Search

Search Results

• 201. [Article] Lower Coast Fork Willamette River Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- This watershed assessment of the lower Coast Fork Willamette (from the confluence with the Row River downstream to the confluence with the Middle Fork Willamette River) includes chapters on ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower Coast Fork Willamette River Watershed Assessment Abstract -- This watershed assessment of the lower Coast Fork Willamette (from the confluence with the Row River downstream to the confluence with the Middle Fork Willamette River) includes chapters on land ownership; history and geology; hydrology and water use; channel habitat types; riparian zone conditions; wetland types, distribution and functions; sediment sources; water quality; stream channel modifications; fish populations and habitat; references; and numerous tables and charts. Existing information was supplemented by a Council-sponsored stream habitat inventory in some areas. The associated maps are in a separate pdf file. 87 pp. Title: Lower Coast Fork Willamette River Watershed Assessment Abstract -- This watershed assessment of the lower Coast Fork Willamette (from the confluence with the Row River downstream to the confluence with the Middle Fork Willamette River) includes chapters on land ownership; history and geology; hydrology and water use; channel habitat types; riparian zone conditions; wetland types, distribution and functions; sediment sources; water quality; stream channel modifications; fish populations and habitat; references; and numerous tables and charts. Existing information was supplemented by a Council-sponsored stream habitat inventory in some areas. The associated maps are in a separate pdf file. 87 pp. Close

• 202. [Article] Coos - Coquille Basin Estuarine Wetland Protection and Restoration Project, OWEB#99-803, 99-420

  Abstract -- This document describes a large and complex restoration project, beginning with an executive summary, and moving into site descriptions and background on the problems that instigated the project. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coos - Coquille Basin Estuarine Wetland Protection and Restoration Project, OWEB#99-803, 99-420 Abstract -- This document describes a large and complex restoration project, beginning with an executive summary, and moving into site descriptions and background on the problems that instigated the project. Further chapters cover a list of volunteers and participants, materials and methods used, results, evaluation of results, and final accounting. The 14 appendices, in a separate document, contain aerial photos and topo maps of each site. 37 pp. Title: Coos - Coquille Basin Estuarine Wetland Protection and Restoration Project, OWEB#99-803, 99-420 Abstract -- This document describes a large and complex restoration project, beginning with an executive summary, and moving into site descriptions and background on the problems that instigated the project. Further chapters cover a list of volunteers and participants, materials and methods used, results, evaluation of results, and final accounting. The 14 appendices, in a separate document, contain aerial photos and topo maps of each site. 37 pp. Close

• 203. [Article] Bakeoven (Deschutes) Watershed Assessment, 2005

  Abstract -- The headwaters of the Bakeoven Watershed are located in the Shaniko area in southern Wasco County, east of the Deschutes River at elevations just above 3,200 feet. Bakeoven Creek flows to the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bakeoven (Deschutes) Watershed Assessment, 2005 Abstract -- The headwaters of the Bakeoven Watershed are located in the Shaniko area in southern Wasco County, east of the Deschutes River at elevations just above 3,200 feet. Bakeoven Creek flows to the Deschutes River at Maupin City Park. Chapters include historic conditions, stream channels, fish and fish habitat, hydrology, riparian conditions, wetlands, road network, water quality, wildlife and wildlife habitat, economic impacts of conservation, summary of issues and recommendations, Bakeoven Action Plan, watershed council goals and objectives, glossary, and references. Numerous tables, figures, and maps summarize data collections. 97 pp. Title: Bakeoven (Deschutes) Watershed Assessment, 2005 Abstract -- The headwaters of the Bakeoven Watershed are located in the Shaniko area in southern Wasco County, east of the Deschutes River at elevations just above 3,200 feet. Bakeoven Creek flows to the Deschutes River at Maupin City Park. Chapters include historic conditions, stream channels, fish and fish habitat, hydrology, riparian conditions, wetlands, road network, water quality, wildlife and wildlife habitat, economic impacts of conservation, summary of issues and recommendations, Bakeoven Action Plan, watershed council goals and objectives, glossary, and references. Numerous tables, figures, and maps summarize data collections. 97 pp. Close

• 204. [Article] ODFW Wildlife Linkages Datasets

  Abstract -- Two GIS datasets are contained in this record: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, under the Oregon Wildlife Movement Strategy and in partnership with other government agencies, has ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: ODFW Wildlife Linkages Datasets Abstract -- Two GIS datasets are contained in this record: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, under the Oregon Wildlife Movement Strategy and in partnership with other government agencies, has worked to produce this dataset of wildlife linkages, which are key movement areas for wildlife, emphasizing areas that cross paved roads. The primary goal of this dataset and its related attributes are to address the question: "Where is the best place on the landscape to provide for animal movement needs that are essential to life history function?" Title: ODFW Wildlife Linkages Datasets Abstract -- Two GIS datasets are contained in this record: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, under the Oregon Wildlife Movement Strategy and in partnership with other government agencies, has worked to produce this dataset of wildlife linkages, which are key movement areas for wildlife, emphasizing areas that cross paved roads. The primary goal of this dataset and its related attributes are to address the question: "Where is the best place on the landscape to provide for animal movement needs that are essential to life history function?" Close

• 205. [Article] Bull Trout Habitat Distribution

  Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bull Trout Habitat Distribution Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. Historical habitat includes suitable habitat that fish no longer access and will not access in the foreseeable future without human intervention. This information is based on sampling, the best professional opinion of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or other natural resources agency staff biologists or modeling (see the fhdBasis field). Due to natural variations in run size, water conditions, or other environmental factors, some habitats identified may not be used annually. These data comply with the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard that was adopted by the Oregon Geographic Information Council in February 2011. The Standard document can be found at: http://gis.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/standards/docs/OregonFishHabitatDistributionDataStandardv2.pdf Historical habitat distribution data are within the scope of the standard and are identified via the habitat use (fhdUseType) attribute. Historical habitats are only identified outside of currently accessible habitat and are not comprehensive. Key features of the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data include: species, run, life history, habitat use, origin, production, the basis for each record, originator name, originator entity and reference. Habitat distribution data are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale statewide and are based on the were originally developed against the Pacific Northwest Framework Hydrography dataset. The data are made available as GIS files in both shapefile and ESRI geodatabase format. The data were developed over an extensive time period ranging from 1996 to 2014. Data were migrated to the National Hydrography Dataset in 2014. The attached geodatabase includes distribution for Bull trout only. Note: Bull Trout habitat distribution for the upper Clackamas basin have not yet been added to this dataset. Title: Bull Trout Habitat Distribution Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. Historical habitat includes suitable habitat that fish no longer access and will not access in the foreseeable future without human intervention. This information is based on sampling, the best professional opinion of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or other natural resources agency staff biologists or modeling (see the fhdBasis field). Due to natural variations in run size, water conditions, or other environmental factors, some habitats identified may not be used annually. These data comply with the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard that was adopted by the Oregon Geographic Information Council in February 2011. The Standard document can be found at: http://gis.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/standards/docs/OregonFishHabitatDistributionDataStandardv2.pdf Historical habitat distribution data are within the scope of the standard and are identified via the habitat use (fhdUseType) attribute. Historical habitats are only identified outside of currently accessible habitat and are not comprehensive. Key features of the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data include: species, run, life history, habitat use, origin, production, the basis for each record, originator name, originator entity and reference. Habitat distribution data are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale statewide and are based on the were originally developed against the Pacific Northwest Framework Hydrography dataset. The data are made available as GIS files in both shapefile and ESRI geodatabase format. The data were developed over an extensive time period ranging from 1996 to 2014. Data were migrated to the National Hydrography Dataset in 2014. The attached geodatabase includes distribution for Bull trout only. Note: Bull Trout habitat distribution for the upper Clackamas basin have not yet been added to this dataset. Close

• 206. [Article] Oregon Conservation Strategy Habitats

  Abstract -- This dataset represents the extent and distribution of the habitats prioritized within the Oregon Conservation Strategy. Strategy Habitats are identified by ecoregion, and as such are only ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Conservation Strategy Habitats Abstract -- This dataset represents the extent and distribution of the habitats prioritized within the Oregon Conservation Strategy. Strategy Habitats are identified by ecoregion, and as such are only mapped within their associated Strategy Ecoregions (see http://oregonconservationstrategy.org/strategy-habitats/ for more information on all Strategy Habitats). The list of Strategy Habitats is: Aspen Woodlands, Coastal Dunes, Estuaries, Flowing Water and Riparian Habitats, Grasslands, Late Successional Mixed Conifer Forest, Natural Lakes, Oak Woodlands, Ponderosa Pine Woodlands, Sagebrush Habitats, and Wetlands. Title: Oregon Conservation Strategy Habitats Abstract -- This dataset represents the extent and distribution of the habitats prioritized within the Oregon Conservation Strategy. Strategy Habitats are identified by ecoregion, and as such are only mapped within their associated Strategy Ecoregions (see http://oregonconservationstrategy.org/strategy-habitats/ for more information on all Strategy Habitats). The list of Strategy Habitats is: Aspen Woodlands, Coastal Dunes, Estuaries, Flowing Water and Riparian Habitats, Grasslands, Late Successional Mixed Conifer Forest, Natural Lakes, Oak Woodlands, Ponderosa Pine Woodlands, Sagebrush Habitats, and Wetlands. Close

• 207. [Article] ODFW Conservation Opportunity Areas

  Abstract -- Conservation Opportunity Areas were developed for the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy to help identify priority areas for conservation actions that directly benefit wildlife and ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: ODFW Conservation Opportunity Areas Abstract -- Conservation Opportunity Areas were developed for the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy to help identify priority areas for conservation actions that directly benefit wildlife and habitats. Title: ODFW Conservation Opportunity Areas Abstract -- Conservation Opportunity Areas were developed for the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy to help identify priority areas for conservation actions that directly benefit wildlife and habitats. Close

• 208. [Article] OWEB Grant Number 208-2084 Project Completion Report - PUR Monitoring

  Abstract -- While it is assumed that habitat enhancement and fish passage improvements increase fish production, there is little empirical data to support that claim in the Umpqua Basin. The Umpqua District ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: OWEB Grant Number 208-2084 Project Completion Report - PUR Monitoring Abstract -- While it is assumed that habitat enhancement and fish passage improvements increase fish production, there is little empirical data to support that claim in the Umpqua Basin. The Umpqua District has used smolt traps in the past to both establish a baseline record and to attempt to determine any response to habitat enhancement (Brush, Hinkle, and Big Tom Folley Creeks). Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley were originally chosen as monitoring sites since they are similar in characteristics, and Brush was originally the treatment stream for restoration projects while Big Tom Folley was used as the control until later projects occurred. Currently, there are PUR habitat enhancement projects scheduled to take place within the Little Wolf Creek and Wolf Creek basins. In order to gain more insight as to whether restoration efforts improve fish populations and address limiting factors, baseline and post treatment surveys will be needed. Restoration that is planned in Wolf and Little Wolf Creeks in 2008 and 2009 provides a unique opportunity to examine stream and fish responses to log-only and boulder-only instream placements. Pre-treatment data exists on these streams for smolt outmigration, summer habitat, spawning adults, summer seeding, channel cross-sections and temperature. ODFW has been collecting smolt out-migration data at five sites in the Upper Umpqua and Elk Creek watersheds almost continuously for 15 years to monitor yearly trends and to calculate over-winter survival rates of coho and steelhead. This OWEB grant will add to this baseline data and provide funding to continue past monitoring and add new monitoring components. Continuous smolt trap data from Brush, Big Tom Folley, and Hinkle Creeks is important to future efforts to monitor watershed health. Extensive habitat enhancement and fish inventories have been completed within the Hinkle Creek, Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley Creek basins. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Umpqua Watershed District joined with the Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers (PUR) in an effort to continue ongoing juvenile monitoring within the Umpqua Basin. Since little is known about stream-specific limiting factors and fish production response to various habitat restoration treatments such as log or boulder placement, these long term data sets will help to understand the fish response aspect related to or resulting from habitat restoration projects. Title: OWEB Grant Number 208-2084 Project Completion Report - PUR Monitoring Abstract -- While it is assumed that habitat enhancement and fish passage improvements increase fish production, there is little empirical data to support that claim in the Umpqua Basin. The Umpqua District has used smolt traps in the past to both establish a baseline record and to attempt to determine any response to habitat enhancement (Brush, Hinkle, and Big Tom Folley Creeks). Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley were originally chosen as monitoring sites since they are similar in characteristics, and Brush was originally the treatment stream for restoration projects while Big Tom Folley was used as the control until later projects occurred. Currently, there are PUR habitat enhancement projects scheduled to take place within the Little Wolf Creek and Wolf Creek basins. In order to gain more insight as to whether restoration efforts improve fish populations and address limiting factors, baseline and post treatment surveys will be needed. Restoration that is planned in Wolf and Little Wolf Creeks in 2008 and 2009 provides a unique opportunity to examine stream and fish responses to log-only and boulder-only instream placements. Pre-treatment data exists on these streams for smolt outmigration, summer habitat, spawning adults, summer seeding, channel cross-sections and temperature. ODFW has been collecting smolt out-migration data at five sites in the Upper Umpqua and Elk Creek watersheds almost continuously for 15 years to monitor yearly trends and to calculate over-winter survival rates of coho and steelhead. This OWEB grant will add to this baseline data and provide funding to continue past monitoring and add new monitoring components. Continuous smolt trap data from Brush, Big Tom Folley, and Hinkle Creeks is important to future efforts to monitor watershed health. Extensive habitat enhancement and fish inventories have been completed within the Hinkle Creek, Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley Creek basins. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Umpqua Watershed District joined with the Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers (PUR) in an effort to continue ongoing juvenile monitoring within the Umpqua Basin. Since little is known about stream-specific limiting factors and fish production response to various habitat restoration treatments such as log or boulder placement, these long term data sets will help to understand the fish response aspect related to or resulting from habitat restoration projects. Close

• 209. [Article] ODFW Sage Grouse Core Areas

  Abstract -- Core Area Approach to Habitat Mitigation for Greater Sage-Grouse in Oregon: The goal of these recommendations is to protect essential habitats to meet habitat and population objectives identified ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: ODFW Sage Grouse Core Areas Abstract -- Core Area Approach to Habitat Mitigation for Greater Sage-Grouse in Oregon: The goal of these recommendations is to protect essential habitats to meet habitat and population objectives identified in this Plan. The objective of these recommendations is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for impacts on sage-grouse habitats from energy development, its associated infrastructure or other industrial/commercial developments. The rapid increase in energy development across the West in recent years has initiated a landscape approach to wildlife conservation, referred to as core areas (Doherty et al. 2011). The landscape approach prioritizes habitats based on measures that assess sage-grouse population and habitat relative abundance, and provides protection for a minimum of 75% of the population. The remaining 25% of the population area would be available for development with some level of stipulations and regulations, but likely at a reduced level. The strength of this approach is that it uses biological information to identify core areas with the objective of protecting the most important breeding areas. It also enables managers, at the landscape scale, to map and analyze the risks and necessary conservation measures for each core area. The limitation of this approach is that it focuses on breeding abundances. For sage-grouse the relative abundance data is drawn from spring lek counts of males. Thus, habitat conservation measures may be biased towards breeding and nesting only. Lek data have limitations as well including: variable sampling effort both spatially and temporally and detection probabilities have not been estimated for ground or aerial counts. Notwithstanding, these are the best data available for mapping sage-grouse distributions. Because the method outlined by Doherty et al. (2011) focuses on breeding habitats and ODFWs lek data is prone to variable sampling, an additional and complementary method was used to approximate seasonal use ranges, referred to as connectivity corridors. Using a home range estimator local and seasonal connectivity corridors were estimated. Thus, it is important to clarify some definitions about the mapping approach in Oregon. This document refers to Doherty's "core areas" (i.e., 25, 50, 75, 100%) as lek density strata. Lek density 25-75% polygons and the intersection of 100% strata and local connectivity polygons collectively define a "core area." Title: ODFW Sage Grouse Core Areas Abstract -- Core Area Approach to Habitat Mitigation for Greater Sage-Grouse in Oregon: The goal of these recommendations is to protect essential habitats to meet habitat and population objectives identified in this Plan. The objective of these recommendations is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for impacts on sage-grouse habitats from energy development, its associated infrastructure or other industrial/commercial developments. The rapid increase in energy development across the West in recent years has initiated a landscape approach to wildlife conservation, referred to as core areas (Doherty et al. 2011). The landscape approach prioritizes habitats based on measures that assess sage-grouse population and habitat relative abundance, and provides protection for a minimum of 75% of the population. The remaining 25% of the population area would be available for development with some level of stipulations and regulations, but likely at a reduced level. The strength of this approach is that it uses biological information to identify core areas with the objective of protecting the most important breeding areas. It also enables managers, at the landscape scale, to map and analyze the risks and necessary conservation measures for each core area. The limitation of this approach is that it focuses on breeding abundances. For sage-grouse the relative abundance data is drawn from spring lek counts of males. Thus, habitat conservation measures may be biased towards breeding and nesting only. Lek data have limitations as well including: variable sampling effort both spatially and temporally and detection probabilities have not been estimated for ground or aerial counts. Notwithstanding, these are the best data available for mapping sage-grouse distributions. Because the method outlined by Doherty et al. (2011) focuses on breeding habitats and ODFWs lek data is prone to variable sampling, an additional and complementary method was used to approximate seasonal use ranges, referred to as connectivity corridors. Using a home range estimator local and seasonal connectivity corridors were estimated. Thus, it is important to clarify some definitions about the mapping approach in Oregon. This document refers to Doherty's "core areas" (i.e., 25, 50, 75, 100%) as lek density strata. Lek density 25-75% polygons and the intersection of 100% strata and local connectivity polygons collectively define a "core area." Close

• 210. [Article] Habitat Data; South Fork Floras Creek

  Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat data for South Fork Floras Creek.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Habitat Data; South Fork Floras Creek Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat data for South Fork Floras Creek. Title: Habitat Data; South Fork Floras Creek Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat data for South Fork Floras Creek. Close

• 211. [Article] Habitat Surveys; Saunders Creek, Lower Rogue River

  Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat survey for Saunders Creek (Lower Rogue River).

