Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Fish Management Plan for Hyatt Lake 1990

  Abstract -- The wild fish policy and fish management policy of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife {ODFW) directs that fish management plans will be written for all waters of the state. The Oregon ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish Management Plan for Hyatt Lake 1990 Abstract -- The wild fish policy and fish management policy of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife {ODFW) directs that fish management plans will be written for all waters of the state. The Oregon Trout Plan and Warmwater Fish Management Plan, give the direction for trout and warmwater management in basin plans as well as in plans for individual rivers and standing water bodies. Hyatt Lake is a 957 acre irrigation impoundment located 21 miles East of Ashland on the Cascade divide at an elevation of 5,016 feet. The reservoir was built in 1923 to store 16,900 acre-feet of water for irrigation use in the Medford area by the Talent Irrigation District (TID). Early in 1989, a Hyatt Lake Management Advisory Committee was created. Included were landowners, agency personnel, sportsmen's club members, legislators and other interested individuals. The group agreed that the lake should again be chemically treated to eliminate bullheads in order to pursue trout, warmwater fishes, or a combination of warmwater and trout. No management direction other than brown bullheads appeared feasible to the committee in the absence of treatment. Title: Fish Management Plan for Hyatt Lake 1990 Abstract -- The wild fish policy and fish management policy of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife {ODFW) directs that fish management plans will be written for all waters of the state. The Oregon Trout Plan and Warmwater Fish Management Plan, give the direction for trout and warmwater management in basin plans as well as in plans for individual rivers and standing water bodies. Hyatt Lake is a 957 acre irrigation impoundment located 21 miles East of Ashland on the Cascade divide at an elevation of 5,016 feet. The reservoir was built in 1923 to store 16,900 acre-feet of water for irrigation use in the Medford area by the Talent Irrigation District (TID). Early in 1989, a Hyatt Lake Management Advisory Committee was created. Included were landowners, agency personnel, sportsmen's club members, legislators and other interested individuals. The group agreed that the lake should again be chemically treated to eliminate bullheads in order to pursue trout, warmwater fishes, or a combination of warmwater and trout. No management direction other than brown bullheads appeared feasible to the committee in the absence of treatment. Close

• 2. [Article] Harney and Malheur Counties Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses 1967

  Abstract -- Harney and Malheur Counties are Oregon's two largest counties. They cover the entire southeast corner of the state. Topography is diversified in a minor sense of the word. The entire area is ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Harney and Malheur Counties Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses 1967 Abstract -- Harney and Malheur Counties are Oregon's two largest counties. They cover the entire southeast corner of the state. Topography is diversified in a minor sense of the word. The entire area is dry, but the northern part of Harney County receives adequate rainfall to support a pine forest. Southern Harney County and most of Malheur County are arid and only support juniper and sagebrush. Since this area is so dry there has been considerable effort during past years to establish reservoirs for irrigation storage. For this reason, over 90% of the lakes in these counties are man made reservoirs. Since this area is so dry there has been considerable effort during past years to establish reservoirs for irrigation storage. For this reason, over 90% of the lakes in these counties are man made reservoirs. In some instances, the establishment of a fishery is difficult because of annual irrigation drawdown. So, it is recommended that minimum pools be established on reservoirs of this type. The fishery in most of these lakes is for trout. The rich composition of the land makes rich reservoirs that grow trout and warm-water game fish at a fantastic rate. This report details a plan that we hope can be followed to solve access problems and provide additional recreational waters in Harney and Malheur Counties. Title: Harney and Malheur Counties Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses 1967 Abstract -- Harney and Malheur Counties are Oregon's two largest counties. They cover the entire southeast corner of the state. Topography is diversified in a minor sense of the word. The entire area is dry, but the northern part of Harney County receives adequate rainfall to support a pine forest. Southern Harney County and most of Malheur County are arid and only support juniper and sagebrush. Since this area is so dry there has been considerable effort during past years to establish reservoirs for irrigation storage. For this reason, over 90% of the lakes in these counties are man made reservoirs. Since this area is so dry there has been considerable effort during past years to establish reservoirs for irrigation storage. For this reason, over 90% of the lakes in these counties are man made reservoirs. In some instances, the establishment of a fishery is difficult because of annual irrigation drawdown. So, it is recommended that minimum pools be established on reservoirs of this type. The fishery in most of these lakes is for trout. The rich composition of the land makes rich reservoirs that grow trout and warm-water game fish at a fantastic rate. This report details a plan that we hope can be followed to solve access problems and provide additional recreational waters in Harney and Malheur Counties. Close

• 3. [Article] Management Plan Thompson Valley Reservoir 1986

  Abstract -- Thompson Valley Reservoir is an irrigation impoundment on Silver Creek in Lake County. It is located within the Fremont National Forest approximately 15 miles south of the town of Silver Lake. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Management Plan Thompson Valley Reservoir 1986 Abstract -- Thompson Valley Reservoir is an irrigation impoundment on Silver Creek in Lake County. It is located within the Fremont National Forest approximately 15 miles south of the town of Silver Lake. The reservoir was constructed in 1926 and is owned and operated by the Silver Lake Irrigation District. There is no minimum pool stipulation. However, under normal operation, the reservoir maintains enough water to support a year-around fish population. The Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the reservoir for a trout fishery. The Fremont National Forest constructed and maintains two campgrounds with boat launching facilities. Angling is the most popular recreational activity, while other uses include camping, hunting and bird-watching. The Forest Service estimated that the reservoir received 9,000 recreational visitor-days of use in 1983. Use in 1984 was substantially higher. In November 1986, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to manage Thompson Valley Reservoir for hatchery trout and look at the potential of eventually introducting bass or bass hybrids. Title: Management Plan Thompson Valley Reservoir 1986 Abstract -- Thompson Valley Reservoir is an irrigation impoundment on Silver Creek in Lake County. It is located within the Fremont National Forest approximately 15 miles south of the town of Silver Lake. The reservoir was constructed in 1926 and is owned and operated by the Silver Lake Irrigation District. There is no minimum pool stipulation. However, under normal operation, the reservoir maintains enough water to support a year-around fish population. The Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the reservoir for a trout fishery. The Fremont National Forest constructed and maintains two campgrounds with boat launching facilities. Angling is the most popular recreational activity, while other uses include camping, hunting and bird-watching. The Forest Service estimated that the reservoir received 9,000 recreational visitor-days of use in 1983. Use in 1984 was substantially higher. In November 1986, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to manage Thompson Valley Reservoir for hatchery trout and look at the potential of eventually introducting bass or bass hybrids. Close

• 4. [Article] Fish Management Plan Prineville Reservoir 1986

  Abstract -- Prineville Reservoir is a Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) on-stream multi-purpose reservoir on the Crooked River in Crook County, approximately 17 miles south of Prineville. The project was authorized ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish Management Plan Prineville Reservoir 1986 Abstract -- Prineville Reservoir is a Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) on-stream multi-purpose reservoir on the Crooked River in Crook County, approximately 17 miles south of Prineville. The project was authorized by Congress in 1956 with functions including irrigation, flood control and industrial water. Recreation and downstream fish and wildlife benefits were not included as project functions. Water impounding began December 12, 1960 and the reservoir became functional during the winter of 1960-61. No upstream fish passage was provided. Various agencies are involved in the reservoir operation. Ochoco Irrigation District, under BOR guidelines, operates the water control structure, thus controlling reservoir pool level as well as stream flow below the reservoir. Prineville Reservoir State Park is managed and maintained by State Parks. Crook County maintains two boat ramps on the reservoir. The Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the fish resources of the reservoir and has entered into an agreement with BOR and Crook County to manage an 18 square mile area adjacent to the upper one-third of the reservoir for waterfowl, big game and other wildlife. Prineville Reservoir is heavily used by recreationists. The 1983 BOR Recreation and Wildlife Summary indicated that the reservoir was used by 285,031 anglers, hunters, boaters, swimmers and campers. In October 1986, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to manage Prineville Reservoir for hatchery trout and wild bass and brown bullheads. Title: Fish Management Plan Prineville Reservoir 1986 Abstract -- Prineville Reservoir is a Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) on-stream multi-purpose reservoir on the Crooked River in Crook County, approximately 17 miles south of Prineville. The project was authorized by Congress in 1956 with functions including irrigation, flood control and industrial water. Recreation and downstream fish and wildlife benefits were not included as project functions. Water impounding began December 12, 1960 and the reservoir became functional during the winter of 1960-61. No upstream fish passage was provided. Various agencies are involved in the reservoir operation. Ochoco Irrigation District, under BOR guidelines, operates the water control structure, thus controlling reservoir pool level as well as stream flow below the reservoir. Prineville Reservoir State Park is managed and maintained by State Parks. Crook County maintains two boat ramps on the reservoir. The Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the fish resources of the reservoir and has entered into an agreement with BOR and Crook County to manage an 18 square mile area adjacent to the upper one-third of the reservoir for waterfowl, big game and other wildlife. Prineville Reservoir is heavily used by recreationists. The 1983 BOR Recreation and Wildlife Summary indicated that the reservoir was used by 285,031 anglers, hunters, boaters, swimmers and campers. In October 1986, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to manage Prineville Reservoir for hatchery trout and wild bass and brown bullheads. Close

