Search
Search Results
-
481. [Article] Abundance Monitoring of Juvenile Salmonids In Oregon Coastal and Lower Columbia Streams, 2007 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2008-1
Abstract -- As part of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated a project in 1998 to monitor the trend in abundance and distribution of juvenile ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Abundance Monitoring of Juvenile Salmonids In Oregon Coastal and Lower Columbia Streams, 2007 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2008-1
Abstract -- As part of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated a project in 1998 to monitor the trend in abundance and distribution of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) rearing in Oregon coastal streams. Monitoring is currently designed to provide annual abundance and distribution information at the stratum-scale (described in Jepsen and Leader 2007) for each of several coho evolutionarily significant units (ESU’s) and steelhead distinct population segments (DPS’s), and to eventually use these annual data to provide longterm trend information. Ultimately these juvenile fish data will be used to investigate relationships between freshwater habitat characteristics, adult spawner abundance, and juvenile recruitment. This progress report summarizes abundance and distribution data collected in 2007 for each ESU and DPS, and for the Oregon Coast Coho ESU includes a time series for abundance data for all years of monitoring. A fuller description of the OCC, OCS, SONCC and KMPS sampling frames, study design and survey methods, is found in Jepsen and Rodgers (2004) and for the LCRC and LCRS frames in Jepsen and Leader (2007). The strata are diagramed in Figure 1 and organized in subsequent tables. At a subset of the OCC sites, this project also collects water temperature data and macroinvertebrate data in conjunction with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. These data will be reported separately, and can be requested from project staff. In addition, the project re-initiated a snorkel and electrofishing verification study in the Smith River basin, which will be summarized in a separate report.
-
482. [Article] Recovery of Wild Coho Salmon in Salmon River Basin, 2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2009-10
Abstract -- Recovery and conservation of naturally self-sustaining salmon populations is a central goal of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. In 1998, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Recovery of Wild Coho Salmon in Salmon River Basin, 2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2009-10
Abstract -- Recovery and conservation of naturally self-sustaining salmon populations is a central goal of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. In 1998, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated a comprehensive program to monitor the status of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations and aquatic habitat in coastal drainages of Oregon (OWEB 2003). A 2005 assessment by ODFW concluded that Oregon coastal coho were viable at the scale of the Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) and demonstrated resilience in response to improving ocean conditions. Yet 7 of 21 (33%) individual populations within the ESU failed one or more of five criteria used to assess viability (Chilcote et al. 2005), and it is uncertain whether productivity levels across the ESU will recover sufficiently to withstand future periods of poor ocean conditions. The coho population in Salmon River was the only population in the ESU to fail all five viability criteria. Uncertainty remains about the response of Oregon coastal coho salmon to different combinations of freshwater and marine limiting factors, complicating recovery efforts (Lawson 1993; Lawson et al. 2004; IMST 2006). Such uncertainty cannot be resolved entirely by existing Oregon Plan monitoring programs, which target only a portion of the habitats and coho salmon life stages in large river basins, and with few exceptions (e.g., Johnson et al. 2005), were not designed to test population responses to individual management manipulations. In 2007, in response to the failure of viability criteria, ODFW managers discontinued releases of hatchery coho salmon into Salmon River as one of the primary management actions under the Oregon Conservation Plan for the Oregon Coast Coho Evolutionarily Significant Unit (hereafter “coho plan,” Nicholas 2006). This change affords the first opportunity in Oregon to monitor the results of a large scale experiment in removing hatchery coho salmon from a basin for at least four generations (twelve years). Hatchery production has been a centerpiece of salmon management for decades, but rarely has full recovery from hatchery influence been given a chance to succeed. Salmon River offers a test basin to explore whether an independent population of coho salmon can recover from a prolonged period of very low abundance following removal of the primary factor limiting productivity. Here we