale studies often integrated into much larger studies involving spring Chinook salmon, more focused work on steelhead will only follow commitment of significantly more effort and funds. This report fulfills a requirement under Task Order W9127N-12-2-0004-1009 covering activities of May 2013–June 2014, that were implemented by ODFW on behalf of the Corps to assist with meeting requirements of the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) and measures prescribed in the Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOp) of July 2008 (NOAA 2008). The Corps provided funding to continue ongoing monitoring activities and initiate long-term planning. The conceptual relationship between spring Chinook salmon prioritized objectives, RPAs, and 2013 work tasks is depicted in Figure 2. In future work, the intent is to expand the conceptual framework provided in Figure 2 and develop specific numerical goals in terms of, for example, adult returns desired per subbasin. A detailed list of tasks associated with the work is provided in Appendix 1. Title: Willamette Biological Opinion Hatchery Research 2013 Annual Report Abstract -- In the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls (Figure 1), there are four distinct spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs (North Santiam [Stock 21], South Santiam [Stock 24], McKenzie [Stock 23], and Middle Fork Willamette [Stock 22]) that are managed for integrated harvest augmentation as part of the Willamette Valley Hatchery Mitigation Program. These hatchery stocks, as well as all naturally spawned spring Chinook salmon in the Upper Willamette Basin, are included in the Upper Willamette River Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). The Upper Willamette Summer Steelhead Hatchery Program is managed to provide fish for sport fisheries and to replace loss of fisheries caused by habitat and passage loss/degradation in the Willamette and other lower Columbia basins. The hatchery program currently includes annual smolt releases into the North Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette rivers. Lack of access to historical habitat and degradation of remaining habitat below the dams, especially in the North and South Santiam (the “core” populations) are the key limiting factors shared between winter steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. In addition, summer steelhead are not native to the Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls and a third, unique, limiting factor is the potential for competition, predation and genetic introgression from out-of-ESU hatchery fish interacting with and spawning in the wild with the native winter-run(Johnson et al. 2013). Summer steelhead were first introduced to the South Santiam River as mitigation for lost winter steelhead production in areas inundated by Foster and Green Peter reservoirs. The scope of work actually directed towards risks posed by summer steelhead is much smaller than that directed towards issues faced by spring Chinook salmon. The Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOP; NMFS 2008) required the USACE to collect information to describe the nature and extent of these potential effects but beyond relatively small-scale studies often integrated into much larger studies involving spring Chinook salmon, more focused work on steelhead will only follow commitment of significantly more effort and funds. This report fulfills a requirement under Task Order W9127N-12-2-0004-1009 covering activities of May 2013–June 2014, that were implemented by ODFW on behalf of the Corps to assist with meeting requirements of the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) and measures prescribed in the Willamette Project Biological Opinion (BiOp) of July 2008 (NOAA 2008). The Corps provided funding to continue ongoing monitoring activities and initiate long-term planning. The conceptual relationship between spring Chinook salmon prioritized objectives, RPAs, and 2013 work tasks is depicted in Figure 2. In future work, the intent is to expand the conceptual framework provided in Figure 2 and develop specific numerical goals in terms of, for example, adult returns desired per subbasin. A detailed list of tasks associated with the work is provided in Appendix 1. Close

• 27. [Article] Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 1999 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2002-09