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Habitat Surveys; Saunders Creek, Lower Rogue River Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat survey for Saunders Creek (Lower Rogue River). Title: Habitat Surveys; Saunders Creek, Lower Rogue River Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat survey for Saunders Creek (Lower Rogue River). Close

• 212. [Article] Habitat Surveys; Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River Watershed

  Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat surveys for Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River watershed.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Habitat Surveys; Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River Watershed Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat surveys for Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River watershed. Title: Habitat Surveys; Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River Watershed Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat surveys for Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River watershed. Close

• 213. [Article] ODFW Sage Grouse Action Areas

  Abstract -- A review of the Department’s Core Area and Conservation Opportunity maps was utilized to identify Action Areas that share common threats to sage-grouse. These Action Areas will help to focus ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: ODFW Sage Grouse Action Areas Abstract -- A review of the Department’s Core Area and Conservation Opportunity maps was utilized to identify Action Areas that share common threats to sage-grouse. These Action Areas will help to focus efforts for future habitat management actions and/or mitigation needs. Each Local Implementation Team (LIT) identified multiple Action Areas within their districts. The descriptions of threats and issues for each Action Area can be found in the meeting minutes for each LIT on ODFW’s website. Title: ODFW Sage Grouse Action Areas Abstract -- A review of the Department’s Core Area and Conservation Opportunity maps was utilized to identify Action Areas that share common threats to sage-grouse. These Action Areas will help to focus efforts for future habitat management actions and/or mitigation needs. Each Local Implementation Team (LIT) identified multiple Action Areas within their districts. The descriptions of threats and issues for each Action Area can be found in the meeting minutes for each LIT on ODFW’s website. Close

• 214. [Article] Luckiamute Rapid Bio-Assessment

  Abstract -- The 2011 Rapid Bio-Assessment inventory of the Luckiamute Watershed was a replicate inventory that attempted to target the most productive salmonid habitats in the basin. This was the fourth ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Luckiamute Rapid Bio-Assessment Abstract -- The 2011 Rapid Bio-Assessment inventory of the Luckiamute Watershed was a replicate inventory that attempted to target the most productive salmonid habitats in the basin. This was the fourth consecutive inventory in the basin designed to describe the distribution and relative abundance of coho, cutthroat trout and winter steelhead. The entire basin (214 stream miles) was inventoried in 2008 utilizing the RBA protocol which included many miles of dysfunctional aquatic habitats that currently exhibit deep channel entrenchment, elevated summer temperature profiles and provided limited summer production potential. Survey efforts were reduced to 96.6 stream miles in 2009 and covered only the highest quality habitat reaches. Surveys were further refined in 2010 to a subset of the highest quality habitats (90.2 stream miles) and reduced again in 2011 to 84.6 stream miles. Some streams in the basin were also surveyed in 2002 and 2003 in a separate effort funded by Boise Cascade, the previous owner of the current Forest Capital holdings. These included Beaver, Boulder, Clayton, Cougar, Miller, Pedee, Ritner, Sheythe, West Fork Luckiamute, Wolf, and approximately 7 miles of the upper Luckiamute mainstem. Results and comparisons to those surveys are included below in the Site Specific observations. The intent of the RBA inventory was to gather information on the status of juvenile salmonid summer distributions and summer rearing densities. The inventory consisted of extensive snorkel surveys that began at the mouth of each stream and continued to the end of significant salmonid rearing potential (not to the end of cutthroat distribution). These surveys will be used to develop a base line for understanding how juvenile salmonids are currently utilizing habitats within the basin during summer flow regimes. Replicates of this inventory in high priority stream reaches (streams exhibiting residual system function) will be critical for identifying trends in the distribution and abundance of juvenile coho, steelhead and cutthroat in response to watershed restoration and management. The Rapid Bio-Assessment (RBA) survey method was designed to sub-sample 20 percent of the pool habitats using a Rapid Assay technique that could cover large distances and succeed in describing the current distribution of juvenile salmonids in all of the surveyed streams and their tributaries. Beaver dam frequency was also recorded. Title: Luckiamute Rapid Bio-Assessment Abstract -- The 2011 Rapid Bio-Assessment inventory of the Luckiamute Watershed was a replicate inventory that attempted to target the most productive salmonid habitats in the basin. This was the fourth consecutive inventory in the basin designed to describe the distribution and relative abundance of coho, cutthroat trout and winter steelhead. The entire basin (214 stream miles) was inventoried in 2008 utilizing the RBA protocol which included many miles of dysfunctional aquatic habitats that currently exhibit deep channel entrenchment, elevated summer temperature profiles and provided limited summer production potential. Survey efforts were reduced to 96.6 stream miles in 2009 and covered only the highest quality habitat reaches. Surveys were further refined in 2010 to a subset of the highest quality habitats (90.2 stream miles) and reduced again in 2011 to 84.6 stream miles. Some streams in the basin were also surveyed in 2002 and 2003 in a separate effort funded by Boise Cascade, the previous owner of the current Forest Capital holdings. These included Beaver, Boulder, Clayton, Cougar, Miller, Pedee, Ritner, Sheythe, West Fork Luckiamute, Wolf, and approximately 7 miles of the upper Luckiamute mainstem. Results and comparisons to those surveys are included below in the Site Specific observations. The intent of the RBA inventory was to gather information on the status of juvenile salmonid summer distributions and summer rearing densities. The inventory consisted of extensive snorkel surveys that began at the mouth of each stream and continued to the end of significant salmonid rearing potential (not to the end of cutthroat distribution). These surveys will be used to develop a base line for understanding how juvenile salmonids are currently utilizing habitats within the basin during summer flow regimes. Replicates of this inventory in high priority stream reaches (streams exhibiting residual system function) will be critical for identifying trends in the distribution and abundance of juvenile coho, steelhead and cutthroat in response to watershed restoration and management. The Rapid Bio-Assessment (RBA) survey method was designed to sub-sample 20 percent of the pool habitats using a Rapid Assay technique that could cover large distances and succeed in describing the current distribution of juvenile salmonids in all of the surveyed streams and their tributaries. Beaver dam frequency was also recorded. Close

• 215. [Article] Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution (NHD format)

  Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution (NHD format) Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. Historical habitat includes suitable habitat that fish no longer access and will not access in the foreseeable future without human intervention. This information is based on sampling, the best professional opinion of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or other natural resources agency staff biologists or modeling (see the fhdBasis field). Due to natural variations in run size, water conditions, or other environmental factors, some habitats identified may not be used annually. These data comply with the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard that was adopted by the Oregon Geographic Information Council in February 2011. The Standard document can be found at: http://gis.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/standards/docs/OregonFishHabitatDistributionDataStandardv2.pdf Historical habitat distribution data are within the scope of the standard and are identified via the habitat use (fhdUseType) attribute. Historical habitats are only identified outside of currently accessible habitat and are not comprehensive. Key features of the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data include: species, run, life history, habitat use, origin, production, the basis for each record, originator name, originator entity and reference. Habitat distribution data are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale statewide and are based on the were originally developed against the Pacific Northwest Framework Hydrography dataset. The data are made available as GIS files in both shapefile and ESRI geodatabase format. The data were developed over an extensive time period ranging from 1996 to 2014. Data were migrated to the National Hydrography Dataset in 2014. The attached geodatabase includes distribution for: Coastal Cutthroat trout, Bull trout, Redband trout, Rainbow trout, Westslope Cutthroat trout, Lahontan Cutthroat trout and Western Brook Lamprey. Data for Coastal Cutthroat trout, Rainbow trout and Western Brook Lamprey are not comprehensive. Title: Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution (NHD format) Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. Historical habitat includes suitable habitat that fish no longer access and will not access in the foreseeable future without human intervention. This information is based on sampling, the best professional opinion of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or other natural resources agency staff biologists or modeling (see the fhdBasis field). Due to natural variations in run size, water conditions, or other environmental factors, some habitats identified may not be used annually. These data comply with the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard that was adopted by the Oregon Geographic Information Council in February 2011. The Standard document can be found at: http://gis.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/standards/docs/OregonFishHabitatDistributionDataStandardv2.pdf Historical habitat distribution data are within the scope of the standard and are identified via the habitat use (fhdUseType) attribute. Historical habitats are only identified outside of currently accessible habitat and are not comprehensive. Key features of the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data include: species, run, life history, habitat use, origin, production, the basis for each record, originator name, originator entity and reference. Habitat distribution data are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale statewide and are based on the were originally developed against the Pacific Northwest Framework Hydrography dataset. The data are made available as GIS files in both shapefile and ESRI geodatabase format. The data were developed over an extensive time period ranging from 1996 to 2014. Data were migrated to the National Hydrography Dataset in 2014. The attached geodatabase includes distribution for: Coastal Cutthroat trout, Bull trout, Redband trout, Rainbow trout, Westslope Cutthroat trout, Lahontan Cutthroat trout and Western Brook Lamprey. Data for Coastal Cutthroat trout, Rainbow trout and Western Brook Lamprey are not comprehensive. Close

• 216. [Article] 2012-2014 Elk Flats Fish Data

  Abstract -- The Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) completed three years of post-implementation effectiveness monitoring at Elk Flats. The project goal was to create high quality tidal off ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2012-2014 Elk Flats Fish Data Abstract -- The Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) completed three years of post-implementation effectiveness monitoring at Elk Flats. The project goal was to create high quality tidal off channel habitat on the lower Ecola Creek mainstem. Monitoring of the project site included fish community, vegetation, and water quality. Results provide quantitative and qualitative evaluation of project success. CREST biologists completed the monitoring for this project following published standardized protocols. Four species of fish were observed in the created channel during the years sampled; Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteidae aculeatus). Overall threespine stickleback were the most abundantly caught. Title: 2012-2014 Elk Flats Fish Data Abstract -- The Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) completed three years of post-implementation effectiveness monitoring at Elk Flats. The project goal was to create high quality tidal off channel habitat on the lower Ecola Creek mainstem. Monitoring of the project site included fish community, vegetation, and water quality. Results provide quantitative and qualitative evaluation of project success. CREST biologists completed the monitoring for this project following published standardized protocols. Four species of fish were observed in the created channel during the years sampled; Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteidae aculeatus). Overall threespine stickleback were the most abundantly caught. Close

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

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

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

• 218. [Article] Morton Creek AIP Report-2008 & 2012

  Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Morton Creek AIP Report-2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Title: Morton Creek AIP Report-2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Close

• 219. [Article] Butte Creek AIP Report 2008 & 2012

  Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Butte Creek AIP Report 2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Title: Butte Creek AIP Report 2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Close

• 220. [Article] Elk-Sixes Hoop Trap Results 2012-2014

  Abstract -- The report summarizes juvenile outmigration sampling conducted between 2012 and 2014 on two tributaries in the lower Elk River watershed and two tributaries in the lower Sixes River watersh...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Elk-Sixes Hoop Trap Results 2012-2014 Abstract -- The report summarizes juvenile outmigration sampling conducted between 2012 and 2014 on two tributaries in the lower Elk River watershed and two tributaries in the lower Sixes River watershed. Title: Elk-Sixes Hoop Trap Results 2012-2014 Abstract -- The report summarizes juvenile outmigration sampling conducted between 2012 and 2014 on two tributaries in the lower Elk River watershed and two tributaries in the lower Sixes River watershed. Close

• 221. [Article] Oregon Conservation Strategy Ecoregions

  Abstract -- Oregon Conservation Strategy ecoregion boundaries are maintained by the Oregon Department of Fish and WIldlife (ODFW), and are used as a geographic organization within the Strategy to prioritize ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Conservation Strategy Ecoregions Abstract -- Oregon Conservation Strategy ecoregion boundaries are maintained by the Oregon Department of Fish and WIldlife (ODFW), and are used as a geographic organization within the Strategy to prioritize Strategy Species, Habitats, limiting factors, and recommended approaches. All ecoregions except the Nearshore ecoregion are provided from the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) March, 2010 ecoregion dataset (which is originally based on US EPA Level III Ecoregions). The Nearshore ecoregion, including the Coast Range/Nearshore boundary, were provided from the Oregon State Boundary dataset, provided via the Oregon GEO Spatial Data Library (with credit provided to BLM). Juristidictional boundaries were used to ensure all of Oregon is divided into appropriate ecoregions, as defined in the revised Oregon Conservation Strategy, and clipped at the Oregon state line. All ecoregion boundaryes are presented at a coarse scale representation , in particular the Nearshore ecoregion, which by definition includes some portions of estuaries and the entire inter-tidal, (or splash) zone. Title: Oregon Conservation Strategy Ecoregions Abstract -- Oregon Conservation Strategy ecoregion boundaries are maintained by the Oregon Department of Fish and WIldlife (ODFW), and are used as a geographic organization within the Strategy to prioritize Strategy Species, Habitats, limiting factors, and recommended approaches. All ecoregions except the Nearshore ecoregion are provided from the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) March, 2010 ecoregion dataset (which is originally based on US EPA Level III Ecoregions). The Nearshore ecoregion, including the Coast Range/Nearshore boundary, were provided from the Oregon State Boundary dataset, provided via the Oregon GEO Spatial Data Library (with credit provided to BLM). Juristidictional boundaries were used to ensure all of Oregon is divided into appropriate ecoregions, as defined in the revised Oregon Conservation Strategy, and clipped at the Oregon state line. All ecoregion boundaryes are presented at a coarse scale representation , in particular the Nearshore ecoregion, which by definition includes some portions of estuaries and the entire inter-tidal, (or splash) zone. Close

• 222. [Image] A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest

  	Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Stouder, Deanna J.; Kakoyannis, Christina; Houston, Laurie; Stankey, George; Kline, Jeffery; Alig, Ralph. 2004. A review of scientific information ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest Year: 2004 Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Stouder, Deanna J.; Kakoyannis, Christina; Houston, Laurie; Stankey, George; Kline, Jeffery; Alig, Ralph. 2004. A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-595. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 128 p. Fresh water is a valuable and essential commodity in the Pacific Northwest States, specifically Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and one provided abundantly by forested watersheds in the region. The maintenance and growth of industrial, municipal, agricultural, and recreational activities in the region are dependent on adequate and sustainable supplies of fresh water from surface and ground-water sources. Future development, especially in the semiarid intermountain area, depends on the conservation and expansion of the region's water resource. This synthesis reviews the state of our knowledge and condition of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Keywords: Water distribution, flow regimes, water demand, conflicts, tools, water use. Title: A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest Year: 2004 Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Stouder, Deanna J.; Kakoyannis, Christina; Houston, Laurie; Stankey, George; Kline, Jeffery; Alig, Ralph. 2004. A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-595. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 128 p. Fresh water is a valuable and essential commodity in the Pacific Northwest States, specifically Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and one provided abundantly by forested watersheds in the region. The maintenance and growth of industrial, municipal, agricultural, and recreational activities in the region are dependent on adequate and sustainable supplies of fresh water from surface and ground-water sources. Future development, especially in the semiarid intermountain area, depends on the conservation and expansion of the region's water resource. This synthesis reviews the state of our knowledge and condition of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Keywords: Water distribution, flow regimes, water demand, conflicts, tools, water use. Close

• 223. [Image] Improving salmon passage: draft, the Lower Snake River juvenile salmon migration feasibility report/environmental impact statement

  	The purpose of this summary report is to provide an overview of the findings developed for the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study. For more detailed information, the reader should ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Improving salmon passage: draft, the Lower Snake River juvenile salmon migration feasibility report/environmental impact statement Year: 1999, 2004 The purpose of this summary report is to provide an overview of the findings developed for the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study. For more detailed information, the reader should refer to the Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement and attached appendices. The genesis of this study is the National Marine Fisheries Service's 1995 Biological Opinion for the Reinitiation of Consultation on 1994-1998 Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and Juvenile Transportation Program in 1995 and Future Years (95 Biological Opinion). While the focus of this study is the relationship between the four dams on the lower Snake River and their effects on juvenile fish traveling toward the ocean, the implications of the study are broader. The Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement includes the best available information on the biological effectiveness, engineering, economic effects, and other environmental effects associated with the four specific alternatives. It does not, however, include a recommendation or identify a preferred alternative. This will give the public and other agencies an opportunity to review and understand this information and provide input before a preferred alternative is selected. At the same time, this will allow the region to consider the Habitat, Hatcheries, Harvest, and Hydropower Working Paper on salmon recovery by the Federal Caucus. Information from this process will be fully examined to determine how it may influence decisions on actions for the lower Snake River. Title: Improving salmon passage: draft, the Lower Snake River juvenile salmon migration feasibility report/environmental impact statement Year: 1999, 2004 The purpose of this summary report is to provide an overview of the findings developed for the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study. For more detailed information, the reader should refer to the Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement and attached appendices. The genesis of this study is the National Marine Fisheries Service's 1995 Biological Opinion for the Reinitiation of Consultation on 1994-1998 Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and Juvenile Transportation Program in 1995 and Future Years (95 Biological Opinion). While the focus of this study is the relationship between the four dams on the lower Snake River and their effects on juvenile fish traveling toward the ocean, the implications of the study are broader. The Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement includes the best available information on the biological effectiveness, engineering, economic effects, and other environmental effects associated with the four specific alternatives. It does not, however, include a recommendation or identify a preferred alternative. This will give the public and other agencies an opportunity to review and understand this information and provide input before a preferred alternative is selected. At the same time, this will allow the region to consider the Habitat, Hatcheries, Harvest, and Hydropower Working Paper on salmon recovery by the Federal Caucus. Information from this process will be fully examined to determine how it may influence decisions on actions for the lower Snake River. Close

• 224. [Image] The Third Klamath Basin Watershed Restoration and Research Conference

  	Cover title; "March 1999."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Third Klamath Basin Watershed Restoration and Research Conference Year: 1999, 2004 Cover title; "March 1999." Title: The Third Klamath Basin Watershed Restoration and Research Conference Year: 1999, 2004 Cover title; "March 1999." Close

• 225. [Image] Seeking refuge: making space for migratory waterfowl and wetlands along the Pacific Flyway

  	Abstract "Seeking Refuge" examines the history of migratory waterfowl management along the Pacific Flyway, the westernmost of four main migration routes in North America. Drawing on approaches from historical ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Seeking refuge: making space for migratory waterfowl and wetlands along the Pacific Flyway Author: Wilson, Robert Michael Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 Abstract "Seeking Refuge" examines the history of migratory waterfowl management along the Pacific Flyway, the westernmost of four main migration routes in North America. Drawing on approaches from historical geography and environmental history, this study shows how wildlife officials developed migratory bird refuges in Oregon and California, where over 60 percent of Pacific Flyway waterfowl winter. During the early-twentieth century, reclamation and river diking eliminated most of the wetlands in the birds' wintering range. Bird enthusiasts such as bird watchers and duck hunters successfully lobbied for the creation of wildlife refuges in a few areas along the flyway. These early refuges failed to protect waterfowl habitat and they were severely degraded by reclamation. In the 1930s and 1940s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and its predecessor, the Bureau of Biological Survey, undertook an ambitious program to resurrect these sanctuaries and to create new ones. Many farmers opposed these refuges out of fear that waterfowl would damage crops. To respond to these concerns and to ensure an adequate food supply for the birds, the FWS raised rice, barley, and other grains. The agency adopted many of the technologies of modern, industrial agriculture including synthetic herbicides and insecticides such as 2, 4-D and DDT. By the 1960s, the refuges had become largely mirrors of the surrounding irrigated farmlands, the main difference being that the FWS raised grain for waterfowl rather than for market. Refuges could not escape the agricultural settings in which they were embedded. As units within the irrigated countryside, Pacific Flyway refuges were often at the mercy of nearby farmers and federal reclamation agencies. Poor water quality and insufficient supplies of water often hampered FWS efforts to manage refuges. In the late-twentieth century, reduced water supply due to diversions to California municipalities and to sustain endangered fish species affected the amount of water reaching refuges. This dissertation has other goals. First, it critiques the anthropocentrism of most historical geography by focusing on how political, cultural, and ecological factors affected wildlife. Second, it contributes to the literature on the state's role in environmental protection by investigating the overlapping, and often contradictory, spaces within which wildlife managers implemented environmental regulations. Title: Seeking refuge: making space for migratory waterfowl and wetlands along the Pacific Flyway Author: Wilson, Robert Michael Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 Abstract "Seeking Refuge" examines the history of migratory waterfowl management along the Pacific Flyway, the westernmost of four main migration routes in North America. Drawing on approaches from historical geography and environmental history, this study shows how wildlife officials developed migratory bird refuges in Oregon and California, where over 60 percent of Pacific Flyway waterfowl winter. During the early-twentieth century, reclamation and river diking eliminated most of the wetlands in the birds' wintering range. Bird enthusiasts such as bird watchers and duck hunters successfully lobbied for the creation of wildlife refuges in a few areas along the flyway. These early refuges failed to protect waterfowl habitat and they were severely degraded by reclamation. In the 1930s and 1940s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and its predecessor, the Bureau of Biological Survey, undertook an ambitious program to resurrect these sanctuaries and to create new ones. Many farmers opposed these refuges out of fear that waterfowl would damage crops. To respond to these concerns and to ensure an adequate food supply for the birds, the FWS raised rice, barley, and other grains. The agency adopted many of the technologies of modern, industrial agriculture including synthetic herbicides and insecticides such as 2, 4-D and DDT. By the 1960s, the refuges had become largely mirrors of the surrounding irrigated farmlands, the main difference being that the FWS raised grain for waterfowl rather than for market. Refuges could not escape the agricultural settings in which they were embedded. As units within the irrigated countryside, Pacific Flyway refuges were often at the mercy of nearby farmers and federal reclamation agencies. Poor water quality and insufficient supplies of water often hampered FWS efforts to manage refuges. In the late-twentieth century, reduced water supply due to diversions to California municipalities and to sustain endangered fish species affected the amount of water reaching refuges. This dissertation has other goals. First, it critiques the anthropocentrism of most historical geography by focusing on how political, cultural, and ecological factors affected wildlife. Second, it contributes to the literature on the state's role in environmental protection by investigating the overlapping, and often contradictory, spaces within which wildlife managers implemented environmental regulations. Close

• 226. [Image] A strategy for achieving healthy watersheds in Oregon

  	"January 2001."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A strategy for achieving healthy watersheds in Oregon Author: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 2001, 2004 "January 2001." Title: A strategy for achieving healthy watersheds in Oregon Author: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 2001, 2004 "January 2001." Close

• 227. [Image] The Endangered Species Act and its impact on agricultural producers: hearing before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, House of representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, July 26, 2004, Greely, CO.