describe the first year of a study to monitor the dynamics of the coho salmon population in the Salmon River basin on the central Oregon coast and to determine whether management changes targeting both hatchery influence and stream habitat complexity improve population viability. This research will validate assumptions about factors limiting coho recovery and determine whether recovery measures proposed by the Coho Plan have been effective. Our research is designed to document changes in population abundance, distribution, and life history structure of coho salmon following the removal of hatchery coho salmon from the watershed. It integrates adult, juvenile, and habitat components to establish links and describe variability between juvenile performance and adult recovery. It also monitors the coho salmon population across habitat types and life history stages to identify population responses at a landscape scale. We will establish the link between productivity and survival at each salmon life stage and recovery of the adult population. From these indicators, we will determine the potential resiliency of coho salmon, detail the biological benefits/tradeoffs of returning the ecosystem to natural salmon production, and assess whether supplementation should remain an option in Salmon River. As a conceptual framework, our research design and analyses are guided by the “viable salmonid population” criteria identified by McElhany (2000) and modified by Chilcote et al. (2005) and Nicholas (2006), including abundance, productivity, distribution, diversity, and habitat quality. The results of our new research will be integrated with habitat survey and adult population data collected under the existing Oregon Plan monitoring program and coho salmon population and life history data available from previous Salmon River surveys (Mullen 1978, 1979; Cornwell et al. 2001; Bottom et al 2005; Volk et al. in review). Together these data will address four principal objectives: 1. Quantify viability of the coho salmon population before and after hatchery coho salmon are removed from Salmon River. 2. Assess whether viability of the Salmon River coho population is limited by quantity and complexity of stream habitat. 3. Describe the diversity of juvenile and adult life histories of coho salmon in the Salmon River basin and estimate the relative contributions of alternate juvenile life history to adult returns. 4. Determine salmonid use and benefits of restored tidal wetlands before and after hatchery coho salmon are removed from Salmon River. By synthesizing historic data with new information for the Salmon River basin, we will compare population structure during three distinct periods – pre-hatchery (1974-77), hatchery (1990-2008), and post-hatchery (2009-2013). This annual report discusses the activities and findings from 2008, the first year of the multi-year project, including coho salmon distribution and abundance on the Salmon River spawning grounds, juvenile abundance and distribution in the watershed and estuary, migration timing, and life history diversity.
-
483. [Article] Smith River Steelhead and Coho Monitoring Verification Study, 2007 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2009-11
Abstract -- Monitoring the status of salmonids in Oregon coastal streams is an important component of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) contribution to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Smith River Steelhead and Coho Monitoring Verification Study, 2007 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2009-11
Abstract -- Monitoring the status of salmonids in Oregon coastal streams is an important component of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) contribution to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Since 1998, ODFW has implemented a probabilistic sampling design (Stevens 2002) to monitor adult and juvenile coho in Oregon coastal streams. In 2002, ODFW expanded its monitoring program to include steelhead. Monitoring is occurring coast wide and relies on the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP, Stevens and Olsen 1999) for site selection and to produce fish abundance metrics at large spatial scales. Juvenile monitoring is conducted using snorkel survey protocols. The Smith River Steelhead and Coho Monitoring Verification Study is an effort to evaluate how well visual counts compare with removal estimates as a monitoring tool at the basin scale and to provide information on the relationship of monitoring data collected coast wide to actual populations. This report will summarize juvenile salmonid data collected by snorkeling and electrofishing in the Smith River basin during the summer of 2007 and provide a comparative analysis of several years’ data of how the estimates from the two methods correspond to each other and to the spawning survey estimates of adult fish above Smith River Falls. Information on the relationship of coast wide snorkel counts on the basin scale to actual population status will be presented in a synthesis report covering all years of this study.