  Abstract -- The steelhead supplement to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OSPW) is intended to maintain wild steelhead populations in Oregon at sustainable and productive levels that provide substantial ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 1999 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2002-09 Abstract -- The steelhead supplement to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OSPW) is intended to maintain wild steelhead populations in Oregon at sustainable and productive levels that provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits. The OSPW attempts to better define “sustainable and productive” by committing the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to establish “Population Health Goals” for each Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of wild steelhead within the state. In addition, section ODFW IB1S of the plan calls for ODFW to assess adult escapement and juvenile production of wild steelhead in each ESU. The National Marine Fisheries Service identified seven ESUs for steelhead in Oregon and concluded that steelhead produced in coastal basins between Cape Blanco in southern Oregon and the Klamath River Basin in northern California constitutes one ESU. This area closely corresponds to the geologic boundaries of the Klamath Mountains Province (KMP). Steelhead in the KMP differ from those in adjoining areas because of distinctive life history and genetic characteristics (Busby et al. 1994). Primary differences in life history parameters have been identified for wild KMP steelhead. Summer steelhead and winter steelhead differ in time of return as adults, tendency to return to fresh water on a false spawning migration (the “half-pounder” run), age at ocean entry, growth rate and migration patterns of juveniles in fresh water (ODFW 1990a; ODFW 1994). As a result of these differences, separate health goals seem warranted for summer and winter steelhead populations. Winter steelhead inhabit streams throughout the KMP, while summer steelhead are found only in a portion of the Rogue River Basin. However, the distribution of summer and winter steelhead overlap in major areas of the Rogue River Basin (Everest 1973) and as juveniles of the respective races cannot be differentiated, some population health goals will have to apply to both races. The status of wild steelhead in the Klamath Mountains Province ESU is not readily apparent. Busby et al. (1994) concluded that the steelhead in this ESU “is not now at risk of extinction, but if present trends continue, it is likely to become so in the foreseeable future”. In contrast, Chilcote (1998) concluded that almost all steelhead populations in the Oregon portion of the ESU “are relatively healthy and certainly do not warrant listing as threatened under the ESA”. Uncertainty as to the status of the resource, coupled with the comprehensive conservation plan developed by Oregon and the termination of wild fish harvest in all streams except the Rogue River, lead the National Marine Fisheries Service to defer a listing of KMP steelhead under the Endangered Species Act. However, KMP steelhead remained a candidate species during 1999. The goal of this project is to develop and implement assessment methods to determine the status of wild steelhead in the Oregon portion of the KMP. Project objectives include (1) develop population health goals and allied monitoring methods and (2) determine resource status in relation to health goals. Attainment of all of the population health goals will likely indicate that the populations of wild steelhead in the KMP are healthy and may allow managers to restore harvest opportunities for wild fish. Conversely, failure to attain any of the population health goals will likely indicate that the populations are depressed and would likely lead to actions designed to minimize fishing mortality. However, in most years it is likely that some goals will be attained while some will not be attained. Under that scenario, and depending on which goals are attained, selective fisheries, like the current one for wild winter steelhead in the Rogue River, remain as viable options for fishery managers. Title: Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 1999 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2002-09 Abstract -- The steelhead supplement to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OSPW) is intended to maintain wild steelhead populations in Oregon at sustainable and productive levels that provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits. The OSPW attempts to better define “sustainable and productive” by committing the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to establish “Population Health Goals” for each Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of wild steelhead within the state. In addition, section ODFW IB1S of the plan calls for ODFW to assess adult escapement and juvenile production of wild steelhead in each ESU. The National Marine Fisheries Service identified seven ESUs for steelhead in Oregon and concluded that steelhead produced in coastal basins between Cape Blanco in southern Oregon and the Klamath River Basin in northern California constitutes one ESU. This area closely corresponds to the geologic boundaries of the Klamath Mountains Province (KMP). Steelhead in the KMP differ from those in adjoining areas because of distinctive life history and genetic characteristics (Busby et al. 1994). Primary differences in life history parameters have been identified for wild KMP steelhead. Summer steelhead and winter steelhead differ in time of return as adults, tendency to return to fresh water on a false spawning migration (the “half-pounder” run), age at ocean entry, growth rate and migration patterns of juveniles in fresh water (ODFW 1990a; ODFW 1994). As a result of these differences, separate health goals seem warranted for summer and winter steelhead populations. Winter steelhead inhabit streams throughout the KMP, while summer steelhead are found only in a portion of the Rogue River Basin. However, the distribution of summer and winter steelhead overlap in major areas of the Rogue River Basin (Everest 1973) and as juveniles of the respective races cannot be differentiated, some population health goals will have to apply to both races. The status of wild steelhead in the Klamath Mountains Province ESU is not readily apparent. Busby et al. (1994) concluded that the steelhead in this ESU “is not now at risk of extinction, but if present trends continue, it is likely to become so in the foreseeable future”. In contrast, Chilcote (1998) concluded that almost all steelhead populations in the Oregon portion of the ESU “are relatively healthy and certainly do not warrant listing as threatened under the ESA”. Uncertainty as to the status of the resource, coupled with the comprehensive conservation plan developed by Oregon and the termination of wild fish harvest in all streams except the Rogue River, lead the National Marine Fisheries Service to defer a listing of KMP steelhead under the Endangered Species Act. However, KMP steelhead remained a candidate species during 1999. The goal of this project is to develop and implement assessment methods to determine the status of wild steelhead in the Oregon portion of the KMP. Project objectives include (1) develop population health goals and allied monitoring methods and (2) determine resource status in relation to health goals. Attainment of all of the population health goals will likely indicate that the populations of wild steelhead in the KMP are healthy and may allow managers to restore harvest opportunities for wild fish. Conversely, failure to attain any of the population health goals will likely indicate that the populations are depressed and would likely lead to actions designed to minimize fishing mortality. However, in most years it is likely that some goals will be attained while some will not be attained. Under that scenario, and depending on which goals are attained, selective fisheries, like the current one for wild winter steelhead in the Rogue River, remain as viable options for fishery managers. Close

• 28. [Article] Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 2000-01 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2003-08