  	CONTENTS Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 Musgrave, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Endangered Species Act and its impact on agricultural producers: hearing before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, House of representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, July 26, 2004, Greely, CO. Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research. Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn N., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement........................................................................... 2 Witnesses Foutz, Alan, president, Colorado Farm Bureau, Centennial, CO ........................ 10 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 George, Russell, executive director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO............................................................................................. 4 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 Palmer, William, executive director, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO ........................................................................................................ 16 Prepared statement.......................................................................................... 60 Sims, James T., executive director, Western Business Roundtable, Golden, CO.......................................................................................................................... 13 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 Stetson, Jean, co-chairman, Endangered Species Committee, Colorado Cattlemen, Craig, CO..................................................................................................... 7 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 Submitted Material Weege, Merle, secretary, Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, statement...................... 65 Title: The Endangered Species Act and its impact on agricultural producers: hearing before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, House of representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, July 26, 2004, Greely, CO. Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research. Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn N., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement........................................................................... 2 Witnesses Foutz, Alan, president, Colorado Farm Bureau, Centennial, CO ........................ 10 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 George, Russell, executive director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO............................................................................................. 4 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 Palmer, William, executive director, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO ........................................................................................................ 16 Prepared statement.......................................................................................... 60 Sims, James T., executive director, Western Business Roundtable, Golden, CO.......................................................................................................................... 13 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 Stetson, Jean, co-chairman, Endangered Species Committee, Colorado Cattlemen, Craig, CO..................................................................................................... 7 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 Submitted Material Weege, Merle, secretary, Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, statement...................... 65 Close

• 228. [Image] Research information needs on terrestrial vertebrate species of the interior Columbia River basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great basins: research, development, and application database

  	"September 1997"; Includes bibliographical references (p. 24)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Research information needs on terrestrial vertebrate species of the interior Columbia River basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great basins: research, development, and application database Author: Marcot, Bruce G. Year: 1997, 2005, 2004 "September 1997"; Includes bibliographical references (p. 24) Title: Research information needs on terrestrial vertebrate species of the interior Columbia River basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great basins: research, development, and application database Author: Marcot, Bruce G. Year: 1997, 2005, 2004 "September 1997"; Includes bibliographical references (p. 24) Close

• 229. [Image] Summary of the analysis of the management situation: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan

  	"December 1990"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Summary of the analysis of the management situation: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office. Year: 1990, 2005, 2004 "December 1990" Title: Summary of the analysis of the management situation: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office. Year: 1990, 2005, 2004 "December 1990" Close