-
484. [Article] Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program, 1999-2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2010-6
Abstract -- State and federal agencies have invested millions of dollars to restore streams and watersheds in the Pacific Northwest over the past two decades. In Oregon alone, over 500 million dollars ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program, 1999-2008 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2010-6
Abstract -- State and federal agencies have invested millions of dollars to restore streams and watersheds in the Pacific Northwest over the past two decades. In Oregon alone, over 500 million dollars has been spent on completed projects from 1995 to 2007 (Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 2009). Restoration practitioners have distributed the investment among watershed scale activities such as road repair, dam removal, and upland management, and stream scale activities such as passage, instream complexity, and riparian plantings. The Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program (WOSRP) was established to work in cooperation with private and corporate landowners to restore stream habitat for juvenile and adult salmonids. In addition to the WOSRP, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) funds restoration projects with local watershed councils, who commonly partner with state and federal agencies. Eight WOSRP restoration biologists in Tillamook, Newport, Charleston, Gold Beach, Roseburg, Clackamas, and Salem select sites and implement projects consistent with the criteria described in Thom et al (2001). A monitoring component is integrated in the program, with surveys coordinated and reported by a biologist in Corvallis. The goal of the monitoring program is to assess the long term effectiveness of instream restoration projects implemented by WOSRP, and to evaluate progress towards salmon conservation and recovery goals in Oregon’s coastal basins. The WOSRP restoration sites are distributed throughout the Willamette, Lower Columbia, and coastal drainage's. Restoration treatments added large wood and/or boulders, improved fish passage, planted trees in riparian areas, or were a combination of the three. Large wood was placed in complex jams at intervals throughout the stream to increase stream roughness and complexity. Boulders were sometimes used in conjunction with wood jams to provide stability to the structures, and prevent large wood from moving downstream and posing a hazard to culverts and bridges. Bedrock dominated streams were often treated with boulders to collect gravel and cobble, intended to aggrade the streambed. In the future, large wood may be added to these streams. Fish passage projects opened previously inaccessible habitat to juvenile and/or adult salmonids while riparian plantings and fencing were designed to improve riparian vegetation and bank structure. The project length varied from site to site. Fish passage sites were quite short, but provided access to kilometers of fish habitat, and large wood sites were up to several kilometers in length. Large wood and boulder placement projects have become commonplace in the Pacific Northwest to restore complex stream habitat for juvenile coho and other salmonids (Katz et al. 2007, Roni et al. 2008). Detailed assessments have been published for individual projects or experiments (e.g. Moore and Gregory, 1988, Nickelson et al. 1992, Cederholm et al.1997). More extensive evaluations have used a post treatment design (Hicks et al 1991, Roni and Quinn 2001), but none have used a pre- and post treatment design. In this paper we evaluate habitat changes at 103 restoration projects in western Oregon from pre-treatment to one year post treatment to 6 years following treatment. Projects commonly treated 0.5 – 1 km of stream, but some extended up to 6 km. The projects we evaluated in this paper were treated with large logs, usually arranged in jams, and were not cabled or driven into banks or bottom. As of 2008, the OWEB and WOSRP projects have treated approximately 750 km of stream with large wood (Figure 1), 120 km with boulders, and over 4,000 km of stream have been made accessible by replacing and/or removing culverts. Each year, OWEB receives 210 grant applications for restoration projects. These projects generally adhere to a similar selection process and design, so the results of this study can be expected to apply more broadly within the Pacific Northwest. Roni et al (2008), in a synthesis paper, summarized many of the potential physical benefits of restoration; these include pool depth and frequency, habitat complexity, woody debris, and sediment retention and quality of spawning gravel. Some projects in deeply incised channels have reduced the incision and increased bed elevation. Evaluations of biological responses have been confounded by natural variability of populations, duration of study, or length of stream examined. For example, determination of success based on spawning ground counts is problematic because of variation in ocean survival. However, longer duration and watershed scale studies have shown positive responses of juvenile and adult salmon (Johnson et al 2005). Burnett et al. (2008) conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles to examine the effects of large wood placement on salmonid abundance, growth, or survival, or on overall stream habitat complexity. Few publications were both relevant and met the rigorous standards outlined in their review. Although the review supported short term improvements in habitat complexity, the relationship to salmonid productivity was less definitive. Notable exceptions included Johnson et