  Abstract -- The steelhead supplement to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OSPW) is intended to maintain wild steelhead populations in Oregon at sustainable and productive levels that provide substantial ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 2000-01 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2003-08 Abstract -- The steelhead supplement to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OSPW) is intended to maintain wild steelhead populations in Oregon at sustainable and productive levels that provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits. The OSPW attempts to better define "sustainable and productive" by committing the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to establish "Population Health Goals" for each Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of wild steelhead within the state. In addition, section ODFW IB1S of the plan calls for ODFW to assess adult escapement and juvenile production of wild steelhead in each ESU. The National Marine Fisheries Service identified seven ESUs for steelhead in Oregon and concluded that steelhead produced in coastal basins between Cape Blanco in southern Oregon and the Klamath River Basin in northern California constitutes one ESU. This area closely corresponds to the geologic boundaries of the Klamath Mountains Province (KMP). Steelhead in the KMP differ from those in adjoining areas because of distinctive life history and genetic characteristics (Busby et al. 1994). Primary differences in life history parameters have been identified for wild KMP steelhead. Summer steelhead and winter steelhead differ in time of return as adults, tendency to return to fresh water on a false spawning migration (the "half-pounder" run), age at ocean entry, growth rate and migration patterns of juveniles in fresh water (ODFW 1990; ODFW 1994). As a result of these differences, separate health goals seem warranted for summer and winter steelhead populations. Winter steelhead inhabit streams throughout the KMP, while summer steelhead are found only in a portion of the Rogue River Basin. However, the distribution of summer and winter steelhead overlap in major areas of the Rogue River Basin (Everest 1973) and as juveniles of the respective races cannot be differentiated, some population health goals will have to apply to both races. The status of wild steelhead in the Klamath Mountains Province ESU is not readily apparent. Busby et al. (1994) concluded that the steelhead in this ESU “is not now at risk of extinction, but if present trends continue, it is likely to become so in the foreseeable future”. In contrast, Chilcote (1998) concluded that almost all steelhead populations in the Oregon portion of the ESU "are relatively healthy and certainly do not warrant listing as threatened under the ESA". Uncertainty as to the status of the resource, coupled with the comprehensive conservation plan developed by Oregon and the termination of wild fish harvest in all streams except the Rogue River, lead the National Marine Fisheries Service to defer a listing of KMP steelhead under the Endangered Species Act. However, KMP steelhead remained a candidate species during 2000. The goal of this project is to develop and implement assessment methods to determine the status of wild steelhead in the Oregon portion of the KMP. Project objectives include (1) develop population health goals and allied monitoring methods and (2) determine resource status in relation to health goals. Directed sampling began in 1999 and the findings from 1999 were reported by Satterthwaite (2002a). Title: Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 2000-01 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2003-08 Abstract -- The steelhead supplement to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OSPW) is intended to maintain wild steelhead populations in Oregon at sustainable and productive levels that provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits. The OSPW attempts to better define "sustainable and productive" by committing the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to establish "Population Health Goals" for each Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of wild steelhead within the state. In addition, section ODFW IB1S of the plan calls for ODFW to assess adult escapement and juvenile production of wild steelhead in each ESU. The National Marine Fisheries Service identified seven ESUs for steelhead in Oregon and concluded that steelhead produced in coastal basins between Cape Blanco in southern Oregon and the Klamath River Basin in northern California constitutes one ESU. This area closely corresponds to the geologic boundaries of the Klamath Mountains Province (KMP). Steelhead in the KMP differ from those in adjoining areas because of distinctive life history and genetic characteristics (Busby et al. 1994). Primary differences in life history parameters have been identified for wild KMP steelhead. Summer steelhead and winter steelhead differ in time of return as adults, tendency to return to fresh water on a false spawning migration (the "half-pounder" run), age at ocean entry, growth rate and migration patterns of juveniles in fresh water (ODFW 1990; ODFW 1994). As a result of these differences, separate health goals seem warranted for summer and winter steelhead populations. Winter steelhead inhabit streams throughout the KMP, while summer steelhead are found only in a portion of the Rogue River Basin. However, the distribution of summer and winter steelhead overlap in major areas of the Rogue River Basin (Everest 1973) and as juveniles of the respective races cannot be differentiated, some population health goals will have to apply to both races. The status of wild steelhead in the Klamath Mountains Province ESU is not readily apparent. Busby et al. (1994) concluded that the steelhead in this ESU “is not now at risk of extinction, but if present trends continue, it is likely to become so in the foreseeable future”. In contrast, Chilcote (1998) concluded that almost all steelhead populations in the Oregon portion of the ESU "are relatively healthy and certainly do not warrant listing as threatened under the ESA". Uncertainty as to the status of the resource, coupled with the comprehensive conservation plan developed by Oregon and the termination of wild fish harvest in all streams except the Rogue River, lead the National Marine Fisheries Service to defer a listing of KMP steelhead under the Endangered Species Act. However, KMP steelhead remained a candidate species during 2000. The goal of this project is to develop and implement assessment methods to determine the status of wild steelhead in the Oregon portion of the KMP. Project objectives include (1) develop population health goals and allied monitoring methods and (2) determine resource status in relation to health goals. Directed sampling began in 1999 and the findings from 1999 were reported by Satterthwaite (2002a). Close

• 29. [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 Citation Abstract Copy 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. 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. Close

• 30. [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