• 5. [Article] Crescent Lake Fish Management Plan

  Abstract -- Crescent Lake lies just east of the summit of the Cascade Range and south of Highway 58 in northern Klamath County. Crescent Lake is a natural lake that has been enlarged by damming the outlet, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Crescent Lake Fish Management Plan Abstract -- Crescent Lake lies just east of the summit of the Cascade Range and south of Highway 58 in northern Klamath County. Crescent Lake is a natural lake that has been enlarged by damming the outlet, Crescent Creek, to provide additional storage. Tumalo Irrigation District holds water rights for 86,860 acre feet of water which is used in the Bend area. In October 1986, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to manage Crescent Lake for wild and hatchery trout. Title: Crescent Lake Fish Management Plan Abstract -- Crescent Lake lies just east of the summit of the Cascade Range and south of Highway 58 in northern Klamath County. Crescent Lake is a natural lake that has been enlarged by damming the outlet, Crescent Creek, to provide additional storage. Tumalo Irrigation District holds water rights for 86,860 acre feet of water which is used in the Bend area. In October 1986, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to manage Crescent Lake for wild and hatchery trout. Close

• 6. [Article] White River Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- This Assessment has been undertaken by the White River Watershed Council, in partnership with the Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District. It is the intent of this Assessment to provide ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: White River Watershed Assessment Abstract -- This Assessment has been undertaken by the White River Watershed Council, in partnership with the Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District. It is the intent of this Assessment to provide a reference point from which the stakeholders in the White River Watershed, those who live and work in the watershed, can continue to plan for the health of its lands and waters into the future. The assessment contains sections on: a watershed description, settlement and development, stream flow and water rights, irrigation and water management, runoff and erosion, water quality, channel types, riparian and wetlands conditions, aquatic habitat, upland habitat, and evaluation. Title: White River Watershed Assessment Abstract -- This Assessment has been undertaken by the White River Watershed Council, in partnership with the Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District. It is the intent of this Assessment to provide a reference point from which the stakeholders in the White River Watershed, those who live and work in the watershed, can continue to plan for the health of its lands and waters into the future. The assessment contains sections on: a watershed description, settlement and development, stream flow and water rights, irrigation and water management, runoff and erosion, water quality, channel types, riparian and wetlands conditions, aquatic habitat, upland habitat, and evaluation. Close

• 7. [Article] Ana Reservoir Fish Management Plan 1981.pdf

  Abstract -- Ana Reservoir is a 62-acre impoundment located approximately 5 miles north of Summer Lake and 2 miles northeast of the community of Summer Lake in Lake County. It is owned by the Summer Lake ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Ana Reservoir Fish Management Plan 1981.pdf Abstract -- Ana Reservoir is a 62-acre impoundment located approximately 5 miles north of Summer Lake and 2 miles northeast of the community of Summer Lake in Lake County. It is owned by the Summer Lake Irrigation District and was created in 1922 by construction of an earthen dam just downstream from a group of springs that formed Ana River. Various trout management programs have been tried at Ana Reservoir, but maintenance of an acceptable fishery has required periodic chemical treatment to reduce competition from tui chubs. In July 1981, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to introduce a new fish species (striped X white bass hybrid) into the reservoir. This is a good game fish, which will utilize chubs as forage. Title: Ana Reservoir Fish Management Plan 1981.pdf Abstract -- Ana Reservoir is a 62-acre impoundment located approximately 5 miles north of Summer Lake and 2 miles northeast of the community of Summer Lake in Lake County. It is owned by the Summer Lake Irrigation District and was created in 1922 by construction of an earthen dam just downstream from a group of springs that formed Ana River. Various trout management programs have been tried at Ana Reservoir, but maintenance of an acceptable fishery has required periodic chemical treatment to reduce competition from tui chubs. In July 1981, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to introduce a new fish species (striped X white bass hybrid) into the reservoir. This is a good game fish, which will utilize chubs as forage. Close

• 8. [Article] Fish Management Plan Howard Prairie Reservoir 1986

  Abstract -- Howard Prairie Reservoir is a Bureau of Reclamation impoundment, which lies on Grizzly Creek in the western headwaters of the Klamath River drainage approximately 20 miles northeast of Ashland. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish Management Plan Howard Prairie Reservoir 1986 Abstract -- Howard Prairie Reservoir is a Bureau of Reclamation impoundment, which lies on Grizzly Creek in the western headwaters of the Klamath River drainage approximately 20 miles northeast of Ashland. It was built in 1959 as part of the Talent Irrigation District which diverts water from the Klamath Basin to Bear Creek, a tributary of the Rogue River, in Jackson County. Recreation development includes five campgrounds, four boat ramps, a resort with store and marina and minimal lodging. The campgrounds are operated by Jackson County Parks Department. Howard Prairie is one of the most popular and productive fisheries in the state. In November 1986, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to manage Howard Prairie Reservoir for hatchery trout and wild brown bullheads. Title: Fish Management Plan Howard Prairie Reservoir 1986 Abstract -- Howard Prairie Reservoir is a Bureau of Reclamation impoundment, which lies on Grizzly Creek in the western headwaters of the Klamath River drainage approximately 20 miles northeast of Ashland. It was built in 1959 as part of the Talent Irrigation District which diverts water from the Klamath Basin to Bear Creek, a tributary of the Rogue River, in Jackson County. Recreation development includes five campgrounds, four boat ramps, a resort with store and marina and minimal lodging. The campgrounds are operated by Jackson County Parks Department. Howard Prairie is one of the most popular and productive fisheries in the state. In November 1986, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to manage Howard Prairie Reservoir for hatchery trout and wild brown bullheads. Close

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

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

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

• 10. [Article] Fish Management Plan Wallowa Lake 1980

  Abstract -- Wallowa Lake is a 1,600-acre glacial lake, 4,400 ft in elevation, located 2 mi south of Joseph. It has a maximum depth of 283 ft and is 4 mi long and 1 mi wide. The Wallowa River flows into ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish Management Plan Wallowa Lake 1980 Abstract -- Wallowa Lake is a 1,600-acre glacial lake, 4,400 ft in elevation, located 2 mi south of Joseph. It has a maximum depth of 283 ft and is 4 mi long and 1 mi wide. The Wallowa River flows into and out of the lake. Road access to the lake is via a paved highway. Cabins and resorts are present and a large state park exists on the south end of the lake. The lake receives heavy recreation use (swimming, fishing, boating) during the summer. The Wallowa River was a prime spawning area for Columbia River sockeye salmon about the turn of the century. By 1915, however, sightings of adult sockeye in the Wallowa River system were rare due to construction of Wallowa Lake Dam, exploitation of the species, and fish losses through unscreened irrigation diversions. In September 1980, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to continue to manage Wallowa Lake for wild and hatchery fish. Title: Fish Management Plan Wallowa Lake 1980 Abstract -- Wallowa Lake is a 1,600-acre glacial lake, 4,400 ft in elevation, located 2 mi south of Joseph. It has a maximum depth of 283 ft and is 4 mi long and 1 mi wide. The Wallowa River flows into and out of the lake. Road access to the lake is via a paved highway. Cabins and resorts are present and a large state park exists on the south end of the lake. The lake receives heavy recreation use (swimming, fishing, boating) during the summer. The Wallowa River was a prime spawning area for Columbia River sockeye salmon about the turn of the century. By 1915, however, sightings of adult sockeye in the Wallowa River system were rare due to construction of Wallowa Lake Dam, exploitation of the species, and fish losses through unscreened irrigation diversions. In September 1980, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission accepted the Department's recommendation to continue to manage Wallowa Lake for wild and hatchery fish. Close