al. (2005) cited above, and Solazzi et al. (2000). An alternative approach to directly assessing biological response is to model potential changes in abundance or productivity. The Habitat Limiting Factors Model (Reeves et al. 1989, Nickelson et al.1992a, Nickelson 1998) was developed to quantify the carrying capacity of coastal streams for juvenile coho during the summer and winter. Use of this model is appropriate because most of the instream restoration projects in western Oregon were intended to improve habitat for juvenile coho. In this paper, we evaluated the physical response directly, and quantified the potential response of juvenile coho salmon by application of the Habitat Limiting Factors Model. Project effectiveness monitoring requires linking the restoration treatment to improved physical conditions for and biological response of salmon (Katz et al. 2007) and defining desired outcomes (Rumps et al. 2007). Because the WOSRP projects were designed to improve ecological and hydrologic stream function specifically for salmonids, we evaluated 1) retention of wood structures, 2) natural recruitment of additional wood, 3) increase in pool number, area, and depth, 4) retention of gravels and sorting of finer substrates, and 5) increase in channel complexity – secondary channels and off-channel habitats. Biological evaluation was based on estimates of the potential carrying capacity for juvenile coho during the overwinter life stage. The primary objectives of this evaluation are to test for these changes one year following treatment and 6 years following treatment. Secondarily, we evaluated the response of the projects by geographic location and position along the stream network. Previous WOSRP monitoring reports (e.g. Jacobsen and Jones 2003, Jacobsen et al. 2007) have focused on conditions one year following treatment, with relatively few sites assessed 2-3 years following restoration. Since 2003, the restoration projects have increased in complexity – more and larger pieces and jams, and treated more kilometers of stream length per site. The WOSRP program has provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the effects of restoration projects over longer times and broader geographic scales than previously feasible. We have been surveying the restoration sites in both summer and winter to monitor changes in stream habitat and evaluate the success of treatments, such as the placement of wood and/or boulders and fish passage. Surveys are logistically easier to manage in the summer, but surveys conducted during the winter provide a more timely and accurate assessment of over-winter rearing potential for juvenile coho. Because we have paired surveys, we are able to assess the added value of revisits across seasons. We test the hypothesis that habitat characteristics at the restoration sites do not change from summer to winter. The findings permit us to modify the survey program if the information is duplicative, and use the resources in another fashion.
-
485. [Article] Amphibian Distribution in Wadeable Streams and Ponds in Western and Southeast Oregon, 2009-2010 Progress Reports 2011
Abstract -- The ODFW Oregon Conservation Strategy identified monitoring needs for 17 amphibian species native to the state of Oregon that are designated as “Strategy Species”, or “Species of Greatest Conservation ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Amphibian Distribution in Wadeable Streams and Ponds in Western and Southeast Oregon, 2009-2010 Progress Reports 2011
Abstract -- The ODFW Oregon Conservation Strategy identified monitoring needs for 17 amphibian species native to the state of Oregon that are designated as “Strategy Species”, or “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” (per USFWS requirements for State Wildlife Action Plans). The distribution of many species of amphibians in western Oregon is sparsely documented (Oregon Conservation Strategy, page 27). Although a broad-scale survey for amphibian presence would provide important baseline information about amphibian species composition and distribution, most studies have focused on limited areas. The majority of Oregon’s amphibians rely on aquatic habitats at some point of their life, either for breeding and juvenile development or to inhabit as adults. Most aquatic amphibians breed from late winter to early summer, and adults frequently remain in or near their breeding sites into the summer. Most tadpoles and juvenile amphibians are also active in and occupy aquatic habitats during the summer. Ongoing aquatic habitat and fish surveys are opportunities to observe species and life stages (breeding adults, tadpoles and juveniles) that occupy aquatic or riparian habitats during the summer. One cost-effective approach is to combine amphibian surveys with existing aquatic habitat and fish surveys such as those conducted as part of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OCSRI 1997). The Oregon Plan has been in place since 1997 and the monitoring component provides a survey framework for streams in the lower Columbia River and Oregon coast drainages. The sampling framework is also compatible with implementation of the aquatic components of the Conservation Strategy, as demonstrated by this study. This study describes the presence of amphibians in and along wadeable streams in coast and lower Columbia River drainages of Oregon, ponds and sloughs in the Willamette Valley, and selected streams in the Great Basin of southeast and central Oregon. As a component of monitoring under the Oregon Plan, the Aquatic Inventories Project (AIP) conducts aquatic habitat surveys at randomly selected and spatially balanced sites across all 1st through 4th order streams