• 230. [Image] Surveying forest streams for fish use

  	Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Section 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Dl Fish 8 Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Division P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Surveying forest streams for fish use Author: Oregon. Forest Practices Section; Oregon. Habitat Conservation Division Year: 1995, 2005, 2004 Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Section 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Dl Fish 8 Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Division P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 Introduction Identifying Oregon streams that contain fish is an important part in carrying out the new Water Protection Rules. These rules aim to protect areas of benefi-cial uses, such as fish. First, however, the beneficial uses present in each forest stream must be correctly identified. At present, a large number of fish- bearing streams are not identified on stream classification maps. To correct this problem, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ( ODFW) must complete comprehensive surveys to identify fish use on all non- federal forest streams in Oregon. This effort will require at least 3 to 5 years and a significant financial investment. Because many streams are not accurately classified, the new rules also tempo-rarily protect streams that are likely to contain fish. Under the rules, for example, if Stream A flows into a body of water known to contain fish, it is assumed that fish also are using Stream A, up to the point that a natural barrier blocks their way farther upstream ( see OAR 629- 57- 2100: ll( b) B). Once the survey efforts are complete, this interim rule will not be needed. Coordinated efforts by public agencies, landowners, and others to complete fish- presence surveys will assure that important fisheries resources are pro-tected in the most cost- effective way. Landowners or any interested party may collect stream- classification information so that the overall survey can be completed as quickly as possible. Many private forest landowners, in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, are now completing inventories of stream habitat conditions on their lands. In the future, these cooperative efforts may also include fish-presence surveys. This publication tells how to complete fish- presence surveys on forested streams. The guidelines cover: How to plan either " operation- specific" or " maximum upstream fish distribution" surveys The proper way to conduct surveys The proper time of year to conduct surveys Minimum efforts required in completing the surveys The legal requirements for completing the surveys How to provide information to Oregon Department of Forestry to update the stream classification maps The stream reclassification process Operation- specif ic surveys Maximum upstream distribution surveys Planning the survey There are two major types of survey: operation- specific surveys, and surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Each type requires different planning and is conducted using different approaches. Operation- specific surveys are those to classify a stream only in the particular area of an operation. This kind of survey may not include efforts to determine the maximum upstream extent of fish use. An operation- specific survey takes minimal planning and coordination. However, it may be very inefficient in the long run because future activities in other areas of the stream may require additional surveys. An operation- specilk survey is very simple to complete. It starts at the down-stream end of the operation area and moves upstream either to the end of the operation area or to the end of fish distribution, whichever comes first. If the purpose of the survey is to prove no fish use, the surveyor must be sure to make at least the minimum effort required to find fish ( see the section on " Survey Effort" on page 10). This kind of survey is done on an entire stream reach or on multiple stream reaches rather than on a restricted portion of a stream. Often, all streams within a basin or reach are completely surveyed. In some cases, the surveys encompass entire ownerships or watersheds. The specific locations of planned operations are usually not the main factor in setting up this kind of survey but can help decide which areas to survey first. Surveys to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use may be the most efficient and cost- effective. Surveyors often cover a group of streams in one area at a time; therefore, travel time is minimized because, often, a group of streams can be easily reached by one common forest road. When travel time is less, the time spent actually completing surveys is greater. This kind of survey may require slightly more planning and coordination to assure efficiency and to minimize duplication of effort by adjacent landowners or by other public agencies, but overall this approach is more cost- effective than the operation-specific surveys. Surveying for the maximum upstream distribution of fish may take more plan-ning than an operation- specific survey, but it is still relatively simple. First, look at ODF Stream Classification Maps for the survey area to see the current extent of fish- use streams. Also note which streams are not classified at all. Next, decide where to start the survey. It may help your planning if you know the relationship between watershed basin area and fish use for your area. Contact the local ODFW office to find out whether these relationships have been established for streams in your area. The information predicts where fish use is " likely to end" and so will help you decide where to start your surveys. At this point, you also may want to consider operations that are planned for certain areas and decide to survey those areas first. After choosing a starting area, look at current road maps to find potential starting points for the survey ( see Figure 1). Look for access points ( such as road crossings) near the upper reaches of the stream. When possible, a survey should start near the highest accessible point in the watershed. If road access to the stream is limited, you may want to start the survey near the point at which the stream's classification size changes from " medium" to " small"; often this point is near the end of fish use ( see Figure 2, page 4). At the starting point, first sample upstream. If you find fish, continue the survey upstream until fish use ends. Be sure to continue sampling above the point at which fish use ends ( see " Survey Effort," page 10). If you make all the required efforts but do not find fish, then survey downstream from the original starting point until you find fish. When surveying downstream, it is important to walk on the streambank until you are ready to sample so that the water stays clear. Begin fish survey above road crossing Fish use extends at least this far Figure I . Selecting survey starting points in an area with a road crossing. Additional survey work may be required if the maximum distribution of fish seems to be affected by a road culvert. If the stream above the culvert has no fish, sample the pool immediately below the culvert. If you find fish in this pool or downstream near the culvert, the culvert is a possible barrier to fish passage. Describe the culvert and the stream on the survey form ( page 19). If you do not find fish in the pool below the culvert, continue the survey down-stream until you do see fish. Begin fish survey here \ \\ \ / I Fish use extends at least this far - - k I Figure 2. Selecting survey starting points, based on the stream- size classification, in an area without a road crossing. Surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish may require sampling across several land ownerships. Be certain to get permission from other landowners before beginning the survey. Contacts with other landowners are also important to prevent a duplication of effort, because many landowners and agencies may be conducting fish- presence surveys. When figuring how many surveyors and how much time you'll need to com-plete surveys in your area, you may want to consider the Department of Forestry's experience. We found that sampling a township ( 36 square miles) required approximately 24 person- days in the Coast region, but an area the same size in the Blue Mountains required only 4 person- days. Survey methods The accuracy and reliability of survey results depend greatly on the methods used to conduct the survey. Methods range from simply looking in the stream ( visual observation) to more intensive and effective sampling with a backpack electroshocker. The method you choose depends on the availability of sam-pling equipment, the size of the stream, the flow and clarity of the water, and other factors. It is important to select a sampling method that is best for the type of survey and for the waters being sampled. If the sample method is not appropriate, the results of the survey will not be very useful. For example, just looking at a stream may tell you there are fish in it at that point, but it is not an acceptable way to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use. Surveys to show that fish are not present require more sampling and specialized equipment in order to provide reliable results. Whenever the survey uses methods other than an electroshocker, it's important to thoroughly explain on the survey report form the reasons for using the other methods. This is the simplest method; it involves only walking the stream to look for fish. It is best to wear polarized sunglasses to reduce glare from the water and to survey only when water conditions allow good visibility. It's also best to walk upstream so that you can " sneak up" on fish in pools. Fish often are near the upstream ends of pools waiting for food to drift toward them. Small fish, such as fry, often are in shallow water along the margin of the stream. Be very alert because fish usually will dart into cover when they detect any movement, especially in small headwater streams. It helps to toss bread crumbs, insects, small twigs, or bemes into the stream to entice the fish to leave cover. The visual method is best suited to small streams where pools aren't deep enough to prevent your seeing the fish. This method is also the least damaging to the fish because actual collection is not required. However, the value of survey results can be reduced by many factors such as cloudy water, surface glare on the water, overcast days ( reduced light), fish behavior, and even the surveyor's poor eyesight. For these reasons, this method is not effective for determining the maximum upstream limit of fish distribution, although it can be used to prove fish are in a certain reach of the stream. Snorkeling is a special method of visual observation that can work well in some situations. Snorkeling allows you to see underwater through a diving mask and breathing snorkel. This method can be used in larger waters where electroshockers are less successful, and it has been used to locate fry where other methods failed. Night snorkel surveys are particularly useful for observ-ing bull trout fry. Visual observation Hook and line Backpack electroshocker The hook- and- line method uses a rod and reel and relies on the feeding be-havior of the fish. In small streams, drop a baited hook into the deepest pools, where larger fish often are. Bait can include worms, single eggs, cheese, dry flies, or stream insects such as caddis larvae. Sample pools that have a lot of cover because those tend to support greater numbers of fish. As with the visual observation method, approach the pool cautiously to avoid alerting the fish. To minimize the risk of injuring or killing the fish, always use barbless hooks. The hook- and- line method can be used when conditions are not good for visual sampling; for example, when water is not clear, flow is high, or the day is overcast. This method may be the most effective for sampling some larger or deeper waters where visual and electroshocker methods can be ineffective. These waters include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams where downstream barriers ( such as falls and very steep sections) keep fish out of the small tributaries. This method has limitations, though, depending on fish behavior and the life stage of the fish that are present. Fish may be reluctant to bite on cold days, or when the water is murky with sediment, or if the fish detect the surveyor's presence. Also, hook- and- line sampling is not effective if only fry are in the stream. This method also depends on the angling skills of the surveyor. As with the visual observation method, hook- and- line sampling may not be the best way to determine the maximum upstream distribution of fish in small streams, but often it can be used to find fish in larger waters. The most effective way to determine the upstream extent of fish is with a backpack electroshocker. Electroshocker sampling requires additional training and experience, though, to be effective and safe. A backpack electroshocker introduces an electric field into the stream that temporarily immobilizes fish. Stunned fish can be observed as they float in the water, or they can be captured in a small hand net for closer observation if necessary. As with other methods, it is best to work in an upstream direction, wear polarized glasses, and to approach the sampling site carefully to avoid alerting the fish. One person nets fish while another person operates the electroshocker. The netter should walk behind or beside the shocker to avoid alerting the fish. The electroshocker can be very effective for sampling in small streams even where brush or instream cover prevents most other sampling methods. In fact, an electroshocker is often most effective in areas with instream cover because fish usually concentrate in these locations. This method works in streams of various sizes but is less effective in larger streams and in deep pools, espe-cially large beaver ponds. Use electroshockers carefully to minimize killing fish. When properly adjusted and used, the electroshocker should stun the fish without killing them. The fish may escape if the current is set too low, but usually the surveyor will still see the fish and so be able to document fish presence. To sample effectively and minimize fish kill, set the electroshocker on the lowest practical voltage output and low- frequency currents ( low pulse rates). Before sampling, use a voltame-ter to test the electroshocker in a stream. If the voltameter is not available, it is a good idea to test the electroshocker in a stream that you know has fish before working in streams whose fish use you do not know. The test will tell you whether the equipment is working and the effects of using different settings. The surveyors' safety must be considered carefully before using this method. Electroshockers can injure or kill humans if not properly used. Surveyors should not use this method without proper training, including CPR training. Surveyors should work in crews of at least two. All surveyors should wear rubber waders and rubber gloves during stream shocking and never use dipnets with metallic handles; the nets should have wood or fiberglass handles. All members of an electroshocking crew should understand the proper operation procedures and potential dangers of this equipment. The effectiveness of electroshocker sampling depends on water conditions and on the skills of the electroshocker operator and the netter. The electroshocker method may not be so useful in high flows or in turbulent or murky water because the surveyors may not see immobilized fish. Another drawback to this method is that the electroshockers may not be widely available and can be expensive. However, with proper training and experience and under suitable survey conditions, this method is the best for accurately determining the maximum upstream extent of fish use. There may be situations where reliable results can be had by using methods not discussed here. For example, headwater beaver ponds may be effectively Other methods sampled by fishing for at least 48 hours with minnow traps baited with salmon eggs or commercial trout bait. Or, seine nets may be effective in beaver ponds or larger waters. If you are thinking about using these or other sampling methods, discuss it first with the departments of Fish and Wildlife and of Forestry. They will decide whether the proposed methods are appropriate and, if so, set the required minimum level of sample effort for the alternate method. A backpack electroshocker is the best way to get reliable information about the upstream extent of fish use or to prove a stream is m e N ( no fish use). Sur- Survey methods: vey data that document the presence of fish through other methods, such as a summary visual observation or hook- and- line, will always be used to classify streams as Type F as far up as the point of observation, even though the exact upstream extent of fish use may not be known. In some cases, methods other than an electroshocker may give reliable information about the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Examples include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams in which barriers keep fish out of small upstream tributaries. In those cases, reliable results may be better obtained with hook- and- line sampling or with other methods. Whenever the survey is conducted by methods other than an electroshocker, the reasons for choosing the other method must be thor-oughly explained on the survey form. Timing the surveys Survey accuracy depends a lot on the time of year the survey is done and on stream conditions at that time. Since the purpose of the survey is to accurately document the presence or absence of fish, it is critical to do the survey when fish are expected to be using the upper reaches of a stream. This generally is near spawning times or soon after fry emerge, when stream flows are relatively high. A survey done during a low- flow period may not indicate the actual maximum upstream extent of fish use or accurately prove no fish use the stream. Fish may use the upper reaches of a stream for a limited time only, so fish- use surveys must be timed carefully. Surveys done at other than recommended times may not give a complete description of fish use. For example, if fish are found at other than the recommended survey times, the surveyed part of the stream can be classified as fish- bearing, but the maximum upstream extent of fish use may not be known. If fish are not found, that will not necessarily prove that the stream reach does not support fish use. Only if the survey is made at a time when fish are most likely to be there can the absence of fish be a reliable sign that no fish use that portion of the stream. Other factors can affect the reliability of the survey even if it is made at the proper time. Abnormal flows due to drought or extreme runoff could affect the distribution of fish or the sampling efficiency of the surveyor. So, it is best not only to do the sampling within the recommended time period but also when conditions are appropriate. In some cases, survey timing may not have much effect on the reliability of survey results. This could occur when factors other than seasonal flow patterns control the upstream extent of fish distribution. For example, streams that get most of their water from springs may not have seasonal flow variations, including summer flows low enough to control the upstream distribution of fish. Or, conditions other than low flow could be controlling distribution. For example, large, steep streams that have natural barriers such as falls and steep, impassable sections. In such cases, surveys taken outside the recommended time periods may yield reliable data. However, it is important to describe these conditions thoroughly on the survey forms to justify not following the recom-mended timing. See Table 1 for the recommended sampling periods for different regions of the state for normal water- flow years. Periods differ due to variations in stream flow patterns, fish species, and life- history traits of the species in the different areas. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to find out the best time to survey the stream you are planning to sample. Table 1. General recommended time periods to sample streams, by geographic region, during nomull water- flow years. Please contact your local ODFW ofice before sampling in order to get specific timing recommendations for the stream you will be sampling. REGION of Recommended Georeaion Stream Survey Period WESTERNO REGON All Coast South Coast West Cascades Interior Siskiyou March 1 through May 3 1 EASTERONR EGON All except spring- fed April 1 East Cascades through June 30 Blue Mountains Spring- fed streams* Entire year * Spring- fed streams are streams that get most of their water Born groundwater sources and that have very minor seasonal variations in flow. Stream surveys must be done within certain time periods ( Table 1) if the purpose is to prove the stream does not contain fish or to document the maximum upstream extent of fish use. mming recommendations are based on normal water- flow years and may vary in some years. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to get specific timing recommendations for the streams to be surveyed. Information gathered at other times of the year may be used to document fish presence but may not be reliable enough to establish upstream fish- use limits or to classify the stream as II) lpe N ( no fish use). Whenever the recommended survey timing is not used, it is important to explain the reasons on the survey form so that the data can be evaluated for reliability. ~ - ~ Survey timing: a summary Survey effort: a summary Survey effort The level of effort used to complete the survey also can affect the reliability of the survey results. If the level of effort or the amount of stream sampled is too little, it may be wrong to conclude that fish are not present. The following guidelines describe the minimum level of survey effort required to assure that the data are reliable. If the purpose of the survey is to show that no fish use the stream, the survey will be considered reliable only if it includes at least 50 yards of stream length md a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, immediately upstream of the point at which the non- fish- bearing section begins. ( In some cases, the survey will have to cover much more than 50 yards of stream in order to also include the required six pools.) In addition, the survey must include sampling any beaver dam ponds in the upstream non- fish section. Surveyors are encouraged to exceed the minimum level of effort in order to be even more sure that fish are absent from a stream reach and that the maximum upstream extent of fish use has been found. A survey intended to show the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream distance and a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, imme-diately upstream of the point at which fish use is believed to end. In addition, any beaver ponds upstream must be sampled as part of the survey. The require-ments for the methods used and the timing of the survey also must be met in order to document the absence of fish. Legal requirements In Oregon, the Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates the collection of fish for personal or scientific use. Generally, collection methods prohibited by the general angling regulations, such as electroshockers, traps, or nets, and collec-tions at times of the year when angling is closed will require a Scientific Collection Permit from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Scientific Collection Permits can be issued to agencies, companies, or indi-viduals. Request an application from the Fish Division of the Oregon Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207; telephone ( 503) 229- 5410, extension 323. Submit the application at least 1 month before you plan to do the survey in order to be sure the permit can be issued in time. The application requests information about the collection method to be used, when and where collection will be made, and a summary of the proposed project. By law, surveyers must keep records of their collection activities and submit them to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Surveys using the visual observation method ( including snorkeling) do not require any licenses or permits because fish are not physically collected. Sampling with the hook- and- line method during open fishing seasons requires only a valid angling license. However, Oregon resident landowners and their immediate families do not need angling licenses to fish on land they own and live on. In either case, the general ahgling regulations for the stream must be followed during hook- and- line sampling unless a Scientific Collection Permit is obtained. Additional restrictions on survey efforts may apply if the stream contains species that the state or federal government lists as sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. Please contact your local ODFW office to find out whether any of these species are likely to be in streams you plan to sample. Reporting survey results Give survey data to the local ODF district office so that district Stream Classi-fication Maps can be updated. On page 19 is a blank survey report form. It asks for information about the location of the stream; the methods, timing, and effort of the survey; the physical character of the stream; observations of fish and wildlife; and the presence of natural or human- created barriers to fish passage. complete one form for each stream reach where fish were ob-served or fish use was found to end. See Figure 3 ( page 12) for descriptions of some fish species common to $ mall, forested streams; these may help to identify fish seen during surveys. Detailed instructions for completing the survey form are on pages 14 through 18. Attach to the Fish Presence Survey Form a copy of the ODF Stream ClassM-cation Map for the surveyed area or, if that is not available, a copy of the 7.5 minute USGS topographic map for the area. Note the following information on the map. ( Examples of completed survey report forms and maps are on pages 21 through 30.) The area of the stream that was actually surveyed ( including the areas without fish) as part of the survey effort. Highlight in yellow the entire stream reach surveyed ( see examples on pages 25,28, and 30). The upper limit of fish use. Note this on the map by drawing a line across the stream and writing the letter F at that point. The name of the surveyor. The date the stream was surveyed. GENUS ONCORHYNCUS - PACIFIC SALMON IOENTIFICATION FEATURES OF JUVENILES Faint parr marks. extend little. if am: below latanl line. Lures SOCKEYE w GENUS ONCORHYNCUS- TROUT IDENTIFICATIOEI FUTURES OF JUVENILES pols in dorsal Teeth on of tongue Maxillary extend past rear margin on throat W - Of eye CUTTHROAT 5 - I 0 parr marks on ridge ahead of dorsal tongue astend & st rear mark on throat Y; V margin of eye STEELHEAD- RAINBOW Few or no spots i n tail Figure 3. Identification characteristics of some juvenile salmon and trout species that may be observed in forested streams. 3. Permission to enter private forest lands should be obtained from all land-owners before the surveys are conducted. 4. Fish- presence surveys should then be made according to the guidelines given in this publication. 5. The required survey information, recorded on the Fish Presence Survey Form and maps, should be given to the local ODF district office. 6. The ODF office will give copies of the completed survey forms and maps to the local office of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 7. The Department of Forestry will review the information, usually in consul-tation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, to determine whether the survey results are reliable. 8. Based on its assessment of data reliability, the Department of Forestry will make appropriate changes to the ODF Stream Classification Maps. 9. All affected landowners will be notified of the proposed stream classifica-tion changes, according to the notification rules ( OAR 629- 57- 2110( 2)). Instructions for completing the survey report form The following information should be reported on the Fish Presence Survey Form. These instructions are in the order that the information appears on the form. Complete one form for each stream reach or branch where fish were observed or fish use was found to end. This may require assigning codes to unnamed tributaries ( for example, " trib. a," " trib. b") so that survey data can be cross- referenced to the survey maps. Please refer to examples on pages 21 through 29. Surveyor Narne( s): The name of the person or persons responsible for con-ducting the survey and reporting the results. AgencyfCompany: The name of the agency or company that employs the surveyor ( if applicable). Landowner: The name of the landowner of the reach surveyed. Mailing Address and Phone: The address and phone number for the person responsible for the survey. Stream: The name of the stream as reported on the USGS or ODF Stream Classification Map for the area. If the stream is unnamed, report the stream as " unnamed" and list the tributary that it flows into (" Tributary to..."). Tributary to: The name of the main stream ( as reported on the USGS or ODF map) that the surveyed stream flows into. This is especially important if the surveyed stream is unnamed. Quad Map: The name of the USGS 7.5 minute topographic map that includes the reach of the stream surveyed. If the surveyed reach covers more than one quad map, report first the name of the map that shows the identified end- point of fish use and then give the other maps' names. Location: A legal description ( township, range, and section to at least the quarter section) of the location where fish use ends. Date Surveyed: The month, day, and year the fish survey was conducted. Survey Method: Check the box for the survey method used. If more than one method was used, check all that apply and note the most often used method in the comments section or in the form's margin. Survey Amount Above End of Fish Use: The length of stream reach that was surveyed immediately upstream of the identified end of fish use. Estimate ( in feet) the length surveyed, and give the number of pools sampled for fish in that section. A survey to prove the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream and at least six pools immediately upstream of the end of fish use. In addition, any upstream beaver ponds must also be sampled. Flow Level: The flow conditions at the time of the survey. Use the following categories of flow. Low: Ranges from a series of isolated pools to flowing across less than 75 percent of the average bankfull width. Moderate: Surface water is flowing across 75 to 90 percent of the average bankfull width. High: Surface water flowing across more than 90 percent of the average bankfull width. It is not recommended thatfih presence surveys be conducted at high jlows. Weather: The weather during most of the fish survey ( rainy, overcast, partly cloudy, sunny, snowy, etc.). Water Clarity: The water visibility during the survey. Use the following categories of water visibility. Clear: Visibility is good in pools, deep pools, and riffles. Moderate: Visibility is good only in riffles and shallow pools. Turbid: Visibility is poor in both riffles and pools. It is not recommended that fih presence surveys be conducted when water is turbid. Water Temperature ( optional): The temperature of the stream ( in degrees Farenheit) at the time of the survey. Fish observations Report the species and approximate size ranges of fish observed in the sur-veyed reach. Use Figure 3 ( page 12) as a guide to identifying some game fish species commonly found in small, forested streams. Use the following codes and instructions to complete this section. Species: Use the following names or codes to report fish observed during the survey. If you observe a species not listed here, such as Pacific lamprey, use its common name. Name Species Code Coho salmon Co Cutthroat trout Ct Rainbow troutfsteelhead Rb/ St Bull trout BUT Brook trout BT Unknown salmonid UnS Sizes: Report the size range of fish, in inches, by species. For example, the size range of coho observed could be reported as " 1- 4 inches." If you see several sizes of one species ( for example, some cutthroat trout in the " 1- to 2- inch range and others in the " 6- to 8- inch" range), list them separately. Aquatic wildlife The types of aquatic wildlife that may be observed include tailed frogs ( includ-ing juvenile " tadpoles"), Pacific giant salamanders, and Olympic salamanders. Species: Give the common name of the species, if known. If you don't know the species name, at least report observations by a general name such as " salamanders." Number: The number of aquatic wildlife in each species or group observed. Physical stream data Report the physical characteristics of the stream in the vicinity of the end- point of fish use. Report information separately for ( 1) the section immediately at and downstream of the end of fish use, and ( 2) the area upstream of the maximum extent of fish use. Following are specific instructions for collecting this information. Bankfull Channel Width: By eye, estimate the average width ( in feet) of the bankfull channel for the 100- foot sections above and below the end- point of fish use. The bankfull channel is the area that is scoured by water during average high flows. The edge of the bankfull channel can be identified by looking for changes in vegetation, in soils and litter characteristics, or in the shape of the bank. The bank often will abruptly change slope at the bankfull boundary. Vegetation at the boundary often changes from annual vegetation ( such as grasses) to more permanent vegetation such as trees and shrubs. Estimate the width across the channel between the edges of the bankfull level. Current Wetted Width: Visually estimate the average width ( in feet) of the channel that contains flow ( is wetted) at the time of the survey. Report the estimated averages for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. Channel Gradient: Measure the average stream gradient with a clinometer for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. me a piece of flagging at eye level on a branch or shrub, walk up or down the stream bank, and then use the clinometer to sight on the flagging while you are standing on the channel bottom. Read and report the percent gradient. ODF Stream Class Size: The stream size (" small," " medium," or " large") from the ODF Stream Classification Maps for the reaches immediately above and downstream of the end of fish use. Natural barriers This information is very important for understanding relationships between the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Understanding these relationships can help determine where fish- presence surveys should be concentrated and help predict where fish are likely to occur if survey informa-tion is not yet available. Generally, natural barriers are permanent structures such as falls or vertical drops more than 8 to 10 feet high for salmon or steel-head or 4 feet high for trout. Log jams, drops over logs, beaver dams, or other organic structures generally are only temporary barriers to fish passage, but report them as well. If fish use ends at a natural barrier, such as a waterfall, bedrock chute or cascades, describe the conditions at the site. Include a description of: ( 1) the type of barrier, ( 2) the approximate height ( in feet), ( 3) the percentage of slope, ( 4) the length ( in feet) of the bedrock chute or cascades, and ( 5) any other conditions that may be limiting fish passage. If the potential barrier is a bedrock chute, note whether the bedrock contains pools or rough features ( such as rocks, boulders, or other breaks in the flow), or whether the water flows in an even, shallow pattern over the bedrock. Please note on the survey map the locations of any natural barriers encountered. If you encounter a natural barrier, also be sure to sample above this point because fish often are found above natural barriers. Road- crossing barriers This information also is very important for understanding relationships be-tween the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Road-crossing barriers can alter the relationships. If fish use ends at a road- crossing barrier, such as a culvert, describe the conditions at the site. Describe the type of barrier and its measurements at the time of the survey such as ( 1) the diameter of the culvert, in inches, ( 2) the depth ( in inches) of water in the culvert, ( 3) the height ( in feet) of the jump ( drop) below the culvert or structure, ( 4) the depth ( in inches or feet) of the plunge pool below the culvert outfall, ( 5) the gradient or slope of the culvert, given as a percentage as read off a clinometer, ( 6) the length ( in feet) of the culvert, and ( 7) any other factors that could affect fish passage. Please note on the survey map the locations of any road- crossing barriers, even if they are not at the end- point of fish use. As with natural barriers, be sure also to sample above the site because fish often are found above road- crossing barriers. Other comments Any other comments or notations that you think may be pertinent to the fish survey. It helps to describe any notable habitat characteristics, for example " lots of instream wood," " very few pools in the reach," " heavy silt load in the stream." Use the reverse side of the form if necessary. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): Agency: Land Owner: Mailing Address: Phone: Date Surveyed: Stream: Tributary to: Quad Map: Location: T R Sec. Survey Method ( d): 0 Electroshocker 0 h & g 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): 0 Low 17 Moderate High Weather: Water Temperature: Water Clarity ( d): Clear 17 Moderate 17 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): . be Sorveq , 3 Troo+, FI s h G n r u l l , I*? , S.; L. Agency: N/ C I Land Owner: k! 4~ 4f, l T; M ~ C C Mailing address:?.^. sox ~ g~,\ L L I M UF~ A \ ID~ R) jC? suo Phone: BSB- 5555 ate surveyed: A p ( ; i 2 8, ! ?? s I Stream: Un hawed , " Tr I b R!' Tributary to: lr3 F . 21 o k so- ~ r a& QuadMap: D\ A &\ dy Location: T 305 R 5 " L Sec. 30, sw/ sto Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) I 86 ' Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): CI Low cd~ oderate High Weather: S owv Water Temperature: 7 O F I Water Clarity ( V): dclear Moderate I7 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species I Snes 1 Spedes 1 Quant'ity 1 PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. bk If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. prf+ Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): f- 15 L wsz ewd 30 $& abov e f *; rd John50~ m ain\ ifi< ~ r o s s i n OH ~ f r e a ~ 7.% ~ 5t redw g d ~ e n f & ry s t u p abde + he a d 4' & sh use - p & f i a n 10%. 2 1 OREGON FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Fish & Wildlife Stream: ~) nr? euce, d " Tr t b, O " Tributary to: w F & n~ oq CC. Quad Map: old &\ A% Location: T 382 R 5E Sec.' 30, si/ Sw I Survey Method ( 4): ~ lectroshocker 0 Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5' 0 Number of Pools 20 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e High Weather: Lw+ Water Temperature: 6 0 F I Water Clarity ( d): dclear Cl Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species 1 Snes I! , Species Quantity If fish use ends at a natural bamer, desc ' be the conditions that prevent u stre m fish assage. Fid - 4s 4+ 2 S ' ~ r t i Lm* r? d\. A dJ @ cater also % 15& 5 ( ho& a. r. rp Q5 W F - buffis @ ere fouu\ d . opstr + ye If fish use ehs) at a roa d. crossmng, descnbe conhlons that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): w tfw+ were fbU 4 above % z 6 + of (~ la+ erf~ ll above fu 25fcof I sowe years. 22 fail s& i ro fish t@ f& probab/ y vp FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP stream: V A ~ ~ ~ + SC~" T & ~ ributaryto: u. F. 3ehbtja14 Creek Quad Map: old - b a t d ~ Location: T 3 S 5 R 5 E Sec. Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker 0 Anghng 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) a 2 5 Number of Pools 2 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate 0 High Weather: SvMwv Water Temperature: I Water Clarity ( d): d l e a r 0 Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE - ... . .: : :....: ' ' . . . . . . A , , , .: . . . . , . . , .&& : ! Species ... . ..$ pedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. M/ A If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Stream: West h r k Aobrson Cr eeG Tributary to: Johnrow Cre~ k Quad Map: ( ~ ( 4Ith .\ Ay Location: T 385 R 5 E Sec. 2?,, 5E/ sLJ I Survey Method ( d): dlectroshocker 0 Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 3 00 Number of Pools t% Flow Level ( V): 0 Low d ~ o d e r ae t High Weather: j , y~ I Water Temperature: 60" F= Water Clarity ( d): & ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQ- U ATIC WILDLIFE t Spedes Quantity 1 I PHYSICAL STREAM DATA + IH n D CtsL 5h-* If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. N I A If fish use ends t a roqj crossiy, describ~ concl~~ tohnats may prevent upstr am fish passa e. ~ hrvctr ert a no? pQ59 ~ c - r b LOWOJQ 4 u. 4 9 ) drop at * rut-/&. b l d a r p fn qr p aI . 7, slop is 6 70 , and w ( onp 7 % fu~ lv er+ 1s ~ chul~ ledb e replace4 t bi s Svmncr. Other comments ( use reverse s~ de~ fn ecessa ): Lower ~ t r c a - q r d r r & a & e + LC cd en. Sf- rm* bb; M Ieok 30a4, but + k shaln. dry up ;* SOW years. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Mailing Address: ?. c, 3 2 , AJLO ~ L4- T o R 70 00 Phone: b40 - oool Date Surveyed: / Ha v 2 / cj? T I stream: ~ nnclcr- ed , " 7- r; b k " Tributary to: Lobs k c Creek Quad Map: BULL Lrceu Rtdqc Location: T 35 R 2W S ~ C . ~ ~ N € + 4 Survey Method ( d): ~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 300 Number of Pools I 57 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low rd~ oderate High Weather: 7k + lVL * wy Water Temperature: 6 O T-Water Clarity ( d): && ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLlFE I , , , ' Species Sies Spedes Quantity If fish use ends, at a natural ba ' er, describe t e conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. The. LZ m c b r u f - ~ V~ L ry 54- p X e u e + he ed$+ t.* use. ~ k rlrcnu, RIIIVC ~ L I : : pain+ I S ~ 4 1 ~ g ~ r L ~ d eo5ve r bai( Lle r S, b+ + his ri- gf obnhi~ n o+ Q b r r r t c r. ' 7 If fish use ends at a road crossing, descn e conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. U P Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): N r 4.0r L r ~ s; Wj J bCqPn 5 u ru . + r + he L) wediunn - sws\ l size chaqc, F, sh U ~ CC ~ wJh c r t a d c c y t r ; b ~ + G~ d . ovt WLQ) ew- ker s LLII+. 26 FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): 30 e Cadd i i , Bob hJvrnP1\ Agency: o ba~ ~ a'ndbwner: Lobsfec C r , ~ , , b c c Mailing Address: 7 D. ' 30K 2 , ~ J L pLet~ t , D R DO Phone: 8 YD- o 00 1 Date Surveyed: m4 I/ 2, i? 7- C I f Stream: / ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ek bS "" ~ c Tributaryto: L o b s t e r Lraek Quad Map: B V ' ~ Cr eek ??, d. ie Location: T 73 R 2 0 Sec. 3Y, ~ I. o AA. J G Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5 0 Number of Pools / D Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e 0 High Weather: 94, & SU W\ I Water Temperature: 5- 7 " ?= Water Clarity ( d) : Wc1ea. r CI Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA Species Sics Spedes If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. Quantity If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. I I Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): ~ h5ctre um WLS " r y ~ Lw iL tL ~ decy f- goo( r. @. la f is/., observe4 , Ty pr N ~ f . r e u ~ z . FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): \ ce < . 3ab Tr cut Agency: u/ k2 Mailing ~ ddress: Z3R Rne St , b k n h( e dr ! OR ? d o 0 Phone: ZB?- 3333 Date Surveyed: stream: ~*- aweA Tributary to: c r & QuadMap: G l e w b ~ ~ e k Location: T \ 4 5 R 6 @ Sec. zS,, ~ 3t .+ S-Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Q Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate High Weather: C( ea c Water Temperature: 5?