• 11. [Article] Klamath County Lakes and Reservoirs Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses 1968

  Abstract -- Water orientated recreation in Klamath County falls into three broad categories: (1) Trout angling in the multitude of mountain lakes, (2) Trout and warm-water angling in the open water at ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath County Lakes and Reservoirs Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses 1968 Abstract -- Water orientated recreation in Klamath County falls into three broad categories: (1) Trout angling in the multitude of mountain lakes, (2) Trout and warm-water angling in the open water at lower elevations, and (3) Waterfowl hunting on the marshlands and adjacent waters of the county. Public access to the mountain lakes is generally adequate with a few exceptions. A few of the larger lakes receive so much pressure from state-wide users that improved ramps and frontage roads would help to relieve crowded conditions. The U.S. Forest Service maintains many extensive campgrounds at the larger lakes and provides trail maintenance to most of the "pack-in" lakes. Reservoirs and lakes at the lower elevations, however, are in many cases surrounded by private ownership or/are utilized almost exclusively for irrigation purposes. In order to provide and maintain a fishery resource in many of these reservoirs a minimum pool will have to be secured in addition to providing boat and bank access. Waterfowl hunting will also be available at many sites where angling access is secured. Title: Klamath County Lakes and Reservoirs Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses 1968 Abstract -- Water orientated recreation in Klamath County falls into three broad categories: (1) Trout angling in the multitude of mountain lakes, (2) Trout and warm-water angling in the open water at lower elevations, and (3) Waterfowl hunting on the marshlands and adjacent waters of the county. Public access to the mountain lakes is generally adequate with a few exceptions. A few of the larger lakes receive so much pressure from state-wide users that improved ramps and frontage roads would help to relieve crowded conditions. The U.S. Forest Service maintains many extensive campgrounds at the larger lakes and provides trail maintenance to most of the "pack-in" lakes. Reservoirs and lakes at the lower elevations, however, are in many cases surrounded by private ownership or/are utilized almost exclusively for irrigation purposes. In order to provide and maintain a fishery resource in many of these reservoirs a minimum pool will have to be secured in addition to providing boat and bank access. Waterfowl hunting will also be available at many sites where angling access is secured. Close

• 12. [Article] Survey of Crescent Lake, 1964

  Abstract -- Crescent Lake, one of the impressive mountain lakes of Oregon, is located in Township 24 South, Range 6 East, on the east slope of the Cascade Range just southeast of Diamond Peak. Its south ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Survey of Crescent Lake, 1964 Abstract -- Crescent Lake, one of the impressive mountain lakes of Oregon, is located in Township 24 South, Range 6 East, on the east slope of the Cascade Range just southeast of Diamond Peak. Its south shore is skirted by the old Oregon Central Military Road, and the Southern Pacific Cascade Line passes a little to the east of the lake. It was named for its shape by B.J. Pengra and W.H. Odell in July, 1865. A dam located at the mouth of Crescent Lake was first constructed in 1922 to be used for irrigational purposes. Later, in 1954, another larger dam was constructed. The purpose of surveying Crescent Lake was to obtain the necessary physical, chemical and biological characteristics needed for fishery management. Also presented in this report are past records of creel censusing, gill netting, fish stocking, water temperatures, and water levels. Title: Survey of Crescent Lake, 1964 Abstract -- Crescent Lake, one of the impressive mountain lakes of Oregon, is located in Township 24 South, Range 6 East, on the east slope of the Cascade Range just southeast of Diamond Peak. Its south shore is skirted by the old Oregon Central Military Road, and the Southern Pacific Cascade Line passes a little to the east of the lake. It was named for its shape by B.J. Pengra and W.H. Odell in July, 1865. A dam located at the mouth of Crescent Lake was first constructed in 1922 to be used for irrigational purposes. Later, in 1954, another larger dam was constructed. The purpose of surveying Crescent Lake was to obtain the necessary physical, chemical and biological characteristics needed for fishery management. Also presented in this report are past records of creel censusing, gill netting, fish stocking, water temperatures, and water levels. Close

• 13. [Article] Stream Temperature Data and Fish Counts Collected at Rotary Fish Screen Bypass Traps throughout the John Day Basin 1955 - 1995, South Fork John Day Subbasin

  Abstract -- The data contained in this report is a compilation of actual field measurements and fish counts taken throughout a 40 year period from 1955 to 1995. The information was collected as part of ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Stream Temperature Data and Fish Counts Collected at Rotary Fish Screen Bypass Traps throughout the John Day Basin 1955 - 1995, South Fork John Day Subbasin Abstract -- The data contained in this report is a compilation of actual field measurements and fish counts taken throughout a 40 year period from 1955 to 1995. The information was collected as part of a major John Day River fish screening program designed to protect juvenile Salmon and Steelhead from perishing in irrigation diversion ditches throughout the John Day Basin. The program was started and funded in 1952 under the Columbia Program Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The actual construction, operation and maintenance of the fish screens was done under contract by the then Oregon State Game Commission (OSGC), later to become the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. These Data were actually collected on site by the screen maintenance technicians hired by OSGC to service and maintain the installed screens and bypass fish traps. At least one or more bypass traps were installed on each major stream with screens throughout the basin and all fish caught in the screen bypass traps throughout the irrigation season were counted to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. These technicians would check the traps and take stream temperatures from one to five times per week throughout the irrigation season which usually ran in the early years from mid March through mid November. The central maintenance shop for the John Day fish screen program was constructed in 1952-53 near Canyon City, Oregon and operateq in that location for over forty years (1953- 1994) until a new facility was built west of John Day, Oregon in 1994. Title: Stream Temperature Data and Fish Counts Collected at Rotary Fish Screen Bypass Traps throughout the John Day Basin 1955 - 1995, South Fork John Day Subbasin Abstract -- The data contained in this report is a compilation of actual field measurements and fish counts taken throughout a 40 year period from 1955 to 1995. The information was collected as part of a major John Day River fish screening program designed to protect juvenile Salmon and Steelhead from perishing in irrigation diversion ditches throughout the John Day Basin. The program was started and funded in 1952 under the Columbia Program Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The actual construction, operation and maintenance of the fish screens was done under contract by the then Oregon State Game Commission (OSGC), later to become the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. These Data were actually collected on site by the screen maintenance technicians hired by OSGC to service and maintain the installed screens and bypass fish traps. At least one or more bypass traps were installed on each major stream with screens throughout the basin and all fish caught in the screen bypass traps throughout the irrigation season were counted to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. These technicians would check the traps and take stream temperatures from one to five times per week throughout the irrigation season which usually ran in the early years from mid March through mid November. The central maintenance shop for the John Day fish screen program was constructed in 1952-53 near Canyon City, Oregon and operateq in that location for over forty years (1953- 1994) until a new facility was built west of John Day, Oregon in 1994. Close

• 14. [Article] Stream Temperature Data and Fish Counts Collected at Rotary Fish Screen Bypass Traps throughout the John Day Basin 1955 - 1995, North Fork John Day Subbasin

