Search

Search Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 466. [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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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