* F Water Clarity ( d): lW2ear 0 Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species Sizes Spedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. U P If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Title: Surveying forest streams for fish use Author: Oregon. Forest Practices Section; Oregon. Habitat Conservation Division Year: 1995, 2005, 2004 Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Section 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Dl Fish 8 Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Division P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 Introduction Identifying Oregon streams that contain fish is an important part in carrying out the new Water Protection Rules. These rules aim to protect areas of benefi-cial uses, such as fish. First, however, the beneficial uses present in each forest stream must be correctly identified. At present, a large number of fish- bearing streams are not identified on stream classification maps. To correct this problem, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ( ODFW) must complete comprehensive surveys to identify fish use on all non- federal forest streams in Oregon. This effort will require at least 3 to 5 years and a significant financial investment. Because many streams are not accurately classified, the new rules also tempo-rarily protect streams that are likely to contain fish. Under the rules, for example, if Stream A flows into a body of water known to contain fish, it is assumed that fish also are using Stream A, up to the point that a natural barrier blocks their way farther upstream ( see OAR 629- 57- 2100: ll( b) B). Once the survey efforts are complete, this interim rule will not be needed. Coordinated efforts by public agencies, landowners, and others to complete fish- presence surveys will assure that important fisheries resources are pro-tected in the most cost- effective way. Landowners or any interested party may collect stream- classification information so that the overall survey can be completed as quickly as possible. Many private forest landowners, in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, are now completing inventories of stream habitat conditions on their lands. In the future, these cooperative efforts may also include fish-presence surveys. This publication tells how to complete fish- presence surveys on forested streams. The guidelines cover: How to plan either " operation- specific" or " maximum upstream fish distribution" surveys The proper way to conduct surveys The proper time of year to conduct surveys Minimum efforts required in completing the surveys The legal requirements for completing the surveys How to provide information to Oregon Department of Forestry to update the stream classification maps The stream reclassification process Operation- specif ic surveys Maximum upstream distribution surveys Planning the survey There are two major types of survey: operation- specific surveys, and surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Each type requires different planning and is conducted using different approaches. Operation- specific surveys are those to classify a stream only in the particular area of an operation. This kind of survey may not include efforts to determine the maximum upstream extent of fish use. An operation- specific survey takes minimal planning and coordination. However, it may be very inefficient in the long run because future activities in other areas of the stream may require additional surveys. An operation- specilk survey is very simple to complete. It starts at the down-stream end of the operation area and moves upstream either to the end of the operation area or to the end of fish distribution, whichever comes first. If the purpose of the survey is to prove no fish use, the surveyor must be sure to make at least the minimum effort required to find fish ( see the section on " Survey Effort" on page 10). This kind of survey is done on an entire stream reach or on multiple stream reaches rather than on a restricted portion of a stream. Often, all streams within a basin or reach are completely surveyed. In some cases, the surveys encompass entire ownerships or watersheds. The specific locations of planned operations are usually not the main factor in setting up this kind of survey but can help decide which areas to survey first. Surveys to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use may be the most efficient and cost- effective. Surveyors often cover a group of streams in one area at a time; therefore, travel time is minimized because, often, a group of streams can be easily reached by one common forest road. When travel time is less, the time spent actually completing surveys is greater. This kind of survey may require slightly more planning and coordination to assure efficiency and to minimize duplication of effort by adjacent landowners or by other public agencies, but overall this approach is more cost- effective than the operation-specific surveys. Surveying for the maximum upstream distribution of fish may take more plan-ning than an operation- specific survey, but it is still relatively simple. First, look at ODF Stream Classification Maps for the survey area to see the current extent of fish- use streams. Also note which streams are not classified at all. Next, decide where to start the survey. It may help your planning if you know the relationship between watershed basin area and fish use for your area. Contact the local ODFW office to find out whether these relationships have been established for streams in your area. The information predicts where fish use is " likely to end" and so will help you decide where to start your surveys. At this point, you also may want to consider operations that are planned for certain areas and decide to survey those areas first. After choosing a starting area, look at current road maps to find potential starting points for the survey ( see Figure 1). Look for access points ( such as road crossings) near the upper reaches of the stream. When possible, a survey should start near the highest accessible point in the watershed. If road access to the stream is limited, you may want to start the survey near the point at which the stream's classification size changes from " medium" to " small"; often this point is near the end of fish use ( see Figure 2, page 4). At the starting point, first sample upstream. If you find fish, continue the survey upstream until fish use ends. Be sure to continue sampling above the point at which fish use ends ( see " Survey Effort," page 10). If you make all the required efforts but do not find fish, then survey downstream from the original starting point until you find fish. When surveying downstream, it is important to walk on the streambank until you are ready to sample so that the water stays clear. Begin fish survey above road crossing Fish use extends at least this far Figure I . Selecting survey starting points in an area with a road crossing. Additional survey work may be required if the maximum distribution of fish seems to be affected by a road culvert. If the stream above the culvert has no fish, sample the pool immediately below the culvert. If you find fish in this pool or downstream near the culvert, the culvert is a possible barrier to fish passage. Describe the culvert and the stream on the survey form ( page 19). If you do not find fish in the pool below the culvert, continue the survey down-stream until you do see fish. Begin fish survey here \ \\ \ / I Fish use extends at least this far - - k I Figure 2. Selecting survey starting points, based on the stream- size classification, in an area without a road crossing. Surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish may require sampling across several land ownerships. Be certain to get permission from other landowners before beginning the survey. Contacts with other landowners are also important to prevent a duplication of effort, because many landowners and agencies may be conducting fish- presence surveys. When figuring how many surveyors and how much time you'll need to com-plete surveys in your area, you may want to consider the Department of Forestry's experience. We found that sampling a township ( 36 square miles) required approximately 24 person- days in the Coast region, but an area the same size in the Blue Mountains required only 4 person- days. Survey methods The accuracy and reliability of survey results depend greatly on the methods used to conduct the survey. Methods range from simply looking in the stream ( visual observation) to more intensive and effective sampling with a backpack electroshocker. The method you choose depends on the availability of sam-pling equipment, the size of the stream, the flow and clarity of the water, and other factors. It is important to select a sampling method that is best for the type of survey and for the waters being sampled. If the sample method is not appropriate, the results of the survey will not be very useful. For example, just looking at a stream may tell you there are fish in it at that point, but it is not an acceptable way to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use. Surveys to show that fish are not present require more sampling and specialized equipment in order to provide reliable results. Whenever the survey uses methods other than an electroshocker, it's important to thoroughly explain on the survey report form the reasons for using the other methods. This is the simplest method; it involves only walking the stream to look for fish. It is best to wear polarized sunglasses to reduce glare from the water and to survey only when water conditions allow good visibility. It's also best to walk upstream so that you can " sneak up" on fish in pools. Fish often are near the upstream ends of pools waiting for food to drift toward them. Small fish, such as fry, often are in shallow water along the margin of the stream. Be very alert because fish usually will dart into cover when they detect any movement, especially in small headwater streams. It helps to toss bread crumbs, insects, small twigs, or bemes into the stream to entice the fish to leave cover. The visual method is best suited to small streams where pools aren't deep enough to prevent your seeing the fish. This method is also the least damaging to the fish because actual collection is not required. However, the value of survey results can be reduced by many factors such as cloudy water, surface glare on the water, overcast days ( reduced light), fish behavior, and even the surveyor's poor eyesight. For these reasons, this method is not effective for determining the maximum upstream limit of fish distribution, although it can be used to prove fish are in a certain reach of the stream. Snorkeling is a special method of visual observation that can work well in some situations. Snorkeling allows you to see underwater through a diving mask and breathing snorkel. This method can be used in larger waters where electroshockers are less successful, and it has been used to locate fry where other methods failed. Night snorkel surveys are particularly useful for observ-ing bull trout fry. Visual observation Hook and line Backpack electroshocker The hook- and- line method uses a rod and reel and relies on the feeding be-havior of the fish. In small streams, drop a baited hook into the deepest pools, where larger fish often are. Bait can include worms, single eggs, cheese, dry flies, or stream insects such as caddis larvae. Sample pools that have a lot of cover because those tend to support greater numbers of fish. As with the visual observation method, approach the pool cautiously to avoid alerting the fish. To minimize the risk of injuring or killing the fish, always use barbless hooks. The hook- and- line method can be used when conditions are not good for visual sampling; for example, when water is not clear, flow is high, or the day is overcast. This method may be the most effective for sampling some larger or deeper waters where visual and electroshocker methods can be ineffective. These waters include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams where downstream barriers ( such as falls and very steep sections) keep fish out of the small tributaries. This method has limitations, though, depending on fish behavior and the life stage of the fish that are present. Fish may be reluctant to bite on cold days, or when the water is murky with sediment, or if the fish detect the surveyor's presence. Also, hook- and- line sampling is not effective if only fry are in the stream. This method also depends on the angling skills of the surveyor. As with the visual observation method, hook- and- line sampling may not be the best way to determine the maximum upstream distribution of fish in small streams, but often it can be used to find fish in larger waters. The most effective way to determine the upstream extent of fish is with a backpack electroshocker. Electroshocker sampling requires additional training and experience, though, to be effective and safe. A backpack electroshocker introduces an electric field into the stream that temporarily immobilizes fish. Stunned fish can be observed as they float in the water, or they can be captured in a small hand net for closer observation if necessary. As with other methods, it is best to work in an upstream direction, wear polarized glasses, and to approach the sampling site carefully to avoid alerting the fish. One person nets fish while another person operates the electroshocker. The netter should walk behind or beside the shocker to avoid alerting the fish. The electroshocker can be very effective for sampling in small streams even where brush or instream cover prevents most other sampling methods. In fact, an electroshocker is often most effective in areas with instream cover because fish usually concentrate in these locations. This method works in streams of various sizes but is less effective in larger streams and in deep pools, espe-cially large beaver ponds. Use electroshockers carefully to minimize killing fish. When properly adjusted and used, the electroshocker should stun the fish without killing them. The fish may escape if the current is set too low, but usually the surveyor will still see the fish and so be able to document fish presence. To sample effectively and minimize fish kill, set the electroshocker on the lowest practical voltage output and low- frequency currents ( low pulse rates). Before sampling, use a voltame-ter to test the electroshocker in a stream. If the voltameter is not available, it is a good idea to test the electroshocker in a stream that you know has fish before working in streams whose fish use you do not know. The test will tell you whether the equipment is working and the effects of using different settings. The surveyors' safety must be considered carefully before using this method. Electroshockers can injure or kill humans if not properly used. Surveyors should not use this method without proper training, including CPR training. Surveyors should work in crews of at least two. All surveyors should wear rubber waders and rubber gloves during stream shocking and never use dipnets with metallic handles; the nets should have wood or fiberglass handles. All members of an electroshocking crew should understand the proper operation procedures and potential dangers of this equipment. The effectiveness of electroshocker sampling depends on water conditions and on the skills of the electroshocker operator and the netter. The electroshocker method may not be so useful in high flows or in turbulent or murky water because the surveyors may not see immobilized fish. Another drawback to this method is that the electroshockers may not be widely available and can be expensive. However, with proper training and experience and under suitable survey conditions, this method is the best for accurately determining the maximum upstream extent of fish use. There may be situations where reliable results can be had by using methods not discussed here. For example, headwater beaver ponds may be effectively Other methods sampled by fishing for at least 48 hours with minnow traps baited with salmon eggs or commercial trout bait. Or, seine nets may be effective in beaver ponds or larger waters. If you are thinking about using these or other sampling methods, discuss it first with the departments of Fish and Wildlife and of Forestry. They will decide whether the proposed methods are appropriate and, if so, set the required minimum level of sample effort for the alternate method. A backpack electroshocker is the best way to get reliable information about the upstream extent of fish use or to prove a stream is m e N ( no fish use). Sur- Survey methods: vey data that document the presence of fish through other methods, such as a summary visual observation or hook- and- line, will always be used to classify streams as Type F as far up as the point of observation, even though the exact upstream extent of fish use may not be known. In some cases, methods other than an electroshocker may give reliable information about the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Examples include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams in which barriers keep fish out of small upstream tributaries. In those cases, reliable results may be better obtained with hook- and- line sampling or with other methods. Whenever the survey is conducted by methods other than an electroshocker, the reasons for choosing the other method must be thor-oughly explained on the survey form. Timing the surveys Survey accuracy depends a lot on the time of year the survey is done and on stream conditions at that time. Since the purpose of the survey is to accurately document the presence or absence of fish, it is critical to do the survey when fish are expected to be using the upper reaches of a stream. This generally is near spawning times or soon after fry emerge, when stream flows are relatively high. A survey done during a low- flow period may not indicate the actual maximum upstream extent of fish use or accurately prove no fish use the stream. Fish may use the upper reaches of a stream for a limited time only, so fish- use surveys must be timed carefully. Surveys done at other than recommended times may not give a complete description of fish use. For example, if fish are found at other than the recommended survey times, the surveyed part of the stream can be classified as fish- bearing, but the maximum upstream extent of fish use may not be known. If fish are not found, that will not necessarily prove that the stream reach does not support fish use. Only if the survey is made at a time when fish are most likely to be there can the absence of fish be a reliable sign that no fish use that portion of the stream. Other factors can affect the reliability of the survey even if it is made at the proper time. Abnormal flows due to drought or extreme runoff could affect the distribution of fish or the sampling efficiency of the surveyor. So, it is best not only to do the sampling within the recommended time period but also when conditions are appropriate. In some cases, survey timing may not have much effect on the reliability of survey results. This could occur when factors other than seasonal flow patterns control the upstream extent of fish distribution. For example, streams that get most of their water from springs may not have seasonal flow variations, including summer flows low enough to control the upstream distribution of fish. Or, conditions other than low flow could be controlling distribution. For example, large, steep streams that have natural barriers such as falls and steep, impassable sections. In such cases, surveys taken outside the recommended time periods may yield reliable data. However, it is important to describe these conditions thoroughly on the survey forms to justify not following the recom-mended timing. See Table 1 for the recommended sampling periods for different regions of the state for normal water- flow years. Periods differ due to variations in stream flow patterns, fish species, and life- history traits of the species in the different areas. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to find out the best time to survey the stream you are planning to sample. Table 1. General recommended time periods to sample streams, by geographic region, during nomull water- flow years. Please contact your local ODFW ofice before sampling in order to get specific timing recommendations for the stream you will be sampling. REGION of Recommended Georeaion Stream Survey Period WESTERNO REGON All Coast South Coast West Cascades Interior Siskiyou March 1 through May 3 1 EASTERONR EGON All except spring- fed April 1 East Cascades through June 30 Blue Mountains Spring- fed streams* Entire year * Spring- fed streams are streams that get most of their water Born groundwater sources and that have very minor seasonal variations in flow. Stream surveys must be done within certain time periods ( Table 1) if the purpose is to prove the stream does not contain fish or to document the maximum upstream extent of fish use. mming recommendations are based on normal water- flow years and may vary in some years. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to get specific timing recommendations for the streams to be surveyed. Information gathered at other times of the year may be used to document fish presence but may not be reliable enough to establish upstream fish- use limits or to classify the stream as II) lpe N ( no fish use). Whenever the recommended survey timing is not used, it is important to explain the reasons on the survey form so that the data can be evaluated for reliability. ~ - ~ Survey timing: a summary Survey effort: a summary Survey effort The level of effort used to complete the survey also can affect the reliability of the survey results. If the level of effort or the amount of stream sampled is too little, it may be wrong to conclude that fish are not present. The following guidelines describe the minimum level of survey effort required to assure that the data are reliable. If the purpose of the survey is to show that no fish use the stream, the survey will be considered reliable only if it includes at least 50 yards of stream length md a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, immediately upstream of the point at which the non- fish- bearing section begins. ( In some cases, the survey will have to cover much more than 50 yards of stream in order to also include the required six pools.) In addition, the survey must include sampling any beaver dam ponds in the upstream non- fish section. Surveyors are encouraged to exceed the minimum level of effort in order to be even more sure that fish are absent from a stream reach and that the maximum upstream extent of fish use has been found. A survey intended to show the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream distance and a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, imme-diately upstream of the point at which fish use is believed to end. In addition, any beaver ponds upstream must be sampled as part of the survey. The require-ments for the methods used and the timing of the survey also must be met in order to document the absence of fish. Legal requirements In Oregon, the Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates the collection of fish for personal or scientific use. Generally, collection methods prohibited by the general angling regulations, such as electroshockers, traps, or nets, and collec-tions at times of the year when angling is closed will require a Scientific Collection Permit from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Scientific Collection Permits can be issued to agencies, companies, or indi-viduals. Request an application from the Fish Division of the Oregon Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207; telephone ( 503) 229- 5410, extension 323. Submit the application at least 1 month before you plan to do the survey in order to be sure the permit can be issued in time. The application requests information about the collection method to be used, when and where collection will be made, and a summary of the proposed project. By law, surveyers must keep records of their collection activities and submit them to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Surveys using the visual observation method ( including snorkeling) do not require any licenses or permits because fish are not physically collected. Sampling with the hook- and- line method during open fishing seasons requires only a valid angling license. However, Oregon resident landowners and their immediate families do not need angling licenses to fish on land they own and live on. In either case, the general ahgling regulations for the stream must be followed during hook- and- line sampling unless a Scientific Collection Permit is obtained. Additional restrictions on survey efforts may apply if the stream contains species that the state or federal government lists as sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. Please contact your local ODFW office to find out whether any of these species are likely to be in streams you plan to sample. Reporting survey results Give survey data to the local ODF district office so that district Stream Classi-fication Maps can be updated. On page 19 is a blank survey report form. It asks for information about the location of the stream; the methods, timing, and effort of the survey; the physical character of the stream; observations of fish and wildlife; and the presence of natural or human- created barriers to fish passage. complete one form for each stream reach where fish were ob-served or fish use was found to end. See Figure 3 ( page 12) for descriptions of some fish species common to $ mall, forested streams; these may help to identify fish seen during surveys. Detailed instructions for completing the survey form are on pages 14 through 18. Attach to the Fish Presence Survey Form a copy of the ODF Stream ClassM-cation Map for the surveyed area or, if that is not available, a copy of the 7.5 minute USGS topographic map for the area. Note the following information on the map. ( Examples of completed survey report forms and maps are on pages 21 through 30.) The area of the stream that was actually surveyed ( including the areas without fish) as part of the survey effort. Highlight in yellow the entire stream reach surveyed ( see examples on pages 25,28, and 30). The upper limit of fish use. Note this on the map by drawing a line across the stream and writing the letter F at that point. The name of the surveyor. The date the stream was surveyed. GENUS ONCORHYNCUS - PACIFIC SALMON IOENTIFICATION FEATURES OF JUVENILES Faint parr marks. extend little. if am: below latanl line. Lures SOCKEYE w GENUS ONCORHYNCUS- TROUT IDENTIFICATIOEI FUTURES OF JUVENILES pols in dorsal Teeth on of tongue Maxillary extend past rear margin on throat W - Of eye CUTTHROAT 5 - I 0 parr marks on ridge ahead of dorsal tongue astend & st rear mark on throat Y; V margin of eye STEELHEAD- RAINBOW Few or no spots i n tail Figure 3. Identification characteristics of some juvenile salmon and trout species that may be observed in forested streams. 3. Permission to enter private forest lands should be obtained from all land-owners before the surveys are conducted. 4. Fish- presence surveys should then be made according to the guidelines given in this publication. 5. The required survey information, recorded on the Fish Presence Survey Form and maps, should be given to the local ODF district office. 6. The ODF office will give copies of the completed survey forms and maps to the local office of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 7. The Department of Forestry will review the information, usually in consul-tation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, to determine whether the survey results are reliable. 8. Based on its assessment of data reliability, the Department of Forestry will make appropriate changes to the ODF Stream Classification Maps. 9. All affected landowners will be notified of the proposed stream classifica-tion changes, according to the notification rules ( OAR 629- 57- 2110( 2)). Instructions for completing the survey report form The following information should be reported on the Fish Presence Survey Form. These instructions are in the order that the information appears on the form. Complete one form for each stream reach or branch where fish were observed or fish use was found to end. This may require assigning codes to unnamed tributaries ( for example, " trib. a," " trib. b") so that survey data can be cross- referenced to the survey maps. Please refer to examples on pages 21 through 29. Surveyor Narne( s): The name of the person or persons responsible for con-ducting the survey and reporting the results. AgencyfCompany: The name of the agency or company that employs the surveyor ( if applicable). Landowner: The name of the landowner of the reach surveyed. Mailing Address and Phone: The address and phone number for the person responsible for the survey. Stream: The name of the stream as reported on the USGS or ODF Stream Classification Map for the area. If the stream is unnamed, report the stream as " unnamed" and list the tributary that it flows into (" Tributary to..."). Tributary to: The name of the main stream ( as reported on the USGS or ODF map) that the surveyed stream flows into. This is especially important if the surveyed stream is unnamed. Quad Map: The name of the USGS 7.5 minute topographic map that includes the reach of the stream surveyed. If the surveyed reach covers more than one quad map, report first the name of the map that shows the identified end- point of fish use and then give the other maps' names. Location: A legal description ( township, range, and section to at least the quarter section) of the location where fish use ends. Date Surveyed: The month, day, and year the fish survey was conducted. Survey Method: Check the box for the survey method used. If more than one method was used, check all that apply and note the most often used method in the comments section or in the form's margin. Survey Amount Above End of Fish Use: The length of stream reach that was surveyed immediately upstream of the identified end of fish use. Estimate ( in feet) the length surveyed, and give the number of pools sampled for fish in that section. A survey to prove the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream and at least six pools immediately upstream of the end of fish use. In addition, any upstream beaver ponds must also be sampled. Flow Level: The flow conditions at the time of the survey. Use the following categories of flow. Low: Ranges from a series of isolated pools to flowing across less than 75 percent of the average bankfull width. Moderate: Surface water is flowing across 75 to 90 percent of the average bankfull width. High: Surface water flowing across more than 90 percent of the average bankfull width. It is not recommended thatfih presence surveys be conducted at high jlows. Weather: The weather during most of the fish survey ( rainy, overcast, partly cloudy, sunny, snowy, etc.). Water Clarity: The water visibility during the survey. Use the following categories of water visibility. Clear: Visibility is good in pools, deep pools, and riffles. Moderate: Visibility is good only in riffles and shallow pools. Turbid: Visibility is poor in both riffles and pools. It is not recommended that fih presence surveys be conducted when water is turbid. Water Temperature ( optional): The temperature of the stream ( in degrees Farenheit) at the time of the survey. Fish observations Report the species and approximate size ranges of fish observed in the sur-veyed reach. Use Figure 3 ( page 12) as a guide to identifying some game fish species commonly found in small, forested streams. Use the following codes and instructions to complete this section. Species: Use the following names or codes to report fish observed during the survey. If you observe a species not listed here, such as Pacific lamprey, use its common name. Name Species Code Coho salmon Co Cutthroat trout Ct Rainbow troutfsteelhead Rb/ St Bull trout BUT Brook trout BT Unknown salmonid UnS Sizes: Report the size range of fish, in inches, by species. For example, the size range of coho observed could be reported as " 1- 4 inches." If you see several sizes of one species ( for example, some cutthroat trout in the " 1- to 2- inch range and others in the " 6- to 8- inch" range), list them separately. Aquatic wildlife The types of aquatic wildlife that may be observed include tailed frogs ( includ-ing juvenile " tadpoles"), Pacific giant salamanders, and Olympic salamanders. Species: Give the common name of the species, if known. If you don't know the species name, at least report observations by a general name such as " salamanders." Number: The number of aquatic wildlife in each species or group observed. Physical stream data Report the physical characteristics of the stream in the vicinity of the end- point of fish use. Report information separately for ( 1) the section immediately at and downstream of the end of fish use, and ( 2) the area upstream of the maximum extent of fish use. Following are specific instructions for collecting this information. Bankfull Channel Width: By eye, estimate the average width ( in feet) of the bankfull channel for the 100- foot sections above and below the end- point of fish use. The bankfull channel is the area that is scoured by water during average high flows. The edge of the bankfull channel can be identified by looking for changes in vegetation, in soils and litter characteristics, or in the shape of the bank. The bank often will abruptly change slope at the bankfull boundary. Vegetation at the boundary often changes from annual vegetation ( such as grasses) to more permanent vegetation such as trees and shrubs. Estimate the width across the channel between the edges of the bankfull level. Current Wetted Width: Visually estimate the average width ( in feet) of the channel that contains flow ( is wetted) at the time of the survey. Report the estimated averages for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. Channel Gradient: Measure the average stream gradient with a clinometer for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. me a piece of flagging at eye level on a branch or shrub, walk up or down the stream bank, and then use the clinometer to sight on the flagging while you are standing on the channel bottom. Read and report the percent gradient. ODF Stream Class Size: The stream size (" small," " medium," or " large") from the ODF Stream Classification Maps for the reaches immediately above and downstream of the end of fish use. Natural barriers This information is very important for understanding relationships between the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Understanding these relationships can help determine where fish- presence surveys should be concentrated and help predict where fish are likely to occur if survey informa-tion is not yet available. Generally, natural barriers are permanent structures such as falls or vertical drops more than 8 to 10 feet high for salmon or steel-head or 4 feet high for trout. Log jams, drops over logs, beaver dams, or other organic structures generally are only temporary barriers to fish passage, but report them as well. If fish use ends at a natural barrier, such as a waterfall, bedrock chute or cascades, describe the conditions at the site. Include a description of: ( 1) the type of barrier, ( 2) the approximate height ( in feet), ( 3) the percentage of slope, ( 4) the length ( in feet) of the bedrock chute or cascades, and ( 5) any other conditions that may be limiting fish passage. If the potential barrier is a bedrock chute, note whether the bedrock contains pools or rough features ( such as rocks, boulders, or other breaks in the flow), or whether the water flows in an even, shallow pattern over the bedrock. Please note on the survey map the locations of any natural barriers encountered. If you encounter a natural barrier, also be sure to sample above this point because fish often are found above natural barriers. Road- crossing barriers This information also is very important for understanding relationships be-tween the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Road-crossing barriers can alter the relationships. If fish use ends at a road- crossing barrier, such as a culvert, describe the conditions at the site. Describe the type of barrier and its measurements at the time of the survey such as ( 1) the diameter of the culvert, in inches, ( 2) the depth ( in inches) of water in the culvert, ( 3) the height ( in feet) of the jump ( drop) below the culvert or structure, ( 4) the depth ( in inches or feet) of the plunge pool below the culvert outfall, ( 5) the gradient or slope of the culvert, given as a percentage as read off a clinometer, ( 6) the length ( in feet) of the culvert, and ( 7) any other factors that could affect fish passage. Please note on the survey map the locations of any road- crossing barriers, even if they are not at the end- point of fish use. As with natural barriers, be sure also to sample above the site because fish often are found above road- crossing barriers. Other comments Any other comments or notations that you think may be pertinent to the fish survey. It helps to describe any notable habitat characteristics, for example " lots of instream wood," " very few pools in the reach," " heavy silt load in the stream." Use the reverse side of the form if necessary. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): Agency: Land Owner: Mailing Address: Phone: Date Surveyed: Stream: Tributary to: Quad Map: Location: T R Sec. Survey Method ( d): 0 Electroshocker 0 h & g 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): 0 Low 17 Moderate High Weather: Water Temperature: Water Clarity ( d): Clear 17 Moderate 17 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): . be Sorveq , 3 Troo+, FI s h G n r u l l , I*? , S.; L. Agency: N/ C I Land Owner: k! 4~ 4f, l T; M ~ C C Mailing address:?.^. sox ~ g~,\ L L I M UF~ A \ ID~ R) jC? suo Phone: BSB- 5555 ate surveyed: A p ( ; i 2 8, ! ?? s I Stream: Un hawed , " Tr I b R!' Tributary to: lr3 F . 21 o k so- ~ r a& QuadMap: D\ A &\ dy Location: T 305 R 5 " L Sec. 30, sw/ sto Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) I 86 ' Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): CI Low cd~ oderate High Weather: S owv Water Temperature: 7 O F I Water Clarity ( V): dclear Moderate I7 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species I Snes 1 Spedes 1 Quant'ity 1 PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. bk If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. prf+ Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): f- 15 L wsz ewd 30 $& abov e f *; rd John50~ m ain\ ifi< ~ r o s s i n OH ~ f r e a ~ 7.% ~ 5t redw g d ~ e n f & ry s t u p abde + he a d 4' & sh use - p & f i a n 10%. 2 1 OREGON FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Fish & Wildlife Stream: ~) nr? euce, d " Tr t b, O " Tributary to: w F & n~ oq CC. Quad Map: old &\ A% Location: T 382 R 5E Sec.' 30, si/ Sw I Survey Method ( 4): ~ lectroshocker 0 Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5' 0 Number of Pools 20 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e High Weather: Lw+ Water Temperature: 6 0 F I Water Clarity ( d): dclear Cl Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species 1 Snes I! , Species Quantity If fish use ends at a natural bamer, desc ' be the conditions that prevent u stre m fish assage. Fid - 4s 4+ 2 S ' ~ r t i Lm* r? d\. A dJ @ cater also % 15& 5 ( ho& a. r. rp Q5 W F - buffis @ ere fouu\ d . opstr + ye If fish use ehs) at a roa d. crossmng, descnbe conhlons that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): w tfw+ were fbU 4 above % z 6 + of (~ la+ erf~ ll above fu 25fcof I sowe years. 22 fail s& i ro fish t@ f& probab/ y vp FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP stream: V A ~ ~ ~ + SC~" T & ~ ributaryto: u. F. 3ehbtja14 Creek Quad Map: old - b a t d ~ Location: T 3 S 5 R 5 E Sec. Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker 0 Anghng 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) a 2 5 Number of Pools 2 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate 0 High Weather: SvMwv Water Temperature: I Water Clarity ( d): d l e a r 0 Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE - ... . .: : :....: ' ' . . . . . . A , , , .: . . . . , . . , .&& : ! Species ... . ..$ pedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. M/ A If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Stream: West h r k Aobrson Cr eeG Tributary to: Johnrow Cre~ k Quad Map: ( ~ ( 4Ith .\ Ay Location: T 385 R 5 E Sec. 2?,, 5E/ sLJ I Survey Method ( d): dlectroshocker 0 Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 3 00 Number of Pools t% Flow Level ( V): 0 Low d ~ o d e r ae t High Weather: j , y~ I Water Temperature: 60" F= Water Clarity ( d): & ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQ- U ATIC WILDLIFE t Spedes Quantity 1 I PHYSICAL STREAM DATA + IH n D CtsL 5h-* If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. N I A If fish use ends t a roqj crossiy, describ~ concl~~ tohnats may prevent upstr am fish passa e. ~ hrvctr ert a no? pQ59 ~ c - r b LOWOJQ 4 u. 4 9 ) drop at * rut-/&. b l d a r p fn qr p aI . 7, slop is 6 70 , and w ( onp 7 % fu~ lv er+ 1s ~ chul~ ledb e replace4 t bi s Svmncr. Other comments ( use reverse s~ de~ fn ecessa ): Lower ~ t r c a - q r d r r & a & e + LC cd en. Sf- rm* bb; M Ieok 30a4, but + k shaln. dry up ;* SOW years. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Mailing Address: ?. c, 3 2 , AJLO ~ L4- T o R 70 00 Phone: b40 - oool Date Surveyed: / Ha v 2 / cj? T I stream: ~ nnclcr- ed , " 7- r; b k " Tributary to: Lobs k c Creek Quad Map: BULL Lrceu Rtdqc Location: T 35 R 2W S ~ C . ~ ~ N € + 4 Survey Method ( d): ~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 300 Number of Pools I 57 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low rd~ oderate High Weather: 7k + lVL * wy Water Temperature: 6 O T-Water Clarity ( d): && ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLlFE I , , , ' Species Sies Spedes Quantity If fish use ends, at a natural ba ' er, describe t e conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. The. LZ m c b r u f - ~ V~ L ry 54- p X e u e + he ed$+ t.* use. ~ k rlrcnu, RIIIVC ~ L I : : pain+ I S ~ 4 1 ~ g ~ r L ~ d eo5ve r bai( Lle r S, b+ + his ri- gf obnhi~ n o+ Q b r r r t c r. ' 7 If fish use ends at a road crossing, descn e conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. U P Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): N r 4.0r L r ~ s; Wj J bCqPn 5 u ru . + r + he L) wediunn - sws\ l size chaqc, F, sh U ~ CC ~ wJh c r t a d c c y t r ; b ~ + G~ d . ovt WLQ) ew- ker s LLII+. 26 FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): 30 e Cadd i i , Bob hJvrnP1\ Agency: o ba~ ~ a'ndbwner: Lobsfec C r , ~ , , b c c Mailing Address: 7 D. ' 30K 2 , ~ J L pLet~ t , D R DO Phone: 8 YD- o 00 1 Date Surveyed: m4 I/ 2, i? 7- C I f Stream: / ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ek bS "" ~ c Tributaryto: L o b s t e r Lraek Quad Map: B V ' ~ Cr eek ??, d. ie Location: T 73 R 2 0 Sec. 3Y, ~ I. o AA. J G Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5 0 Number of Pools / D Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e 0 High Weather: 94, & SU W\ I Water Temperature: 5- 7 " ?= Water Clarity ( d) : Wc1ea. r CI Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA Species Sics Spedes If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. Quantity If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. I I Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): ~ h5ctre um WLS " r y ~ Lw iL tL ~ decy f- goo( r. @. la f is/., observe4 , Ty pr N ~ f . r e u ~ z . FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): \ ce < . 3ab Tr cut Agency: u/ k2 Mailing ~ ddress: Z3R Rne St , b k n h( e dr ! OR ? d o 0 Phone: ZB?- 3333 Date Surveyed: stream: ~*- aweA Tributary to: c r & QuadMap: G l e w b ~ ~ e k Location: T \ 4 5 R 6 @ Sec. zS,, ~ 3t .+ S-Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Q Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate High Weather: C( ea c Water Temperature: 5?* F Water Clarity ( d): lW2ear 0 Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species Sizes Spedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. U P If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Close