in coastal and lower Columbia River drainages. The purpose of the habitat surveys is to describe stream morphology, instream physical habitat, and riparian vegetation. Because the surveyors were already observing features within and alongside the stream channel, they were able to record observations of amphibians. The advantage of coupling an amphibian component with the OR Plan aquatic surveys was that it not only was an efficient use of resources, but more importantly, provided information using a statistically rigorous survey design across a broad geographic area. The Native Fish Investigations Project began a six year study in 2007 to document the distribution and abundance of redband trout in the Great Basin region of Eastern Oregon. The site selection procedure is comparable to the statistical standards as the Oregon Plan survey design. Amphibian data are also collected during three other survey projects, and although the site selection procedure does not conform to the same statistical standards as the Oregon Plan survey design, the projects offer a number of opportunities to collect amphibian occurrence information over a wide variety of habitats. The amphibian observations from these three projects are also included in this report. The three projects are as follows: AIP conducts aquatic habitat surveys on selected streams throughout the state. AIP conducts aquatic habitat surveys at stream habitat restoration projects in Western Oregon. Native Fish Project conducts surveys of pond and slough sites for Oregon chub in the Willamette Valley. Due to the success of the 2007 and 2008 field studies, we continued our research during the summer of 2009 and 2010 to improve our knowledge of distribution and community structure of amphibians. The summer 2009 and 2010 surveys took place in 9 of Oregon’s 10 ecoregions (Figure 1) (Thorson et al. 2003). Ecoregions provide a framework for discussing amphibian distribution across the state because they are relatively large areas defined by distinctive geographic and ecological (flora and fauna) characteristics. The goals of our 2009-2010 work were to: Increase the consistency, efficiency and ability of habitat crews in identifying amphibians through improved training. Increase knowledge of distribution, community structure, and habitat associations of amphibians in streams in: Western Oregon coastal and lower Columbia drainages. Ponds, sloughs and other off-channel aquatic habitats in the Willamette Valley. Great Basin of eastern Oregon and selected streams in central Oregon. Combine the 2009-2010 observations with the 2007-2008 results.
-
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
- Title:
- Spring Chinook in the Willamette and Sandy Basins, Progress Reports 2006-2007
Abstract -- The Willamette and Sandy rivers support intense recreational fisheries for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries in these basins rely primarily on annual hatchery releases of 5–8 million juveniles. Hatchery programs exist in the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, North and South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers mainly as mitigation for dams that blocked natural production areas. Some natural spawning occurs in most of the major basins and a few smaller tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy (ODFW 2003a) and the Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003b) in part to reduce adverse impacts of hatchery programs on wild native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy recognizes that naturally produced native fish are the foundation for long-term sustainability of native species and hatchery programs, and the fisheries they support. Possible risks of artificial propagation programs have been well documented. Hazards include disease transfer, competition for food and spawning sites, increased predation, increased incidental mortality from harvest, loss of genetic variability, genetic drift, and domestication (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard et al. 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993; Busack and Currens 1995; NRC 1996; and Waples 1999). Hatcheries can also play a positive role for wild salmonids by bolstering populations, especially those on the verge of extirpation, by providing a genetic reserve as well as providing opportunities for nutrient enrichment of streams (Steward and Bjornn 1990; Cuenco et al. 1993). In the past, hatchery programs and fish passage issues were the focus of spring Chinook salmon management in the Willamette and Sandy basins. Limited information was collected on the genetic structure among basin populations, on abundance and distribution of natural spawning, on rearing and migrating of juvenile salmon, or on strategies for reducing risks that large hatchery programs pose for wild salmon populations. This study is being implemented to gather this information. A schematic of the study plan is shown in APPENDIX A. We conducted work in the main-stem Willamette River above Willamette Falls, and in the Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie, North Santiam, South Santiam, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers in 2006 and 2007. Basin descriptions and background information on management and fish runs can be found in subbasin plans developed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW 1988, ODFW 1992a, ODFW 1992b, and ODFW 1996). Task headings below cross reference the study plan outlined in APPENDIX A. This report covers tasks that were worked on in late 2005 through early fall 2007.
-
487. [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
- 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.