  Abstract -- The data contained in this report is a compilation of actual field measurements and fish counts taken throughout a 40 year period from 1955 to 1995. The information was collected as part of ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Stream Temperature Data and Fish Counts Collected at Rotary Fish Screen Bypass Traps throughout the John Day Basin 1955 - 1995, North Fork John Day Subbasin Abstract -- The data contained in this report is a compilation of actual field measurements and fish counts taken throughout a 40 year period from 1955 to 1995. The information was collected as part of a major John Day River fish screening program designed to protect juvenile Salmon and Steelhead from perishing in irrigation diversion ditches throughout the John Day Basin. The program was started and funded in 1952 under the Columbia Program Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The actual construction, operation and maintenance of the fish screens was done under contract by the then Oregon State Game Commission (OSGC), later to become the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. These Data were actually collected on site by the screen maintenance technicians hired by OSGC to service and maintain the installed screens and bypass fish traps. At least one or more bypass traps were installed on each major stream with screens throughout the basin and all fish caught in the screen bypass traps throughout the irrigation season were counted to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. These technicians would check the traps and take stream temperatures from one to five times per week throughout the irrigation season which usually ran in the early years from mid March through mid November. The central maintenance shop for the John Day fish screen program was constructed in 1952-53 near Canyon City, Oregon and operated in that location for over forty years (1953-1994) until a new facility was built west of John Day, Oregon in 1994. Title: Stream Temperature Data and Fish Counts Collected at Rotary Fish Screen Bypass Traps throughout the John Day Basin 1955 - 1995, North Fork John Day Subbasin Abstract -- The data contained in this report is a compilation of actual field measurements and fish counts taken throughout a 40 year period from 1955 to 1995. The information was collected as part of a major John Day River fish screening program designed to protect juvenile Salmon and Steelhead from perishing in irrigation diversion ditches throughout the John Day Basin. The program was started and funded in 1952 under the Columbia Program Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The actual construction, operation and maintenance of the fish screens was done under contract by the then Oregon State Game Commission (OSGC), later to become the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. These Data were actually collected on site by the screen maintenance technicians hired by OSGC to service and maintain the installed screens and bypass fish traps. At least one or more bypass traps were installed on each major stream with screens throughout the basin and all fish caught in the screen bypass traps throughout the irrigation season were counted to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. These technicians would check the traps and take stream temperatures from one to five times per week throughout the irrigation season which usually ran in the early years from mid March through mid November. The central maintenance shop for the John Day fish screen program was constructed in 1952-53 near Canyon City, Oregon and operated in that location for over forty years (1953-1994) until a new facility was built west of John Day, Oregon in 1994. Close

• 15. [Article] Stream Temperature Data and Fish Counts Collected at Rotary Fish Screen Bypass Traps throughout the John Day Basin 1955 - 1995, Middle Fork John Day Subbasin

  Abstract -- The data contained in this report is a compilation of actual field measurements and fish counts taken throughout a 40 year period from 1955 to 1995. The information was collected as part of ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Stream Temperature Data and Fish Counts Collected at Rotary Fish Screen Bypass Traps throughout the John Day Basin 1955 - 1995, Middle Fork John Day Subbasin Abstract -- The data contained in this report is a compilation of actual field measurements and fish counts taken throughout a 40 year period from 1955 to 1995. The information was collected as part of a major John Day River fish screening program designed to protect juvenile Salmon and Steelhead from perishing in irrigation diversion ditches throughout the John Day Basin. The program was started and funded in 1952 under the Columbia Program Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The actual construction, operation and maintenance of the fish screens was done under contract by the then Oregon State Game Commission (OSGC), later to become the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. These Data were actually collected on site by the screen maintenance technicians hired by OSGC to service and maintain the installed screens and bypass fish traps. At least one or more bypass traps were installed on each major stream with screens throughout the basin and all fish caught in the screen bypass traps throughout the irrigation season were counted to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. These technicians would check the traps and take stream temperatures from one to five times per week throughout the irrigation season which usually ran in the early years from mid March through mid November. The central maintenance shop for the John Day fish screen program was constructed in 1952-53 near Canyon City, Oregon and operated in that location for over forty years (1953-1994) until a new facility was built west of John Day, Oregon in 1994. Title: Stream Temperature Data and Fish Counts Collected at Rotary Fish Screen Bypass Traps throughout the John Day Basin 1955 - 1995, Middle Fork John Day Subbasin Abstract -- The data contained in this report is a compilation of actual field measurements and fish counts taken throughout a 40 year period from 1955 to 1995. The information was collected as part of a major John Day River fish screening program designed to protect juvenile Salmon and Steelhead from perishing in irrigation diversion ditches throughout the John Day Basin. The program was started and funded in 1952 under the Columbia Program Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The actual construction, operation and maintenance of the fish screens was done under contract by the then Oregon State Game Commission (OSGC), later to become the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. These Data were actually collected on site by the screen maintenance technicians hired by OSGC to service and maintain the installed screens and bypass fish traps. At least one or more bypass traps were installed on each major stream with screens throughout the basin and all fish caught in the screen bypass traps throughout the irrigation season were counted to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. These technicians would check the traps and take stream temperatures from one to five times per week throughout the irrigation season which usually ran in the early years from mid March through mid November. The central maintenance shop for the John Day fish screen program was constructed in 1952-53 near Canyon City, Oregon and operated in that location for over forty years (1953-1994) until a new facility was built west of John Day, Oregon in 1994. Close

• 16. [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

• 17. [Article] Baker County Lakes and Reservoirs Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses 1969

  Abstract -- Baker County, located in nortbeastern Oregon, encompasses an area of approximately 3,100 square miles. The terrain varies considerably from the high peaks of the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area in ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Baker County Lakes and Reservoirs Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses 1969 Abstract -- Baker County, located in nortbeastern Oregon, encompasses an area of approximately 3,100 square miles. The terrain varies considerably from the high peaks of the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area in the north to the arid sagelands in the southern part of the county. Four types of angling waters are found within the county. The types are: (1) streams both large and small throughout the county, (2) natural lakes in the mountainous areas, (3) reservoirs and impoundments developed for irrigation or power production and (4) small ponds constructed or maintained specifically for fisheries management. The fishery consists of trout and warm-water fishes. Both brook and rainbow trout are available in the high mountain lakes. The reservoirs provide angling for both trout and warm-water fishes and the smaller ponds are stocked with rainbow trout. Angling in early spring is quite intense on the small ponds and larger reservoirs as the higher lakes are still snowbound and the streams are muddy from the spring runoff. During the summer and fall the angling pressure shifts to the mountain lakes and streams and decreases on the ponds and larger low elevation reservoirs. Title: Baker County Lakes and Reservoirs Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses 1969 Abstract -- Baker County, located in nortbeastern Oregon, encompasses an area of approximately 3,100 square miles. The terrain varies considerably from the high peaks of the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area in the north to the arid sagelands in the southern part of the county. Four types of angling waters are found within the county. The types are: (1) streams both large and small throughout the county, (2) natural lakes in the mountainous areas, (3) reservoirs and impoundments developed for irrigation or power production and (4) small ponds constructed or maintained specifically for fisheries management. The fishery consists of trout and warm-water fishes. Both brook and rainbow trout are available in the high mountain lakes. The reservoirs provide angling for both trout and warm-water fishes and the smaller ponds are stocked with rainbow trout. Angling in early spring is quite intense on the small ponds and larger reservoirs as the higher lakes are still snowbound and the streams are muddy from the spring runoff. During the summer and fall the angling pressure shifts to the mountain lakes and streams and decreases on the ponds and larger low elevation reservoirs. Close

• 18. [Article] 2009 Borax Lake Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2009

  Abstract -- The Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in the Alvord Basin in Harney County, Oregon (Williams and Bond 1980). Borax Lake chub are ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2009 Borax Lake Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2009 Abstract -- The Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in the Alvord Basin in Harney County, Oregon (Williams and Bond 1980). Borax Lake chub are represented by a single population that inhabits a 4.1 hectare geothermally-heated alkaline lake. 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 since 1991 indicate a fluctuating population ranging between approximately 4,000 and 34,000 fish (Salzer 1997; Scheerer and Jacobs 2008). 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). 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). A 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 that time. 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. The objectives of this study were to: 1) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate of Borax Lake chub and 2) to evaluate habitat conditions at Borax Lake, including the condition of the fragile lake shoreline and outflows. This report describes results from monitoring conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Native Fish Investigations Project in 2009. Title: 2009 Borax Lake Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2009 Abstract -- The Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in the Alvord Basin in Harney County, Oregon (Williams and Bond 1980). Borax Lake chub are represented by a single population that inhabits a 4.1 hectare geothermally-heated alkaline lake. 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 since 1991 indicate a fluctuating population ranging between approximately 4,000 and 34,000 fish (Salzer 1997; Scheerer and Jacobs 2008). 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). 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). A 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 that time. 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. The objectives of this study were to: 1) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate of Borax Lake chub and 2) to evaluate habitat conditions at Borax Lake, including the condition of the fragile lake shoreline and outflows. This report describes results from monitoring conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Native Fish Investigations Project in 2009. Close

• 19. [Article] Status and Distribution of Native Fishes in the Goose Lake Basin Information Reports number 2008-02