• 231. [Image] Relation between selected water-quality variables and lake level in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon

  	Relation Between Selected Water-Quality Constituents and Lake Stage in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon By Tamara M. Wood, Gregory J. Fuhrer, and Jennifer L. Morace SUMMARY Upper Klamath Lake is ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Relation between selected water-quality variables and lake level in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon Author: Wood, Tamara M. Year: 1996, 2005, 2004 Relation Between Selected Water-Quality Constituents and Lake Stage in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon By Tamara M. Wood, Gregory J. Fuhrer, and Jennifer L. Morace SUMMARY Upper Klamath Lake is a large (140 square-mile), shallow (mean depth about 8 ft) lake in south-central Oregon that the historical record indicates has been eutrophic since its discovery by non-Native Americans. In recent decades, however, the lake has had annual occurrences of near-monoculture blooms of the blue-green alga Aphanizomenon flos-aquae. In 1988 two sucker species endemic to the lake, the Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and the shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris), were listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and it has been proposed that the poor water quality conditions associated with extremely long and productive blooms are contributing to the decline of those species. It has also been proposed that the low lake levels made possible by the construction of a dam at the outlet from the lake in 1921 have contributed to worsening water quality through a variety of possible mechanisms (Jacob Kann, Klamath Tribes, written com-mun., 1995). One such mechanism would be an increase in internal phosphorus loading from resuspended sediments (Jacoby and others, 1982), resulting from an increase in bottom shear stresses at lower lake levels (Laenen and LeTourneau, 1996), leading in turn to more intense algal blooms. Another possible mechanism is an earlier triggering of algal blooms. When early spring lake levels are low, greater light intensity at the sediment surface might speed recruitment of algal cells from the sediments. Sediment recruitment has been shown to be an important contributor to water column biomass increases in A. flos aquae (Barbiero and Kann, 1994) and Gloeotrichia echinulata (Barbiero, 1993). An earlier bloom could result in poor water quality conditions occurring earlier in the year, when young-of-the-year fish may be more susceptible to those conditions. Lake level can also influence water quality directly. An increased frequency of sediment resuspension at lower lake levels could increase chemical and biological oxygen demand, resulting in decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations. Sediment oxygen demand also may be enhanced at lower lake levels because it is concentrated over a smaller volume of water. Some compensation for increased oxygen demand at lower lake levels might be provided by increased reaeration, if the water column mixes from top to bottom more frequently. Based on the analysis of data that they have been collecting for several years, the Klamath Tribes recently recommended that the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) modify the operating plan for the dam to make the minimum lake levels for the June-August period more closely resemble pre-dam conditions (Jacob Kann, written commun., 1995). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was asked to analyze the available data for the lake and to assess whether the evidence exists to conclude that year-to-year differences in certain lake water-quality variables are related to year-to-year differences in lake level. The results of the analysis will be used as scientific input in the process of developing an operating plan for the Link River Dam. Datasets Two water-quality datasets were analyzed. The first was a series of hourly records of pH, dissolved oxygen, and water temperature, each of approximately a week's duration. The records were collected at 3 sites over 3 years, 1992 through 1994, with enough consistency to define the seasonal patterns. This dataset provided information about the diel extremes in dissolved oxygen and pH and the seasonal pattern in the diel cycle, but measurements were limited to a depth of 1 m(3.28 ft). The second dataset was a set of depth profiles of pH and dissolved oxygen and concurrent depth-integrated samples for nutrients and chlo-rophyll-a. The profiles were collected at approximately biweekly intervals at nine sites (seven in Upper Klamath and two in Agency Lake) over the 5 years 1990 through 1994. These depth profiles provided information on the depth-dependence of dissolved oxygen and pH, and allowed more extensive year-to-year comparisons than did the hourly records. Because measurements were made at each site only once during the sampling day, however, they did not capture the daily extremes in water quality. Lake level is measured daily by the USGS at three sites around the lake: Rocky Point, Rattlesnake Point, and near the city of Klamath Falls. These daily measurements are then used to compute a spatially weighted average of the lake level that is reported in the USGS annual Water-Data Report for Oregon. The average lake levels were used in this report. Two climatic datasets were used in this report; both were collected at the Klamath Falls airport. Air temperature was recorded as a daily maximum and daily minimum value. Cloud cover was quantized on a daily basis into one of seven levels. Because the focus of this study was primarily to examine possible relations between water quality and lake level, the lake level data provide an important context for the discussions that follow. Title: Relation between selected water-quality variables and lake level in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon Author: Wood, Tamara M. Year: 1996, 2005, 2004 Relation Between Selected Water-Quality Constituents and Lake Stage in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon By Tamara M. Wood, Gregory J. Fuhrer, and Jennifer L. Morace SUMMARY Upper Klamath Lake is a large (140 square-mile), shallow (mean depth about 8 ft) lake in south-central Oregon that the historical record indicates has been eutrophic since its discovery by non-Native Americans. In recent decades, however, the lake has had annual occurrences of near-monoculture blooms of the blue-green alga Aphanizomenon flos-aquae. In 1988 two sucker species endemic to the lake, the Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and the shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris), were listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and it has been proposed that the poor water quality conditions associated with extremely long and productive blooms are contributing to the decline of those species. It has also been proposed that the low lake levels made possible by the construction of a dam at the outlet from the lake in 1921 have contributed to worsening water quality through a variety of possible mechanisms (Jacob Kann, Klamath Tribes, written com-mun., 1995). One such mechanism would be an increase in internal phosphorus loading from resuspended sediments (Jacoby and others, 1982), resulting from an increase in bottom shear stresses at lower lake levels (Laenen and LeTourneau, 1996), leading in turn to more intense algal blooms. Another possible mechanism is an earlier triggering of algal blooms. When early spring lake levels are low, greater light intensity at the sediment surface might speed recruitment of algal cells from the sediments. Sediment recruitment has been shown to be an important contributor to water column biomass increases in A. flos aquae (Barbiero and Kann, 1994) and Gloeotrichia echinulata (Barbiero, 1993). An earlier bloom could result in poor water quality conditions occurring earlier in the year, when young-of-the-year fish may be more susceptible to those conditions. Lake level can also influence water quality directly. An increased frequency of sediment resuspension at lower lake levels could increase chemical and biological oxygen demand, resulting in decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations. Sediment oxygen demand also may be enhanced at lower lake levels because it is concentrated over a smaller volume of water. Some compensation for increased oxygen demand at lower lake levels might be provided by increased reaeration, if the water column mixes from top to bottom more frequently. Based on the analysis of data that they have been collecting for several years, the Klamath Tribes recently recommended that the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) modify the operating plan for the dam to make the minimum lake levels for the June-August period more closely resemble pre-dam conditions (Jacob Kann, written commun., 1995). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was asked to analyze the available data for the lake and to assess whether the evidence exists to conclude that year-to-year differences in certain lake water-quality variables are related to year-to-year differences in lake level. The results of the analysis will be used as scientific input in the process of developing an operating plan for the Link River Dam. Datasets Two water-quality datasets were analyzed. The first was a series of hourly records of pH, dissolved oxygen, and water temperature, each of approximately a week's duration. The records were collected at 3 sites over 3 years, 1992 through 1994, with enough consistency to define the seasonal patterns. This dataset provided information about the diel extremes in dissolved oxygen and pH and the seasonal pattern in the diel cycle, but measurements were limited to a depth of 1 m(3.28 ft). The second dataset was a set of depth profiles of pH and dissolved oxygen and concurrent depth-integrated samples for nutrients and chlo-rophyll-a. The profiles were collected at approximately biweekly intervals at nine sites (seven in Upper Klamath and two in Agency Lake) over the 5 years 1990 through 1994. These depth profiles provided information on the depth-dependence of dissolved oxygen and pH, and allowed more extensive year-to-year comparisons than did the hourly records. Because measurements were made at each site only once during the sampling day, however, they did not capture the daily extremes in water quality. Lake level is measured daily by the USGS at three sites around the lake: Rocky Point, Rattlesnake Point, and near the city of Klamath Falls. These daily measurements are then used to compute a spatially weighted average of the lake level that is reported in the USGS annual Water-Data Report for Oregon. The average lake levels were used in this report. Two climatic datasets were used in this report; both were collected at the Klamath Falls airport. Air temperature was recorded as a daily maximum and daily minimum value. Cloud cover was quantized on a daily basis into one of seven levels. Because the focus of this study was primarily to examine possible relations between water quality and lake level, the lake level data provide an important context for the discussions that follow. Close