-
488. [Article] Information Report 2018-04, Smolt Abundance Estimates for the Oregon Coast Coho Evolutionarily Significant Unit
Abstract -- Analysis of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolt abundance can provide insight on freshwater habitat capacity and factors affecting salmonid persistence. To explore these relationships ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Information Report 2018-04, Smolt Abundance Estimates for the Oregon Coast Coho Evolutionarily Significant Unit
Abstract -- Analysis of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolt abundance can provide insight on freshwater habitat capacity and factors affecting salmonid persistence. To explore these relationships we linked multi-year data sets of overwinter survival rates from three streams within the Oregon Coast Coho Evolutionarily Significant Unit (OCC) to summer parr abundance estimates from calibrated OCC-wide snorkel survey counts to estimate annual Coho Salmon smolt abundance from 2000-2017. Smolt abundance estimates ranged from a low of 0.9 million in 2000 to a high of 4.1 million in 2013 within the OCC. Accuracy of the smolt abundance estimates was tested using two datasets: (i) adult abundance modeled from the corresponding smolt abundance estimate was compared with adult abundance derived empirically from spawning ground surveys and (ii) our smolt abundance estimates were compared with smolt abundance estimates from trapping efforts in select basins within the OCC. Adult abundance modeled from smolt abundance estimates was highly correlated with adult abundance from spawning ground surveys (r = 0.88, p < 0.001) and smolt abundance estimates correlated with abundance from smolt trapping efforts (r = 0.81, p <0.001). Graphical relationships between smolt abundance and parental abundance suggest that freshwater productivity may be limited in the OCC by density dependent processes at spawner levels observed since 1998. Additionally, smolt abundance estimates have potential use as a variable in adult forecast models and could be used to assess trends in freshwater productivity and to probe factors of density dependence.
-
489. [Article] Oregon Chub Investigations, Progress Report 2001
Abstract -- Populations of Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, endemic to the Willamette Valley, have been drastically reduced. Factors in the decline of this fish include changes in flow regimes and habitat ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Oregon Chub Investigations, Progress Report 2001
Abstract -- Populations of Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, endemic to the Willamette Valley, have been drastically reduced. Factors in the decline of this fish include changes in flow regimes and habitat characteristics resulting from the construction of flood control dams, revetments, channelization, diking, and the drainage of wetlands. The Oregon chub is further threatened by predation and competition by non-native species such as largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, small mouth bass M. dolomieui, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We surveyed in the Willamette River drainage in April-October 2000 to quantify existing Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations. We sampled a total of 77 sites in 2000. We collected Oregon chub for the first time from Barnard Slough in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage. Oregon chub were last collected from this location in 1983 (Bond 1984). Thirty-one of the 77 sites were new sites that were sampled for the first time in 2000. Forty-six sites, sampled in 1991-1999, were revisited. Three sites were sampled twice. We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 20 locations. These include naturally occurring populations in the Santiam drainage (Geren Island, Santiam Conservation Easement, Gray Slough, Santiam 1-5 backwaters, Pioneer Park backwater, Santiam Public Works Pond), Mid-Willamette drainage (Finley Gray Creek Swamp) and Middle Fork Willamette drainage (Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Buckhead Creek, Oakridge Slough, Elijah Bristow State Park, Rattlesnake Creek, and Hospital Pond) and introduced populations in the Middle Fork Willamette (Wicopee Pond, Fall Creek Spillway Ponds), Santiam (Foster Pullout Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Dunn Wetland, Finley Display Pond). Oregon chub were not found at several locations (Jasper Park Slough, Wallace Slough, East Ferrin Pond, Dexter East Alcove, Hospital lmpoundment Pond, Logan Slough, Green's Bridge Backwater, Camas Swale) where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-1999 (Scheerer et. al. 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1998; 1999; 2000; Scheerer and Jones 1997). Non-native fish were common in off-channel habitats that were surveyed in the Willamette River drainage. Non-native fish were collected from 23 of the 31 new sites sampled in 1999 (74%); no fish were collected at three locations (10%). Western mosquitofish and centrarchids (largemouth bass and bluegill) were the most common non-native fish collected. Oregon chub were introduced into Menear's Bend Pond in the Santiam River drainage in the October 2000. Additional Oregon chub were introduced into Foster Pullout Pond in October 2000, to supplement the 85 fish introduced in 1999. In the summer of 2000, a habitat enhancement project creating new habitat to benefit Oregon chub was completed in the Long Tom drainage (Mid-Willamette River). Seven potential