  Abstract -- This study describes the current distribution of the nine native fish species in the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake basin (Lake County): Goose Lake redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp., ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Status and Distribution of Native Fishes in the Goose Lake Basin Information Reports number 2008-02 Abstract -- This study describes the current distribution of the nine native fish species in the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake basin (Lake County): Goose Lake redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp., Goose Lake lamprey Entosphenus sp., Goose Lake tui chub Siphateles bicolor thalassinus, Goose Lake sucker Catostomus occidentalis lacusanserinus, Modoc sucker Catostomus microps, Pit-Klamath brook lamprey Entosphenus lethophagus, speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus, Pit roach Lavinia symmetricus mitrulus, and Pit sculpin Cottus pitensis. The Goose Lake basin is an endorheic, or topographically closed basin located in south central Oregon and northeastern California. The basin is within the usually closed northeastern extremity of the adjoining Sacramento River basin, astride the Oregon-California boundary. Although most of the lake lies in California, most of its valley and nearly two-thirds of the total drainage area (~722 sq. mi.) are in Oregon. The largest streams in the basin are Drews, Cottonwood, and Thomas Creeks. Annual precipitation averages about 36 cm per year (Phillips and van Denburgh 1971). Goose Lake overflowed briefly into the North Fork Pit River in 1868 and 1881, but storage and diversion of irrigation water has substantially reduced the inflow and future overflow is unlikely (USGS 1971). The lakebed was dry in the summers of 1926, 1929- 1934, and 1992. About half the basin is forestland, 20% is hay fields and pastureland, and 16% is shrub and rangeland. Currently, almost 35% of the inflow is diverted for irrigation (OWRD 1989). The Goose Lake basin is home to four endemic fish taxa: the Goose Lake redband trout, lamprey, sucker, and tui chub. Endemic fishes of the Goose Lake basin split their life histories between Goose Lake and its tributaries, as opposed to the five native but non-endemic species that primarily occupy stream habitats. Pit roach and all endemic fishes except Goose Lake tui chub are listed as a “species of concern” by the USFWS, a designation that implies there is concern about species viability, but not enough information is known to initiate a listing review for threatened or endangered status. The Modoc sucker was listed as a federally endangered species in 1985 (USFWS 1985). No formal recovery plan was required due to an existing “Action Plan for the Recovery of the Modoc Sucker” (USFWS 1984). Most of the recovery actions outlined in the action plan were either completed or are no longer relevant (Stewart Reid, Western Fishes, personal communication). However, actions 26 and 27 pertaining to range expansion remain incomplete. Action 26 suggests reclassification to threatened upon establishment of safe populations (for 3-5 years) throughout the Rush and Turner Creek watersheds in the Pit River basin. Action 27 suggests delisting upon establishing safe populations in two other historic streams. At the time of listing, the historic range of Modoc sucker was thought to have included only two small tributaries of the Pit River in Modoc and Lassen Counties, Ash and Turner Creeks (USFWS 1985). Therefore, a major recovery goal was to expand the species’ range with additional populations (USFWS 1984). In 2001, reexamination of historical documents and museum specimens established that Modoc suckers had also historically occupied Thomas Creek in the Goose Lake basin. Field collections in 2001, with subsequent morphological and genetic analysis, confirmed that the population was still present in Thomas Creek (Stewart Reid, Western Fishes, personal communication); however, the broader range of Modoc sucker in the Goose Lake watershed was not known. In 1995, the Goose Lake Fishes Working Group drafted a conservation plan for “prelisting” recovery of all native fish in response to severe drought and habitat degradation (GLFWG 1995). The Aquatic Inventories Project of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) conducted habitat and fish distribution surveys (1991-1995) to obtain baseline information to help inform recovery efforts (ODFW, unpublished data). Since then, field work to monitor the distribution and abundance of Goose Lake fishes has been limited and sporadic, targeting only Goose Lake redband trout and Modoc sucker (Dambacher 2001; Reid 2007). No comprehensive follow up work has been conducted to evaluate fish response to climatic conditions, habitat restoration projects, and continued irrigation activities. ODFW recently drafted a status review of native fish of Oregon (ODFW 2005). Except for redband trout, Goose Lake fishes were not included in the status review due to a lack of new information since the previous status review in 1995 (Kostow et al. 1995). Further, the review of Goose Lake redband trout was limited by a lack of long-term data series. The first objective of this study was to document the current distribution of native fishes in Oregon’s portion of the Goose Lake basin and assess changes in distribution that may have occurred since the last surveys were conducted 12 years ago. The second objective was to provide new information about the distribution of Modoc suckers within the basin. The third objective was to determine relative abundance and age-class diversity of native fishes at randomly selected sample sites. All objectives were addressed throughout the potential riverine distribution of fish in the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake basin. Information gathered in this study is critical to effective conservation and management of each species and its habitat. In addition, this report describes the distribution and relative abundance of nonnative fishes (fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)) in the basin. Unlike prior efforts, this study used a statisticallybased design to select sample points with the aim of achieving a representative sample across the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake watershed. Additionally, a wide array of fish sampling gear was employed to maximize our ability to capture all fish species present across the diversity of habitat types encountered. Title: Status and Distribution of Native Fishes in the Goose Lake Basin Information Reports number 2008-02 Abstract -- This study describes the current distribution of the nine native fish species in the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake basin (Lake County): Goose Lake redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp., Goose Lake lamprey Entosphenus sp., Goose Lake tui chub Siphateles bicolor thalassinus, Goose Lake sucker Catostomus occidentalis lacusanserinus, Modoc sucker Catostomus microps, Pit-Klamath brook lamprey Entosphenus lethophagus, speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus, Pit roach Lavinia symmetricus mitrulus, and Pit sculpin Cottus pitensis. The Goose Lake basin is an endorheic, or topographically closed basin located in south central Oregon and northeastern California. The basin is within the usually closed northeastern extremity of the adjoining Sacramento River basin, astride the Oregon-California boundary. Although most of the lake lies in California, most of its valley and nearly two-thirds of the total drainage area (~722 sq. mi.) are in Oregon. The largest streams in the basin are Drews, Cottonwood, and Thomas Creeks. Annual precipitation averages about 36 cm per year (Phillips and van Denburgh 1971). Goose Lake overflowed briefly into the North Fork Pit River in 1868 and 1881, but storage and diversion of irrigation water has substantially reduced the inflow and future overflow is unlikely (USGS 1971). The lakebed was dry in the summers of 1926, 1929- 1934, and 1992. About half the basin is forestland, 20% is hay fields and pastureland, and 16% is shrub and rangeland. Currently, almost 35% of the inflow is diverted for irrigation (OWRD 1989). The Goose Lake basin is home to four endemic fish taxa: the Goose Lake redband trout, lamprey, sucker, and tui chub. Endemic fishes of the Goose Lake basin split their life histories between Goose Lake and its tributaries, as opposed to the five native but non-endemic species that primarily occupy stream habitats. Pit roach and all endemic fishes except Goose Lake tui chub are listed as a “species of concern” by the USFWS, a designation that implies there is concern about species viability, but not enough information is known to initiate a listing review for threatened or endangered status. The Modoc sucker was listed as a federally endangered species in 1985 (USFWS 1985). No formal recovery plan was required due to an existing “Action Plan for the Recovery of the Modoc Sucker” (USFWS 1984). Most of the recovery actions outlined in the action plan were either completed or are no longer relevant (Stewart Reid, Western Fishes, personal communication). However, actions 26 and 27 pertaining to range expansion remain incomplete. Action 26 suggests reclassification to threatened upon establishment of safe populations (for 3-5 years) throughout the Rush and Turner Creek watersheds in the Pit River basin. Action 27 suggests delisting upon establishing safe populations in two other historic streams. At the time of listing, the historic range of Modoc sucker was thought to have included only two small tributaries of the Pit River in Modoc and Lassen Counties, Ash and Turner Creeks (USFWS 1985). Therefore, a major recovery goal was to expand the species’ range with additional populations (USFWS 1984). In 2001, reexamination of historical documents and museum specimens established that Modoc suckers had also historically occupied Thomas Creek in the Goose Lake basin. Field collections in 2001, with subsequent morphological and genetic analysis, confirmed that the population was still present in Thomas Creek (Stewart Reid, Western Fishes, personal communication); however, the broader range of Modoc sucker in the Goose Lake watershed was not known. In 1995, the Goose Lake Fishes Working Group drafted a conservation plan for “prelisting” recovery of all native fish in response to severe drought and habitat degradation (GLFWG 1995). The Aquatic Inventories Project of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) conducted habitat and fish distribution surveys (1991-1995) to obtain baseline information to help inform recovery efforts (ODFW, unpublished data). Since then, field work to monitor the distribution and abundance of Goose Lake fishes has been limited and sporadic, targeting only Goose Lake redband trout and Modoc sucker (Dambacher 2001; Reid 2007). No comprehensive follow up work has been conducted to evaluate fish response to climatic conditions, habitat restoration projects, and continued irrigation activities. ODFW recently drafted a status review of native fish of Oregon (ODFW 2005). Except for redband trout, Goose Lake fishes were not included in the status review due to a lack of new information since the previous status review in 1995 (Kostow et al. 1995). Further, the review of Goose Lake redband trout was limited by a lack of long-term data series. The first objective of this study was to document the current distribution of native fishes in Oregon’s portion of the Goose Lake basin and assess changes in distribution that may have occurred since the last surveys were conducted 12 years ago. The second objective was to provide new information about the distribution of Modoc suckers within the basin. The third objective was to determine relative abundance and age-class diversity of native fishes at randomly selected sample sites. All objectives were addressed throughout the potential riverine distribution of fish in the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake basin. Information gathered in this study is critical to effective conservation and management of each species and its habitat. In addition, this report describes the distribution and relative abundance of nonnative fishes (fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)) in the basin. Unlike prior efforts, this study used a statisticallybased design to select sample points with the aim of achieving a representative sample across the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake watershed. Additionally, a wide array of fish sampling gear was employed to maximize our ability to capture all fish species present across the diversity of habitat types encountered. Close