• 232. [Image] Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010

  	Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010 Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office. Year: 2000, 2005, 2004 Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) in Klamath Falls, Oregon. These restoration activities are needed due to the large-scale loss of wetland and riparian habitat and degraded water quality. The purpose of these restoration efforts is the improvement of conditions of the watershed with specific regard to habitat and water quality, resulting in, among other benefits, improved conditions for the endangered fish species (bull trout and Lost River and shortnose sucker) populations of the basin. The geographic scope of this EA is defined as the upper Klamath River basin, including the entire watershed from Irongate Dam upstream to the headwaters. This EA is intended to provide NEPA compliance for restoration projects conducted between the years 2000 and 2010. The ERO was established in 1993 to sponsor and assist with a variety of restoration activities in the Klamath Basin. The ERO funds and provides technical assistance to restoration projects involving private landholders, concerned groups, and other state, federal, and tribal agencies. Four alternatives are presented in this EA. The proposed alternative (Alternative 1) consists of a comprehensive program of ecosystem restoration, promoting projects in both riparian areas and in upland habitats. This would continue the current program in effect since 1994. NEPA compliance would primarily be carried out via a single, programmatic document saving time and funds. The Fish & Wildlife Service proposes to fund and administer the following projects types: Riparian Projects: (fencing for livestock management; native plant establishment & diversification; non-native plant removal/control; erosion control; contour re-establishment; impoundment removal; wildlife habitat improvements) Wetland Projects: (fencing; wetland restoration and enhancement; wildlife habitat improvements) Upland or Road Projects: (road abandonment, decommissioning, & obliteration; road drainage improvements and storm proofing, re-establishment of historic contours; silvicultural treatments; native plant establishment/diversification; non-native plant removal/control; fencing; landslide treatments; culvert/stream crossing upgrades; erosion control; wildlife habitat improvements). In-stream Projects: (habitat complexity and diversity improvements; hydrologic regime improvements; coarse woody debris supplementation; natural or artificial barrier removal, modification &/or creation; fish screens installation). Alternative 2 would concentrate restoration efforts only on riparian, instream, and wetland areas. Road projects would be conducted only within the riparian corridor, as defined. NEPA compliance would also be conducted programmatically. Alternative 3 would cease all restoration activities conducted and funded by the ERO in the Klamath Basin. This alternative would serve as a benchmark against which the effects of the restoration alternatives discussed above can be compared. Alternative 4, the "No Action" alternative, would continue current management policies with regard to NEPA compliance, providing compliance on a project by project basis requiring independent analysis for each project. The affected environment of the region is described in detail. The environment has been changed significantly since the 1890's due to logging, agriculture and urban development. An extensive system of dams, canals, and drainage structures has resulted in the conversion of approximately 80% of pre-settlement wetlands to agricultural uses. Riparian corridors have been similarly impacted, and upland forests regions have been affected by logging, road construction and other factors. These changes have contributed to problems with the water quality in the region, contributing to the listing of several fish species as threatened or endangered; loss of habitat has affected a large number of other species as well. The environmental effects of each alternative is analyzed. Some short term negative impacts could occur as a result of the projects authorized by both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but these would be strongly offset by the expected beneficial results to water quality and habitat conditions. Alternative 1 would be expected to have a greater overall effect on the environment than Alternative 2, since many of the underlying factors with which restoration efforts are concerned originate in upland conditions (i.e. sedimentation and hydrologic functionality). Alternative 3 would result in conditions remaining much as they are currently, although other programs and organizations are making efforts at restoration activities. The environmental impacts of individual projects anticipated under Alternative 4 would be generally the same as for similar projects under Alternative 1. The primary difference between the two alternatives would be the higher efficiency and improved cumulative analysis resulting from a programmatic approach as proposed in Alternative 1. Public participation in the NEPA process has been, and will continue to be, solicited and welcomed. Compliance with state and federal laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act, as well as guidelines for contaminant surveys, will be carried out as detailed. While these projects are expected to play an important role in the restoration of the region, none of these alternatives are expected to have a significant impact when compared with the loss of wetland, riparian and upland habitats over the past century, impacts which do occur would be of a cumulatively beneficial nature. Other restoration efforts are being carried out in the area by other governmental and private groups, and it is expected that these combined efforts will achieve important beneficial results for the ecosystem. Title: Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010 Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office. Year: 2000, 2005, 2004 Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) in Klamath Falls, Oregon. These restoration activities are needed due to the large-scale loss of wetland and riparian habitat and degraded water quality. The purpose of these restoration efforts is the improvement of conditions of the watershed with specific regard to habitat and water quality, resulting in, among other benefits, improved conditions for the endangered fish species (bull trout and Lost River and shortnose sucker) populations of the basin. The geographic scope of this EA is defined as the upper Klamath River basin, including the entire watershed from Irongate Dam upstream to the headwaters. This EA is intended to provide NEPA compliance for restoration projects conducted between the years 2000 and 2010. The ERO was established in 1993 to sponsor and assist with a variety of restoration activities in the Klamath Basin. The ERO funds and provides technical assistance to restoration projects involving private landholders, concerned groups, and other state, federal, and tribal agencies. Four alternatives are presented in this EA. The proposed alternative (Alternative 1) consists of a comprehensive program of ecosystem restoration, promoting projects in both riparian areas and in upland habitats. This would continue the current program in effect since 1994. NEPA compliance would primarily be carried out via a single, programmatic document saving time and funds. The Fish & Wildlife Service proposes to fund and administer the following projects types: Riparian Projects: (fencing for livestock management; native plant establishment & diversification; non-native plant removal/control; erosion control; contour re-establishment; impoundment removal; wildlife habitat improvements) Wetland Projects: (fencing; wetland restoration and enhancement; wildlife habitat improvements) Upland or Road Projects: (road abandonment, decommissioning, & obliteration; road drainage improvements and storm proofing, re-establishment of historic contours; silvicultural treatments; native plant establishment/diversification; non-native plant removal/control; fencing; landslide treatments; culvert/stream crossing upgrades; erosion control; wildlife habitat improvements). In-stream Projects: (habitat complexity and diversity improvements; hydrologic regime improvements; coarse woody debris supplementation; natural or artificial barrier removal, modification &/or creation; fish screens installation). Alternative 2 would concentrate restoration efforts only on riparian, instream, and wetland areas. Road projects would be conducted only within the riparian corridor, as defined. NEPA compliance would also be conducted programmatically. Alternative 3 would cease all restoration activities conducted and funded by the ERO in the Klamath Basin. This alternative would serve as a benchmark against which the effects of the restoration alternatives discussed above can be compared. Alternative 4, the "No Action" alternative, would continue current management policies with regard to NEPA compliance, providing compliance on a project by project basis requiring independent analysis for each project. The affected environment of the region is described in detail. The environment has been changed significantly since the 1890's due to logging, agriculture and urban development. An extensive system of dams, canals, and drainage structures has resulted in the conversion of approximately 80% of pre-settlement wetlands to agricultural uses. Riparian corridors have been similarly impacted, and upland forests regions have been affected by logging, road construction and other factors. These changes have contributed to problems with the water quality in the region, contributing to the listing of several fish species as threatened or endangered; loss of habitat has affected a large number of other species as well. The environmental effects of each alternative is analyzed. Some short term negative impacts could occur as a result of the projects authorized by both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but these would be strongly offset by the expected beneficial results to water quality and habitat conditions. Alternative 1 would be expected to have a greater overall effect on the environment than Alternative 2, since many of the underlying factors with which restoration efforts are concerned originate in upland conditions (i.e. sedimentation and hydrologic functionality). Alternative 3 would result in conditions remaining much as they are currently, although other programs and organizations are making efforts at restoration activities. The environmental impacts of individual projects anticipated under Alternative 4 would be generally the same as for similar projects under Alternative 1. The primary difference between the two alternatives would be the higher efficiency and improved cumulative analysis resulting from a programmatic approach as proposed in Alternative 1. Public participation in the NEPA process has been, and will continue to be, solicited and welcomed. Compliance with state and federal laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act, as well as guidelines for contaminant surveys, will be carried out as detailed. While these projects are expected to play an important role in the restoration of the region, none of these alternatives are expected to have a significant impact when compared with the loss of wetland, riparian and upland habitats over the past century, impacts which do occur would be of a cumulatively beneficial nature. Other restoration efforts are being carried out in the area by other governmental and private groups, and it is expected that these combined efforts will achieve important beneficial results for the ecosystem. Close

• 233. [Image] Crisis to consensus : restoration planning for the Upper Klamath Basin

  	Executive Summary This report presents the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group's (Working Group) recommendations for the development and implementation of a restoration plan for the Upper Klamath Basin. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Crisis to consensus : restoration planning for the Upper Klamath Basin Author: Upper Klamath Basin Working Group Year: 2002, 2005, 2004 Executive Summary This report presents the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group's (Working Group) recommendations for the development and implementation of a restoration plan for the Upper Klamath Basin. In 1996, the 104th Congress of the United States chartered the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group (Public Law 104-333 - the Oregon Resources Conservation Act) to develop a plan for the Upper Basin that focuses on enhancing ecosystem restoration, improving economic stability, and minimizing impacts associated with drought on all resources and stakeholders. The Working Group is comprised of over 30 individuals appointed by the Governor of Oregon, representing federal, state, and local governments and agencies; the Klamath Tribes; conservation organizations; farmers and ranchers; and industry and local businesses. The objective of the Working Group is to develop and oversee a restorative course of action that allows for mutually beneficial gains for stakeholders wherein everybody in the Upper Basin can achieve positive, affirming results together, and where no one is left economically, culturally, or spiritually disadvantaged. Chapter 1 of this report presents a brief summary of the history of the Working Group and the conditions leading to the development of this effort. Chapter 2 describes the facilitated "interim planning process" the Working Group engaged in between April 2001 and July 2002. Chapter 3 presents the results of the interim planning process including key recommendations regarding Working Group decision-making and operating rules, technical data needs, future cost and time frame of the restoration planning process, and similar planning decisions. Chapter 4 describes the next steps and actions the Working Group is prepared to take to lead the restoration planning process. The Working Group's goals and objectives will be achieved through the Working Group's continued commitment to public outreach, collaborative problem solving, and implementation of real world solutions. Desired outcomes from implementation of the restoration plan include, but are not limited to, the following: improved water quality through the implementation of accepted Best Management Practices; restoration of wetlands and riparian habitat; enhancement of natural and structural water storage; improvements to irrigation efficiency and water conservation; economic growth and diversity through activities such as value added natural resource products and ecotourism; and enhancement of wildlife Tribal Trust resources. Title: Crisis to consensus : restoration planning for the Upper Klamath Basin Author: Upper Klamath Basin Working Group Year: 2002, 2005, 2004 Executive Summary This report presents the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group's (Working Group) recommendations for the development and implementation of a restoration plan for the Upper Klamath Basin. In 1996, the 104th Congress of the United States chartered the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group (Public Law 104-333 - the Oregon Resources Conservation Act) to develop a plan for the Upper Basin that focuses on enhancing ecosystem restoration, improving economic stability, and minimizing impacts associated with drought on all resources and stakeholders. The Working Group is comprised of over 30 individuals appointed by the Governor of Oregon, representing federal, state, and local governments and agencies; the Klamath Tribes; conservation organizations; farmers and ranchers; and industry and local businesses. The objective of the Working Group is to develop and oversee a restorative course of action that allows for mutually beneficial gains for stakeholders wherein everybody in the Upper Basin can achieve positive, affirming results together, and where no one is left economically, culturally, or spiritually disadvantaged. Chapter 1 of this report presents a brief summary of the history of the Working Group and the conditions leading to the development of this effort. Chapter 2 describes the facilitated "interim planning process" the Working Group engaged in between April 2001 and July 2002. Chapter 3 presents the results of the interim planning process including key recommendations regarding Working Group decision-making and operating rules, technical data needs, future cost and time frame of the restoration planning process, and similar planning decisions. Chapter 4 describes the next steps and actions the Working Group is prepared to take to lead the restoration planning process. The Working Group's goals and objectives will be achieved through the Working Group's continued commitment to public outreach, collaborative problem solving, and implementation of real world solutions. Desired outcomes from implementation of the restoration plan include, but are not limited to, the following: improved water quality through the implementation of accepted Best Management Practices; restoration of wetlands and riparian habitat; enhancement of natural and structural water storage; improvements to irrigation efficiency and water conservation; economic growth and diversity through activities such as value added natural resource products and ecotourism; and enhancement of wildlife Tribal Trust resources. Close

• 234. [Image] An examination of the Klamath Basin crisis : restructuring the discourse within an identity-based framework

  	Thesis (B.A.) -- Whitman College, 2002; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-83)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: An examination of the Klamath Basin crisis : restructuring the discourse within an identity-based framework Author: Dornsife, Alison M. Year: 2002, 2005, 2004 Thesis (B.A.) -- Whitman College, 2002; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-83) Title: An examination of the Klamath Basin crisis : restructuring the discourse within an identity-based framework Author: Dornsife, Alison M. Year: 2002, 2005, 2004 Thesis (B.A.) -- Whitman College, 2002; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-83) Close

• 235. [Image] Klamath River fish die-off, September 2002 : report on estimate of mortality

  	Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA Summary of Findings This report provides an estimate of the fish mortality that occurred during the September 2002 Klamath ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath River fish die-off, September 2002 : report on estimate of mortality Author: Guillen, George. Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA Summary of Findings This report provides an estimate of the fish mortality that occurred during the September 2002 Klamath River die-off. The intent of this report is to provide natural resource agencies and trustees with information describing the magnitude of this event for their consideration in near-term decisions regarding the affected fisheries resources and related assets under their authority. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in cooperation with other federal and state agencies and Tribes, will continue to collaborate and evaluate information collected during the die-off. This report describes a conservative assessment, which probably underestimates the total number of fish that died during this event. Findings described in this report include the following: 22 The most accurate estimate of the total number of observable fish that died during the incident is 34,056. 22 Approximately 98.4 percent of the dead fish observed were adult anadromous salmonids 22 Out of 33,527 anadromous salmonids estimated to have succumbed during this event, 97.1 percent (32,533) were fall-run Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, 1.8 percent (629) were steelhead, O. mykiss, and 1.0 percent (344) were coho salmon, O. kisutch. Only one coastal cutthroat, O. clarki clarki was found dead during the investigation. 22 Approximately 91.5 percent of the coho salmon, and 38.7 percent of the steelhead observed had marks indicating that they were of hatchery origin. All hatchery coho originated from the Trinity River Hatchery. After accounting for variable tagging and shed rates, the Klamath River Technical Advisory Team (KRTAT) estimated that 7,060 (21.7 percent) Chinook were of hatchery origin. A total of 2,921 (9 percent) Chinook were of Iron Gate (Klamath River) Hatchery origin. A total of 4,139 (12.7 percent) Chinook were of Trinity River Hatchery origin. 22 The KRTAT also estimated that dead Chinook salmon represented 19.2 percent of the total (169,,297) in-river Klamath-Trinity River run. 22 Other dead fish observed during the investigation included sculpins, Cottus spp. (87 fish), speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus (9 fish), Klamath smallscale sucker, Catostomus rimiculus (311 fish), one American shad, Alosa sapidissima, and one green sturgeon, Acipencer medirostris. ii Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA 22 Throughout the investigation, live adult and juvenile fish of affected and unaffected species were observed in the river. In addition, some species (e.g. American shad, speckled dace, and green sturgeon) did not appear to experience extensive mortality. Almost all (greater than 99 percent) of the dead fish observed were adults or larger species offish. 22 The majority of the recently dead fish examined exhibited one or more outward gross signs of disease including gill necrosis, bacterial growth, sores, bloody vents, and ulcerations. Pathological examinations confirmed that white spot disease and columnaris were the principle immediate causes of death. Additional information collected by the Service and cooperating agencies included a suite of water quality parameters collected during the summer and fall of 2001 and 2002, fish pathology analyses, and related hydrologic information. The Service will provide reports on this additional information after it has received quality assurance review. A more comprehensive report addressing contributing factors associated with causes of the fish die-off will follow. in Title: Klamath River fish die-off, September 2002 : report on estimate of mortality Author: Guillen, George. Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA Summary of Findings This report provides an estimate of the fish mortality that occurred during the September 2002 Klamath River die-off. The intent of this report is to provide natural resource agencies and trustees with information describing the magnitude of this event for their consideration in near-term decisions regarding the affected fisheries resources and related assets under their authority. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in cooperation with other federal and state agencies and Tribes, will continue to collaborate and evaluate information collected during the die-off. This report describes a conservative assessment, which probably underestimates the total number of fish that died during this event. Findings described in this report include the following: 22 The most accurate estimate of the total number of observable fish that died during the incident is 34,056. 22 Approximately 98.4 percent of the dead fish observed were adult anadromous salmonids 22 Out of 33,527 anadromous salmonids estimated to have succumbed during this event, 97.1 percent (32,533) were fall-run Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, 1.8 percent (629) were steelhead, O. mykiss, and 1.0 percent (344) were coho salmon, O. kisutch. Only one coastal cutthroat, O. clarki clarki was found dead during the investigation. 22 Approximately 91.5 percent of the coho salmon, and 38.7 percent of the steelhead observed had marks indicating that they were of hatchery origin. All hatchery coho originated from the Trinity River Hatchery. After accounting for variable tagging and shed rates, the Klamath River Technical Advisory Team (KRTAT) estimated that 7,060 (21.7 percent) Chinook were of hatchery origin. A total of 2,921 (9 percent) Chinook were of Iron Gate (Klamath River) Hatchery origin. A total of 4,139 (12.7 percent) Chinook were of Trinity River Hatchery origin. 22 The KRTAT also estimated that dead Chinook salmon represented 19.2 percent of the total (169,,297) in-river Klamath-Trinity River run. 22 Other dead fish observed during the investigation included sculpins, Cottus spp. (87 fish), speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus (9 fish), Klamath smallscale sucker, Catostomus rimiculus (311 fish), one American shad, Alosa sapidissima, and one green sturgeon, Acipencer medirostris. ii Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA 22 Throughout the investigation, live adult and juvenile fish of affected and unaffected species were observed in the river. In addition, some species (e.g. American shad, speckled dace, and green sturgeon) did not appear to experience extensive mortality. Almost all (greater than 99 percent) of the dead fish observed were adults or larger species offish. 22 The majority of the recently dead fish examined exhibited one or more outward gross signs of disease including gill necrosis, bacterial growth, sores, bloody vents, and ulcerations. Pathological examinations confirmed that white spot disease and columnaris were the principle immediate causes of death. Additional information collected by the Service and cooperating agencies included a suite of water quality parameters collected during the summer and fall of 2001 and 2002, fish pathology analyses, and related hydrologic information. The Service will provide reports on this additional information after it has received quality assurance review. A more comprehensive report addressing contributing factors associated with causes of the fish die-off will follow. in Close