Oregon chub reintroduction sites were monitored and evaluated. These included four sites in the Mid-Willamette River drainage (Finley National Wildlife Refuge Beaver and Cattail Ponds, Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge Dunlin-Woodduck Pond, Long Tom Ranch Pond), one site in the Santiam River drainage (Menear's Bend Pond), one site in the McKenzie River drainage (Russell Pond), and one site in the Coast Fork Willamette drainage (Layng Pond). Estimates of abundance were obtained for naturally occurring populations of Oregon chub in East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Elijah Bristow State Park Sloughs, Hospital Pond, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Buckhead Creek, Oakridge Slough, Santiam Conservation Easement Sloughs, Geren Island Ponds, and Finley Gray Creek Swamp. Five of these populations showed an increase in abundance in 2000 (East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Middle Buckhead Creek, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Finley Gray Creek Swamp). Four populations decreased in abundance (or remain depressed) in 2000 (Geren Island, Santiam Conservation Easement, Elijah Bristow Sloughs, Oakridge Slough) (Table 1 ). Abundance estimates for introduced populations of Oregon chub were also obtained. The Oregon chub population in East Ferrin Pond declined from 7,200 fish in 1997 to O fish in 2000, and is presumed extinct. The Oregon chub population in the Fall Creek Spillway Pond totaled 5,030 fish in 2000, compared to 6,300 fish in 1999. The Oregon chub population in Wicopee Pond expanded dramatically from ~50 fish in 1999 to 4,580 fish in 2000. The Oregon chub population in the Dunn Wetland Ponds increased from 4,860 fish in 1999 to 14,090 fish in 2000. The Oregon chub population in Finley Display Pond increased from 360 fish in 1999 to 1,750 fish in 2000. Three of the four largest populations in 2000 were introduced populations. The Middle Fork Willamette River drainage supported the largest number of Oregon chub populations (n=12), followed by the Santiam drainage (n=B), and the Mid-Willamette drainage (n=5). The most abundant Oregon chub populations were found in the Middle Fork Willamette and Mid-Willamette drainages. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set a recovery goal for downlisting the species to "threatened" and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species was to establish and manage ten populations of at least 500 adult fish. All populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years. At least three populations must be located in each of the three sub-basins (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2000, there were 11 populations totaling 500 or more individuals and six of these populations exhibited a stable or increasing trend for the past five years (Table 1 ). Five of these six populations were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage. In summary, Oregon chub remain at risk due to their limited distribution compared with their historic geographic range in the Willamette Valley, the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, unauthorized fill and removal operations, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications.
-
490. [Article] Progress Reports 2004: 2004 Oregon Chub Investigations
Abstract -- Oregon chub are endemic to the Willamette River drainage of western Oregon (Markle et al. 1991). This species was formerly distributed throughout the Willamette River Valley (Snyder 1908) in ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Progress Reports 2004: 2004 Oregon Chub Investigations
Abstract -- Oregon chub are endemic to the Willamette River drainage of western Oregon (Markle et al. 1991). This species was formerly distributed throughout the Willamette River Valley (Snyder 1908) in off-channel habitats such as beaver ponds, oxbows, stable backwater sloughs, and flooded marshes. These habitats usually have little or no water flow, have silty and organic substrate, and have an abundance of aquatic vegetation and cover for hiding and spawning. In the last 100 years, off-channel habitats have disappeared because of changes in seasonal flows resulting from the construction of dams throughout the basin, channelization of the Willamette River and its tributaries, and agricultural practices. This loss of habitat combined with the introduction of non-native species to the Willamette Valley resulted in a sharp decline in Oregon chub abundance. The reduction of habitat and the restricted distribution of the Oregon chub resulted in a determination of "endangered" status under the federal endangered species act (Markle and Pearsons 1990; Rhew 1993). To evaluate Oregon chub population abundance and distribution, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife conducted surveys in April-October 2004. We conducted similar surveys in 1991-2003 (Scheerer et. al. 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1998; 1999; 2000; 2001; 2002; 2003; 2004; Scheerer and Jones 1997). The survey objectives were to collect information on the status, distribution, and abundance of Oregon chub, the presence of non-native and native species, the characteristics of Oregon chub habitats, the characteristics of potential introduction sites, and to evaluate the success of Oregon chub introductions. In addition, we reviewed and evaluated projects and activities with the potential to impact Oregon chub and their habitats and provided summaries to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.