• 20. [Article] Status, Distribution, and Life History Investigations of Warner Suckers, 2006-2010 Information Reports number 2011-02

  Abstract -- The Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis is endemic to the Warner Valley, a subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. This species was historically abundant ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Status, Distribution, and Life History Investigations of Warner Suckers, 2006-2010 Information Reports number 2011-02 Abstract -- The Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis is endemic to the Warner Valley, a subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. This species was historically abundant (Snyder 1908) and its historical range includes three permanent lakes (Hart, Crump, and Pelican), several ephemeral lakes, a network of sloughs and diversion canals, and three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile creeks). Warner sucker abundance and distribution has declined over the past century and it was federally listed as threatened in 1985 due to habitat fragmentation and threats posed by the proliferation of piscivorous non-native game fishes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). The Warner Valley is a northeast-southwest trending endorheic basin that extends approximately 90 km (Figure 1). The elevation of the valley floor is approximately 1,370 m and the basin is bound by fault block escarpments, the Warner Rim on the west and Hart Mountain and Poker Jim Ridge on the east. The Warner basin was formed during the middle Tertiary and late Quaternary geologic periods as a result of volcanic and tectonic activity (Baldwin 1974). Abundant precipitation during the Pleistocene Epoch resulted in the formation of Pluvial Lake Warner (Hubbs and Miller 1948). At its maximum extent approximately 11,000 years ago, the lake reached approximately 100 m in depth and 1,300 km2 in area (Snyder et al. 1964; Weide 1975). The Warner sucker inhabits the lakes and low gradient stream reaches of the Warner Valley. The metapopulation of Warner suckers is comprised of two life history forms: lake and stream morphs. The lake suckers display a lacustrine-adfluvial pattern in which they spend most of the year in the lake and spawn in the streams. However, when upstream migration is hindered by low stream flows during drought years or by irrigation diversion dams, lake suckers may spawn in nearshore areas of the lakes (White et al. 1990). Large lake-dwelling populations of introduced fishes in the lakes likely reduce sucker recruitment by predation on young suckers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Periodic lake desiccation also threatens the lake suckers. The stream suckers display a fluvial life-history pattern and spawn in the three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks). Threats specific to the stream form include water withdrawals for irrigation and impacts from grazing. Stream suckers recolonized the lakes after past drying events (mid-1930’s and early-1990’s). The Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) sets three recovery criteria for delisting the species. These criteria require that: (1) a self-sustaining metapopulation is distributed throughout the drainages of Twentymile Creek, Honey Creek, and below the falls on Deep Creek, and in Pelican, Crump, and Hart Lakes; (2) passage is restored within and among these drainages so that individual populations of Warner suckers can function as a metapopulation; and (3) no threats exist that would likely threaten the survival of the species over a significant portion of its range. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW’s) Native Fish Investigations Project conducted investigations from 2006 through 2010 to describe the conservation (recovery) status of Warner suckers. The objectives of our investigations were to: 1) describe the current distribution of suckers in the Warner subbasin, 2) estimate their abundance in the lakes and streams, 3) collect life history information, and 4) describe the primary factors that currently limit the sucker’s ability to maintain a functioning metapopulation, including connectivity/fragmentation of habitats and factors affecting successful recruitment in the lake and stream environments. Previous similar studies were conducted in 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2001 (White et al. 1990; White et al. 1991; Allen et al. 1994; Allen et al. 1995; Allen et al. 1996; Bosse et al. 1997; Hartzell et al. 2001). We addressed these objectives by implementing the following tasks: 1) conducting surveys in Hart and Crump Lakes to describe the distribution and quantify the abundance of Warner suckers, search for evidence of recent recruitment, estimate sucker abundance relative to nonnative fish abundance, and describe certain life history characteristics, 2) tagging suckers with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags in the lakes and tributaries to estimate growth rates and describe seasonal movements, 3) radio tracking suckers in the lakes and tributaries to describe seasonal movements, 4) fishing screw traps in Warner basin tributaries to monitor downstream movements, 5) operating a trap at a fish ladder on a Warner tributary to assess upstream passage success, 6) conducting surveys in Warner basin tributaries to describe the current distribution of stream resident populations of Warner suckers and to quantify their abundance, 7) describing associations between the distribution of suckers and habitat variables in Twentymile Creek, 8) trapping larval suckers in the tributaries to describe the relative abundance and timing of larval movements, 9) describing life history parameters including growth rates, length frequency distributions, length at maturity, and weight-length relationships, 10) evaluating a nonlethal ageing technique, 11) describing the distribution and abundance of the Warner suckers at Summer Lake Wildlife Management area, where a self-sustaining population became established after fish salvage from Hart Lake during the 1992 drought, and 12) collecting tissue samples for future genetic analyses. This report compiles the results of this work, synthesizes and interprets findings relative to the conservation status of the species, and recommends future studies. Title: Status, Distribution, and Life History Investigations of Warner Suckers, 2006-2010 Information Reports number 2011-02 Abstract -- The Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis is endemic to the Warner Valley, a subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. This species was historically abundant (Snyder 1908) and its historical range includes three permanent lakes (Hart, Crump, and Pelican), several ephemeral lakes, a network of sloughs and diversion canals, and three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile creeks). Warner sucker abundance and distribution has declined over the past century and it was federally listed as threatened in 1985 due to habitat fragmentation and threats posed by the proliferation of piscivorous non-native game fishes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). The Warner Valley is a northeast-southwest trending endorheic basin that extends approximately 90 km (Figure 1). The elevation of the valley floor is approximately 1,370 m and the basin is bound by fault block escarpments, the Warner Rim on the west and Hart Mountain and Poker Jim Ridge on the east. The Warner basin was formed during the middle Tertiary and late Quaternary geologic periods as a result of volcanic and tectonic activity (Baldwin 1974). Abundant precipitation during the Pleistocene Epoch resulted in the formation of Pluvial Lake Warner (Hubbs and Miller 1948). At its maximum extent approximately 11,000 years ago, the lake reached approximately 100 m in depth and 1,300 km2 in area (Snyder et al. 1964; Weide 1975). The Warner sucker inhabits the lakes and low gradient stream reaches of the Warner Valley. The metapopulation of Warner suckers is comprised of two life history forms: lake and stream morphs. The lake suckers display a lacustrine-adfluvial pattern in which they spend most of the year in the lake and spawn in the streams. However, when upstream migration is hindered by low stream flows during drought years or by irrigation diversion dams, lake suckers may spawn in nearshore areas of the lakes (White et al. 1990). Large lake-dwelling populations of introduced fishes in the lakes likely reduce sucker recruitment by predation on young suckers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Periodic lake desiccation also threatens the lake suckers. The stream suckers display a fluvial life-history pattern and spawn in the three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks). Threats specific to the stream form include water withdrawals for irrigation and impacts from grazing. Stream suckers recolonized the lakes after past drying events (mid-1930’s and early-1990’s). The Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) sets three recovery criteria for delisting the species. These criteria require that: (1) a self-sustaining metapopulation is distributed throughout the drainages of Twentymile Creek, Honey Creek, and below the falls on Deep Creek, and in Pelican, Crump, and Hart Lakes; (2) passage is restored within and among these drainages so that individual populations of Warner suckers can function as a metapopulation; and (3) no threats exist that would likely threaten the survival of the species over a significant portion of its range. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW’s) Native Fish Investigations Project conducted investigations from 2006 through 2010 to describe the conservation (recovery) status of Warner suckers. The objectives of our investigations were to: 1) describe the current distribution of suckers in the Warner subbasin, 2) estimate their abundance in the lakes and streams, 3) collect life history information, and 4) describe the primary factors that currently limit the sucker’s ability to maintain a functioning metapopulation, including connectivity/fragmentation of habitats and factors affecting successful recruitment in the lake and stream environments. Previous similar studies were conducted in 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2001 (White et al. 1990; White et al. 1991; Allen et al. 1994; Allen et al. 1995; Allen et al. 1996; Bosse et al. 1997; Hartzell et al. 2001). We addressed these objectives by implementing the following tasks: 1) conducting surveys in Hart and Crump Lakes to describe the distribution and quantify the abundance of Warner suckers, search for evidence of recent recruitment, estimate sucker abundance relative to nonnative fish abundance, and describe certain life history characteristics, 2) tagging suckers with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags in the lakes and tributaries to estimate growth rates and describe seasonal movements, 3) radio tracking suckers in the lakes and tributaries to describe seasonal movements, 4) fishing screw traps in Warner basin tributaries to monitor downstream movements, 5) operating a trap at a fish ladder on a Warner tributary to assess upstream passage success, 6) conducting surveys in Warner basin tributaries to describe the current distribution of stream resident populations of Warner suckers and to quantify their abundance, 7) describing associations between the distribution of suckers and habitat variables in Twentymile Creek, 8) trapping larval suckers in the tributaries to describe the relative abundance and timing of larval movements, 9) describing life history parameters including growth rates, length frequency distributions, length at maturity, and weight-length relationships, 10) evaluating a nonlethal ageing technique, 11) describing the distribution and abundance of the Warner suckers at Summer Lake Wildlife Management area, where a self-sustaining population became established after fish salvage from Hart Lake during the 1992 drought, and 12) collecting tissue samples for future genetic analyses. This report compiles the results of this work, synthesizes and interprets findings relative to the conservation status of the species, and recommends future studies. Close

• 21. [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

• 22. [Article] 2011 Warner Sucker Investigations (Honey Creek) Progress Reports 2011

  Abstract -- The Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) is endemic to the Warner Valley, an endorheic subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. Historically, this species ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2011 Warner Sucker Investigations (Honey Creek) Progress Reports 2011 Abstract -- The Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) is endemic to the Warner Valley, an endorheic subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. Historically, this species was abundant and its range included three permanent lakes (Hart, Crump, and Pelican), several ephemeral lakes, a network of sloughs and diversion canals, and three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). Warner sucker abundance and distribution has declined over the past century and it was federally listed as threatened in 1985 due to habitat fragmentation and threats posed by the proliferation of piscivorous non-native game fishes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). The Warner sucker inhabits the lakes and low gradient stream reaches of the Warner Valley. The Warner sucker metapopulation is comprised of both lake and stream life history morphs. The lake suckers are lacustrine adfluvial or potamodromous fish that normally spawn in the streams. However, upstream migration may be blocked by low stream flows during low water years or by irrigation diversion dams. When this happens, spawning may occur in nearshore areas of the lakes (White et al. 1990). Large lake-dwelling populations of introduced fishes likely reduce recruitment by preying on young suckers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The stream suckers inhabit and spawn in Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks. The Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) sets recovery criteria for delisting the species. These criteria require that: 1) a self-sustaining metapopulation is distributed throughout the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages, and in Pelican, Crump, and Hart Lakes, 2) passage is restored within and among the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages so that the individual populations of Warner suckers can function as a metapopulation, and 3) no threats exist that would likely threaten the survival of the species over a significant portion of its range. To inform progress towards the first criteria, our objectives in 2011 were: 1) obtain a population estimate for suckers in the Honey Creek drainage and describe their current distribution and 2) describe the association between the distribution of suckers and habitat variables in Honey Creek. In addition, we obtained a population estimate of suckers at the Summer Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA), where a self-sustaining population became established after a fish salvage from Hart Lake in 1991 when the lakes desiccated. Title: 2011 Warner Sucker Investigations (Honey Creek) Progress Reports 2011 Abstract -- The Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) is endemic to the Warner Valley, an endorheic subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. Historically, this species was abundant and its range included three permanent lakes (Hart, Crump, and Pelican), several ephemeral lakes, a network of sloughs and diversion canals, and three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). Warner sucker abundance and distribution has declined over the past century and it was federally listed as threatened in 1985 due to habitat fragmentation and threats posed by the proliferation of piscivorous non-native game fishes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). The Warner sucker inhabits the lakes and low gradient stream reaches of the Warner Valley. The Warner sucker metapopulation is comprised of both lake and stream life history morphs. The lake suckers are lacustrine adfluvial or potamodromous fish that normally spawn in the streams. However, upstream migration may be blocked by low stream flows during low water years or by irrigation diversion dams. When this happens, spawning may occur in nearshore areas of the lakes (White et al. 1990). Large lake-dwelling populations of introduced fishes likely reduce recruitment by preying on young suckers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The stream suckers inhabit and spawn in Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks. The Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) sets recovery criteria for delisting the species. These criteria require that: 1) a self-sustaining metapopulation is distributed throughout the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages, and in Pelican, Crump, and Hart Lakes, 2) passage is restored within and among the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages so that the individual populations of Warner suckers can function as a metapopulation, and 3) no threats exist that would likely threaten the survival of the species over a significant portion of its range. To inform progress towards the first criteria, our objectives in 2011 were: 1) obtain a population estimate for suckers in the Honey Creek drainage and describe their current distribution and 2) describe the association between the distribution of suckers and habitat variables in Honey Creek. In addition, we obtained a population estimate of suckers at the Summer Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA), where a self-sustaining population became established after a fish salvage from Hart Lake in 1991 when the lakes desiccated. Close

• 23. [Article] Warner Sucker Investigations (2009)

  Abstract -- The Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) is endemic to the Warner Valley, an endorheic subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. Historically, this species ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Warner Sucker Investigations (2009) Abstract -- The Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) is endemic to the Warner Valley, an endorheic subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. Historically, this species was abundant and its range included three permanent lakes (Hart, Crump, and Pelican), several ephemeral lakes, a network of sloughs and diversion canals, and three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). Warner sucker abundance and distribution has declined over the past century and it was federally listed as threatened in 1985 due to habitat fragmentation and threats posed by the proliferation of piscivorous non-native game fishes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). The Warner sucker inhabits the lakes and low gradient stream reaches of the Warner Valley. The Warner sucker metapopulation is comprised of both lake and stream life history morphs. The lake suckers are lacustrine adfluvial or potamodromous fish that normally spawn in the streams. However, upstream migration may be blocked by low stream flows during low water years or by irrigation diversion dams. When this happens, spawning may occur in nearshore areas of the lakes (White et al. 1990). Large lake-dwelling populations of introduced fishes likely reduce recruitment by preying on young suckers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The stream suckers inhabit and spawn in Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks. The Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) sets recovery criteria for delisting the species. These criteria require that: 1) a self-sustaining metapopulation is distributed throughout the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages, and in Pelican, Crump, and Hart Lakes, 2) passage is restored within and among the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages so that the individual populations of Warner suckers can function as a metapopulation, and 3) no threats exist that would likely threaten the survival of the species over a significant portion of its range. Objectives of our 2009 investigations included: 1) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate for suckers in the Twentymile Creek drainage and describe their current distribution, 2) describe associations between the distribution of suckers and habitat variables in Twentymile Creek, 3) evaluate a non-lethal ageing technique, 4) track radiotagged lake suckers (tagged in 2008) in Hart and Crump Lakes to assess spring movement patterns, 5) track spring spawning movements of lake suckers across a PIT-tag antenna installed at the mouth of Honey Creek, 6) test the feasibility of trapping larval suckers near the mouth of Honey Creek using larval drift nets and light traps to describe the relative abundance and timing of larval sucker movements, and 7) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate of suckers at the Summer Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA), where a self-sustaining population became established after a fish salvage from Hart Lake during the 1991 drought. Title: Warner Sucker Investigations (2009) Abstract -- The Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) is endemic to the Warner Valley, an endorheic subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. Historically, this species was abundant and its range included three permanent lakes (Hart, Crump, and Pelican), several ephemeral lakes, a network of sloughs and diversion canals, and three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). Warner sucker abundance and distribution has declined over the past century and it was federally listed as threatened in 1985 due to habitat fragmentation and threats posed by the proliferation of piscivorous non-native game fishes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). The Warner sucker inhabits the lakes and low gradient stream reaches of the Warner Valley. The Warner sucker metapopulation is comprised of both lake and stream life history morphs. The lake suckers are lacustrine adfluvial or potamodromous fish that normally spawn in the streams. However, upstream migration may be blocked by low stream flows during low water years or by irrigation diversion dams. When this happens, spawning may occur in nearshore areas of the lakes (White et al. 1990). Large lake-dwelling populations of introduced fishes likely reduce recruitment by preying on young suckers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The stream suckers inhabit and spawn in Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks. The Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) sets recovery criteria for delisting the species. These criteria require that: 1) a self-sustaining metapopulation is distributed throughout the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages, and in Pelican, Crump, and Hart Lakes, 2) passage is restored within and among the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages so that the individual populations of Warner suckers can function as a metapopulation, and 3) no threats exist that would likely threaten the survival of the species over a significant portion of its range. Objectives of our 2009 investigations included: 1) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate for suckers in the Twentymile Creek drainage and describe their current distribution, 2) describe associations between the distribution of suckers and habitat variables in Twentymile Creek, 3) evaluate a non-lethal ageing technique, 4) track radiotagged lake suckers (tagged in 2008) in Hart and Crump Lakes to assess spring movement patterns, 5) track spring spawning movements of lake suckers across a PIT-tag antenna installed at the mouth of Honey Creek, 6) test the feasibility of trapping larval suckers near the mouth of Honey Creek using larval drift nets and light traps to describe the relative abundance and timing of larval sucker movements, and 7) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate of suckers at the Summer Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA), where a self-sustaining population became established after a fish salvage from Hart Lake during the 1991 drought. Close

• 24. [Article] Warner Valley Fish Investigations- Warner Suckers Progress Reports 2008

  Abstract -- The Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) is endemic to the Warner Valley, an endorheic subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. This species was historically ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Warner Valley Fish Investigations- Warner Suckers Progress Reports 2008 Abstract -- The Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) is endemic to the Warner Valley, an endorheic subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. This species was historically abundant and its historical range includes three permanent lakes (Hart, Crump, and Pelican), several ephemeral lakes, a network of sloughs and diversion canals, and three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks). Warner sucker abundance and distribution has declined over the past century and it was federally listed as threatened in 1985 due to habitat fragmentation and threats posed by the proliferation of piscivorous non-native game fishes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). The Warner Valley is a northeast-southwest trending endorheic basin which extends approximately 90 km (Figure 1). The elevation of the valley floor is approximately 1,370 m and the basin is bound by fault block escarpments, the Warner Rim on the west and Hart Mountain and Poker Jim Ridge on the east. The Warner basin was formed during the middle Tertiary and late Quaternary geologic periods as a result of volcanic and tectonic activity (Baldwin 1976). Abundant precipitation during the Pleistocene Epoch resulted in the formation of Pluvial Lake Warner (Hubbs and Miller 1948). At its maximum extent approximately 11,000 years ago, the lake reached approximately 100 m in depth and 1,300 km2 in area (Snyder et al. 1964, Weide 1975). In 2008, precipitation and snow pack were near average and Hart and Crump Lakes never filled completely. In 2007, Crump Lake water levels were very low with less than a quarter of the surface area wetted during the winter. Both lakes have been watered continuously since 1993. The Warner sucker inhabits the lakes and low gradient stream reaches of the Warner Valley. Two life history forms are present that comprise the metapopulation of Warner suckers: lake and stream morphs. The lake suckers are lacustrine adfluvial or potamodromous fish which normally spawn in the streams. However, upstream migration may be blocked by low stream flows during dry water years or by irrigation diversion dams and spawning may occur in nearshore areas of the lakes (White et al. 1990). The stream suckers inhabit and spawn in the three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks). Large lake-dwelling populations of introduced fishes in the lakes likely reduce sucker recruitment by predation on young suckers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) sets recovery criteria for delisting the species. These criteria require that (1) a self-sustaining metapopulation is distributed throughout the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages, and in Pelican, Crump, and Hart Lakes, (2) passage is restored within and among the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages so that the individual populations of Warner suckers can function as a metapopulation, and (3) no threats exist that would likely threaten the survival of the species over a significant portion of its range. In 2008, we conducted investigations in Hart and Crump Lakes to quantify the abundance and distribution of Warner suckers, to search for evidence of recent recruitment, and to estimate sucker abundance relative to nonnative fish abundance. In addition we investigated growth and movement patterns. We used Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tagged suckers to determine growth rates and movements, tracked radio-tagged suckers to document seasonal spawning migrations, fished a screw trap in Twelvemile Creek to monitor downstream movements, and operated a trap at the Dyke diversion dam on Twentymile Creek to monitor upstream movements. Title: Warner Valley Fish Investigations- Warner Suckers Progress Reports 2008 Abstract -- The Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) is endemic to the Warner Valley, an endorheic subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. This species was historically abundant and its historical range includes three permanent lakes (Hart, Crump, and Pelican), several ephemeral lakes, a network of sloughs and diversion canals, and three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks). Warner sucker abundance and distribution has declined over the past century and it was federally listed as threatened in 1985 due to habitat fragmentation and threats posed by the proliferation of piscivorous non-native game fishes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). The Warner Valley is a northeast-southwest trending endorheic basin which extends approximately 90 km (Figure 1). The elevation of the valley floor is approximately 1,370 m and the basin is bound by fault block escarpments, the Warner Rim on the west and Hart Mountain and Poker Jim Ridge on the east. The Warner basin was formed during the middle Tertiary and late Quaternary geologic periods as a result of volcanic and tectonic activity (Baldwin 1976). Abundant precipitation during the Pleistocene Epoch resulted in the formation of Pluvial Lake Warner (Hubbs and Miller 1948). At its maximum extent approximately 11,000 years ago, the lake reached approximately 100 m in depth and 1,300 km2 in area (Snyder et al. 1964, Weide 1975). In 2008, precipitation and snow pack were near average and Hart and Crump Lakes never filled completely. In 2007, Crump Lake water levels were very low with less than a quarter of the surface area wetted during the winter. Both lakes have been watered continuously since 1993. The Warner sucker inhabits the lakes and low gradient stream reaches of the Warner Valley. Two life history forms are present that comprise the metapopulation of Warner suckers: lake and stream morphs. The lake suckers are lacustrine adfluvial or potamodromous fish which normally spawn in the streams. However, upstream migration may be blocked by low stream flows during dry water years or by irrigation diversion dams and spawning may occur in nearshore areas of the lakes (White et al. 1990). The stream suckers inhabit and spawn in the three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks). Large lake-dwelling populations of introduced fishes in the lakes likely reduce sucker recruitment by predation on young suckers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) sets recovery criteria for delisting the species. These criteria require that (1) a self-sustaining metapopulation is distributed throughout the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages, and in Pelican, Crump, and Hart Lakes, (2) passage is restored within and among the Twentymile, Honey, and Deep Creek (below the falls) drainages so that the individual populations of Warner suckers can function as a metapopulation, and (3) no threats exist that would likely threaten the survival of the species over a significant portion of its range. In 2008, we conducted investigations in Hart and Crump Lakes to quantify the abundance and distribution of Warner suckers, to search for evidence of recent recruitment, and to estimate sucker abundance relative to nonnative fish abundance. In addition we investigated growth and movement patterns. We used Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tagged suckers to determine growth rates and movements, tracked radio-tagged suckers to document seasonal spawning migrations, fished a screw trap in Twelvemile Creek to monitor downstream movements, and operated a trap at the Dyke diversion dam on Twentymile Creek to monitor upstream movements. Close

• 25. [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