• 236. [Image] The Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds

  	KCAMATH FALLS. QREEON THE OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS The purpose of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ( the " Oregon Plan") as stated in the Plan and reaffirmed in this Executive Order ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds Author: Oregon. Office of the Governor Year: 1999, 2005, 2004 KCAMATH FALLS. QREEON THE OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS The purpose of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ( the " Oregon Plan") as stated in the Plan and reaffirmed in this Executive Order is to restore Oregon's wild salmon and trout populations and fisheries to sustainable and productive levels that will provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits and to improve water quality. The Oregon Plan is a long- term, ongoing effort that began as a focused set of actions by state, local, tribal and private organizations and individuals in October of 1995. The Oregon Plan first addressed coho salmon on the Oregon Coast, was then broadened to include steelhead trout on the coast and in the Lower Columbia River, and is now expanding to all at- risk wild salmonids throughout the state. The Oregon Plan addresses all factors for decline of these species, including watershed conditions arid fisheries, to the extent those factors can be affected by the state. The Oregon Plan was endorsed and funded by the Oregon Legislature in 1997 through Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch. 7) and House Bill 3700 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch.' 8). The Oregon Plan is described in two principal documents: " The Oregon Plan," dated March 1997, and " The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Supplement I - steelhbad," dated January 1998. As used in this Executive Order, + the Oregon Plan also incorporates the Healthy Streams Partnership ( Oregon Senate Bill 101 0, 1 993- Or. Laws, ch. 263). The Oregon Plan is a cooperative effort of state, local, federal, tribal and private organizations and individuals. Although the Oregon Plan contains a strong foundation of protective regulations -- continuing existing regulatory programs and speeding the implementation of others - an essential principle of the Plan is the need to move beyond prohibitions and to encourage efforts to improve conditions for salmon through non- regulatory means. Many of the most significant contributions to the Oregon Plan are private and quasi- governmental efforts to protect and . restore salmon on working landscapes, including efforts by watershed councils. Salmon and trout restoration requires action and sacrifice across the entire economic and geographic spectrum of Oregon. The commercial and sport fishing industries in Oregon have been heavily affected by complete or partial closures of fisheries. The forest industry operates under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, and has contributed substantially to salmon recovery through habitat restoration projects on private lands and by funding a large pan of the state recovery efforts. The agriculture and mining industries are also taking actions that will protect and restore salmon and trout habitat and improve water quality ( including financial support of restoration efforts by the mining industry). Urban areas are developing water conservation programs, spending funds for wastewater treatment improvements to reduce point source pollution, reducing non- point source pollution and reducing activities that degrade riparian areas. All citizens of Oregon share responsibility for declining populations of wild salmon and trout, and it is important that there be both a broad commitment to reversing these historic trends and a sense that the burdens of restoration are being shared by all of society. It is also important that there be independent scientific oversight of the Oregon Plan. This oversight is being provided by the Independent Mutidisciplinary Science Team ( IMST), established under Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch. 7). ~ d'ditional legislative oversight for the Oregon Plan is being provided by the Joint Legislative Committee on . Salmon and Stream Enhancement ( the " Joint Committee!'). Under the federal Endangered Species Act ( ESA) the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service . . ( F& WS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) are responsible for identifying species that are threatened or endangered, and for developing programs to conserve and recover lhose species. F& WS and NMFS have now listed salmonids under the ESA on the entire Oregon Coast, the lower Columbia River ( including most of the Portland metropolitan area). the la math River basin, and in the upper Columbia and Snake River basins. More listings are expected within the next year. To date, the F& WS and NMFS generally have not had the resources to develop and implement effective recovery plans for fisheries. In addition, in many areas a large proportion of the habitat that list'ed'salmonids depend on is located on private lands, where the regulatory tools under the ESA are relatively ' ill- defined and indirect. Finally, federal agencies alone, even if they take an active regulatory approach. to recovery, will not restore listed salmonids. The federal ESA may work to prohibit certain actions, but there is simply too much habitat on private lands for restoration to succeed without pro- active involvement and incentives for individuals, groups, and local governments to take affirmative actions to restore habitat on working landscapes. In April, 1997 the State of Oregon and NMFS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) under which the State agreed to continue existing measures under the March 1997 Oregon Plan and to take certain additional actions to protect and restbre coho salmon on the Oregon Coast. On May 6, 1997, NMFS determined that the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit ( ESU) of coho salmon did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. On June 2, 1998, the US. District Court for Oregon ordered NMFS to reconsider its decision without taking into account any parts of the Oregon Plan or MOA that are not " current enforceable measures." The U. S. District Court for Oregon also held that the MOA was speculative, due to the fact that it provided for termination by either party on thirty days notice, and that therefore the MOA could not be considered by NMFS ' in its listing decision. Under court order, NMFS reconsidered its decision without taking into account the application in the future of the harvest and hatchery measures contained in the Oregon Plan, or the habitat improvement programs being undertaken under the Oregon Plan, or the commitments made by the State of Oregon in the MOA for improvement of applicable habitat measures. Accordingly, NMFS listed Oregon Coast .. . coho as threatened undefthe ESA on or about October 2, 1998. - The MOA provided for the State of Oregon to take actions necessary to ensfie that - Oregon Coast coho did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the federal ESA. Now that Oregon Coast coho are listed as a threatened species as a- result of the U. S. District Court's order, the central purpose of the MOA has been eliminated. Due to the uncertainties created by the District Court's decision and the increasing extent of salmonids listed or proposed for listing under the federal ESA, it is important that the status of the State of Oregon's substantive commitments under the MOA and the purpose of the Oregon Plan be clarified. Through this Executive Order, the State of Oregon reaffirms its intent to play the leading role in protecting and restoring Oregon Coast coho and other salmonids. through the implementation of the Oregon Plan. This Executive Order provides the framework and direction for state agencies to implement ( to the extent of their authorities) the Oregon Plan in a timely and effective manner. This Executive Order also provides a framework for extending the state's efforts beyond a focus on Oregon Coast coho, to watersheds and fisheries statewide. Consistent with the principle of adaptive management, this Order applies the experience gained to date in implementing the Oregon Plan to provide additional detailed direction to state agencies. Finally, this Executive Order establishes a public involvement process to prioritize continuing efforts under the Oregon Plan. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED: ( 1) Overall Direction ( a) Agencies of the State of Oregon will, consistent with their authorities, fully implement the state agency efforts described in the Oregon Plan and in this Executive Order. ( b) The overall objective for state agencies under the Oregon Plan and this Executive Order is to protect and restore salmonids and to improve water quality. ( c) The Governor will, in cooperation with the Joint Committee, IMST, affected state agencies, watershed councils, and other affected local entities and persons develop and implement, a process to set biological and habitat goals and objectives to protect and restore salmonids on a basin or regional basis as soon as practicable. Once these goals and objectives are established, they will be used by state agencies . . . to evaluate their regulatory and non- regulatory programs and measures relating to the protection and re'storation of salmonids. Through this on- going evaluation, state agencies will determine any changes to their programs or measures that may be necessary to meet the biological and habitat goals and objectives. In the interim, the following objectives in subsections ( d) and ( e) shall apply to agencies' implem'entation of the OregGn Plan and this Executive Order. . . ( d) Actions that state agencies take, fund and/ or authorize that are primarily for a purpose other than restoration of salmonids or the habitat they depend upon will, considering the anticipated duration and geographic scope of the actions: ( A) to the maximum extent practicable minimize and mitigate adverse effects of the actions on salmoni. ds or the habitat they depend on; and ( 8) not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of salmonids in the wild. ( e) State agencies will take, fund and/ or authorize actions that are primarily for the purpose of restoring salmonids or the habitat they depend upon, including actions implementing the Oregon Plan, with the goal of producing a conservation benefit that ( if taken together with comparable and related actions by all persons and entities within the range of the species) is likely to result in sustainable population levels of salmonids in the foreseeable future, and in population levels of salmonids that provide substantial environmental, cultural and economic benefits to Oregonians in the long term. ( f) With the broadening of the Oregon Plan,' prioritizing all agency actions according to coho core areas is no longer appropriate. Each state agency participating in the Oregon Plan, in consultation with ODFW and other partners involved in the implementation of the Plan and through a public involvement process, will modify their existing work programs in the Oregon Plan to prioritize agency measures to protect and restore salmonids in a timely and effective manner. The work programs will continue to identify key specific outcomes, refine and improve designations of priority areas, and establish completion dates. These modifications will be submitted to the , Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and commissions as soon as possible, but in no event later than June 1, 1999. Progress reports on action plans will be submitted to the Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and commissions on an annual basis. In prioritizing their efforts,' state agencies shall consider how to maximize conservation -, benefits for salmonids and the habitat they depend on within limited resources and - . whether their- actions are likely to increase populations of salmonids in the foreseeable future. I p ( g) State agencies will work cooperatively with landowners, local entities and other persons taking actions to protect or restore salmonids. ( h) As the Oregon Plan grows in geographic scope and . in intensity of activity,' there is a growing need to streamline and prioritize state agency activity at the . regional level. One proposal has been to organize state natural resource agency field operations along hydrologic units. Therefore, state agencies will consider this proposal and, through the collective efforts of state agency directors, develop an organization plan that focuses state agency field effort on the activities and areas of highest priority under the Oregon Plan. ( i) State. agencies will continue to encourage and work with agencies of the U. S. government to implement the federal measures described in the Oregon Plan.. In addition, the state agencies will work with the federal government to develop additional means of protecting and restoring salmonids. Where appropriate, state agencies will request that federal agencies obtain incidental take permits under Section 7 of the federal ESA for state actions that ace funded or authorized by a , federal agency. ( j) State agencies will help support efforts to evaluate watershed conditions, and to develop'specific strategic plans to provide for flood management, water quality improvement, and salmonid restoration in basins around the state, including the Willamette basin through the Willamette Restoration Initiative. ( k) The IMST will continue to provide oversight to ensure the use of the best scientific information available as the basis for implementation of and for adaptive changes to the Oregon Plan. State agencies will ensure that the IMST receives data and other information reasonably required for its functions in a timely manner. The Governor's Natural Resources Office ( GNRO) has requested that the IMST's initial priority be review of the freshwater habitat needs of coho and the relationship between population levels, escapement levels, and habitat characteristics. The GNRO also will continue to request that the IMST annually review monitoring results and identify where the Oregon Plan warrants change for scientific or technical reasons and make recommend& ions to the appropriate agency on those adjustments that appear necessary. Agencies will report their responses to any recommendations by . . the IMST to the Governor and to the Joint Committee. Any other changes identified by the IMST as necessary to achieve properly functioning riparian and aquatic habitat conditions required to, protect and restore salmonids will be forwarded to the appropriate governmental entity for its consideration of the adoption of new, changed, or supplemental measures as rapidly as possible while providing for public involvement: Each state agency, by June 1, 1999, will ratify a monitoring team charter through an interagency memorandum. A draft of the charter is contained in the 1998 Oregon Plan Annual Report. ( I) Monitoring is a key element of the Oregon Plan. Each state agency will actively support the monitoring strategy described in the Oregon Plan. Each affected agency will participate on the monitoring team to coordinate activities and integrate analyses. Each agency will implement . an appropriate monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of their programs and measures in meeting the objectives set forth in the Oregon Planon an annual basis. In addition, agencies with regulatory programs that are included in the Oregon Plan will determine levels of compliance with regulatory standards and identify and act on opportunities to improve compliance levels: ( m) If information gathered regarding the effectiveness of measures in the Oregon Plan shows that existing strategies within state control are not achie, ving expected improvements and objectives, the agency( ies1 responsible for those measures will seek appropriate changes in their regulations, policies, programs, r-measures and other areas of the Oregon Plan, as required to protect and restore coho and other sal'monids. Such modification or supplementation will be done as rapidly as possible, consistent with public involvement. ( n) Agencies are using geographically- referenced data in their efforts under the Oregon Plan, and will be using Geographic Information Systems ( GIs) in the analysis of these , data. In doing so, the State GIs Plan, developed by the Oregon Geographic lnformation Council ( OGIC) ( see Executive Order 96- 40) will be followed, with specific adherence to the Plan guidance on data documentation, coordination and data sharing. The agency with primary responsibility for gathering and updating the specific data will be responsible for meeting the requirements of the Plan, and to ensure coordination- with OGIC, the State Service Center for GIs and other' cooperating agencies. In addition, state agencies will cooperate with the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board ( GWEB), Soil and. Water Conservation Districts ( SWCDs), local waters$ ed councils, landowners and others in making these essential data available. ( 0) Geographically- based strategies to assess and achieve habitat needs and adequate escapement levels will be used, and the state agencies will continue with the development of standardized watershed assessment protocols, including a -- cumulative effects assessment. State agencies will also continue with the development of habitat restoration guides to evaluate and direct habitat restoration efforts. ( 2) Continuation and Expansion of Existing Efforts. Without limiting the generality of section ( l)( a) of this Executive Order, the following subsections of this Executive Order describe some of the many efforts in the Oregon Plan where the initial phase of work has been completed, and where efforts will be continued. ( a) The Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission ( OFWC), the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife ( ODFW), and the Pacific Fishery Management Council ( PFMC) are managing ocean and terminal fisheries according to the measures set forth in the Oregon Plan ( ODFW I- A. l and Ill- A. l). These measures set a maximum mortality rate ( resulting from other fisheries) for any of four disaggregated stocks of coho of fifteen percent ( 1 5%) under poor ocean conditions. In 1997, the mortality rate. from harvest is estimated to have been between nine and eleven percent ( 9- 1 1 %). ODFW and OFWC will continue these measures in state waters, and will actively support continued implementation of the ocean harvest measures by the PFMC ( Amendment 13 to the Council's salmon management plan) until and unless a different management regime agreeable to NMFS is adopted. ( b) The OFWC and ODFW will ensure that the fish hatchery measures set forth in the Oregon Plan are continued by the OFWC and ODFW. ODFW is marking all hatchery coho on the Oregon Coast. This marking will allow increased certainty in estimating hatchery stray rates beginning in 1999. Available data on hatchery stray rates for coho and steelhead are being provided to NMFS on an annual basis. The number of hatchery coho released is estimated to have been 1.7 million in 1998 - substantially below the level called for in the Oregon Plan. This number will be reduced to 1.2 million in 1999. In addition, ODFW has, and will continue to provide. annual reports regarding: ( i) the number of juvenile hatchery coho that are released by brood year, locations and dates of release, life stage, and broodstock origin; ( ii) the number of adult coho taken for broodstock for each hatchery, the location and date of collection, and the origin ( hatchery or natural); ( iii) the number of hatchery coho . . estimated to have spawned in natural habitat by basin; ( iv) the estimated percentage of hatchery coho% the total natural spawning population; and ( v) the mortality of naturally- spawning coho resulting from each fishery. NMFS may provide comments about hatchery prograk affecting coho to ODFW, with any concerns to be resolved between NMFS and ODFW. - - ( c) ln addition to recent modifications to hatchery practices and programs, a new vision is needed for how Oregon will utilize hatcheries in the best and most effective manner. Therefore, the ODFW and the OFWC shall engage in a process to create a strategic plan for fish hatcheries in Oregon over the next decade ( including state and federally- funded hatcheries, private hatcheries, and the STEP program). The essential elements of this process are as follows: ( i) Impartial analysis - conduct an impartial analysis of the scientific bases, and the social and economic effects of Oregon hatchery programs utilizing existing analyses and review where feasible, but conducting new analyses if necessary; ( ii) Review the Wild Fish Management Policy ( WFMP) - because the future plan for hatcheries in Oregon is dependent on implementation of the WFMP, ODFW shall conduct a science and stakeholder review to determine if this significant policy should be revised and shall make any revision by July 2000; ( iii) Frame alternative strategies -- convene a group of stockholders to . frame alternative strategies, including outcomes and descriptions, of how hatcheries will be used in Oregon over the next decade ( these strategies will address the use of hatcheries for wild fish population recovery including supplementation, research and monitoring, public education, and sport and commercial fishing opportunities); ( iv) Public review and selection of a strategy -- the OFWC shall, after public review and ' ;-'-!&%; f$'. i comment, adopt a strategic plan to guide development of future hatchery programs, incorporating the strategy developed and adopted in accordance with subpart ( iii) of this paragraph. ( d) Criteria and guidelines directing the design of projects that may affect fish passage have been established in a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the Oregon Department of Transportation ( ODOT), ODFW, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF), the Oregon Department of Agriculture ( ODA), the Division of State Lands ( DSL) and the Federal Highway Administration. These guidelines apply to the design, construction and consultations of projects affecting fish passage. Under the MOU, projects requiring regulatory approvals that follow these criteria and guidelines are expedited. Oregon agencies will continue to provide technical assistance to ensure that the criteria and guidelines are applied appropriately in restoration projects, as well as any other projects that may affect fish passage through road crossings and similar structures. ODFW will work with state agencies, local governments, and watershed councils to ensure that Oregon's standards for fish passage set forth in Exhibit A to the MOU are understood and are implemented. - ( e) Fish presence, stream habitat, road and culvert surveys have been conducted for roads within ODOT jurisdiction and county roads in coastal basins, the Lower Columbia basin, the Willamette basin, and the Grande Ronbe/ lmnaha basins. Among the results of these surveys is the finding that culvert barriers to fish passage affect a substantial quantity of salmonid habitat. For example, surveys of county and state highways in western Oregon found over 1,200 culverts that are barriers to passage. As a result, ODOT is placing additional priority on restoring fish access. For 1998, ODOT repaired or replaced 35 culverts restoring access to 101 miles of salmonid habitat. For 1999, the Oregon Transportation Commission will be asked to fund approximately $ 4.0 million for culvert modification. ODOT and the Commission will continue to examine means to speed restoration of fish passage and to coordinate priorities with ODFW. ( f) Draft watershed assessment protocols have been developed and are being field tested. Beginning in 1999, SWCDs, watershed councils and others will be able to use the protocols as the basis for action plans to identify and prioritize opportunities to protect and restore salmonids. Watershed action plans have already been completed in a number of basins including the Rogue, Coos, Coquille and Grande Ronde. State agencies will work to support these watershed assessments and plans to the maximum extent practicable. Where watershed action plans have been developed under the protocols, GWEB will ensure that projects funded through the Watershed Improvement Grant Fund are consistent with watershed action plans, and other state agencies will work with SWCDs and watershed councils to ensure that activities they authorize, fund or undertake are consistent with watershed action plans to the maximum extent practicable. ( g) The State of Oregon has developed interim aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement guidelines for 1998. State agencies involved with restoration activities ( ODFW, ODF, DSL, ODA, DEQ, and GWEB) will continue to develop and refine the interim guidelines for final publication in April 1999. The guidelines will be applied in restoration activities funded or authorized by state agencies. The purpose of ' the guidelines will be to define aquatic restoration and to identify and encourage aquatic habitat restoration techniques to restore salmonids. . . ( h) ODA and O ~ hFave each entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Oregon Department'of Environmental Quality relating to the development of . Total Maximum Daily Loads ( TMDLs) and Water Quality Management Area Plans ( WQMAPs). O Dw~ ill adopt. a nd implement WQMAPs ( through the Healthy Streams Partnership) and ODF , will review the adequacy of forest practices rules to meet water quality standards. ODF and ODA will evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in achieving water quality standards on a regular basis and implement any changes required to meet the standards. ( i) Agencies are implementing a coordinated monitoring program, as described in the Oregon Plan. This program includes technical support and standardized protocols for watershed councils, stream habitat surveys, forest practice effectiveness monitoring, water withdrawal monitoring, ambient water quality monitoring, and biotic index studies, as well as fish presence surveys and salmonid abundance and survival monitoring in selected subbasins. State agencies are also' working to coordinate monitoring efforts by state, federal, and local entities, including watershed councils. State agencies will work actively to ensure that the monitoring measures' in the Oregon Plan are continued. - .. ( j) GWEB has put into place new processes for identifying and coordinating the delivery of financial and technical assistance to individuals, agencies, watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts as they implement watershed ' restoration projects to improve water quality and restore aquatic resources. Over $ 25 ' million has been distributed for watershed restoration projects in the last ten years. During the present ( 1 997- 99 biennium) GWEB has awarded over $ 1 2 million dollars in f- state and federal funds for technical'assistance and watershed restoration activities to implement the Oregon Plan. GWEB and state agencies will continue to seek financial resources to be allocated by GWEB for watershed restoration activities at the local and. statewide levels. ( k) State agencies will continue to encourage, support and work to provide incentives for local, tribal, and private . efforts to implement the Oregon Plan. In addition, state agencies will continue to provide financial assistance to local entities for projects to protect and restore salmonids to the extent consistent with their budgetary and legal authorities, and consistent with their work programs in the Oregon Plan. To the. maximum extent practicable, state agencies will also provide technical assistance and planning tools to provide local conservation groups to assist in and target watershed restoration efforts. These efforts ( during 1996 and 1997) are reported in " The Oregon. Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: Watershed Restoration Inventory, 1998." ~ u s c afe w of the important efforts that have been completed include: ( A) Eighty- two watershed councils have joined with forty- five Soil and Water Conservation Districts as well as private and public landowners to implement on- the- ground projects' to protect and restore salmonids. During 1996 and 1997, a reported $ 27.4 million was spent on 1,234 watershed restoration projects on non-federal lands. Both the amount spent and the number of projects represent significant increases ( of over 300 percent) over prior years. In 1996- 97, watershed councils, SWCDs and other organizations and individuals completed: ( i) 138 stream fencing projects, involving at least 301 miles of streambank; ( ii) 196 riparian area planting projects, involving at least 11 1 miles of streams; and ( iii) 458 instream habitat improvement projects. . . . ( B) Private and state forest landowners are implementing key efforts under the Oregon Plan, including the road risk and remediation program ( ODF- 1 and 2). Under this effort in 1996 and 1997, close to 4,000 miles of roads'have been surveyed to identify risks that the roads may pose to salmonid habitat. As the risks are identified, they are then prioritized for remediation following an established. protocol. Already, 52 miles of forest roads have been closed, 843 miles of road repair and reconstruction projects to - protect salmonid habitat have been completed, and an additional 14 miles of roads have been decommissioned or relocated.. In addition, 530 culverts have been replaced, upgraded or installed for fish passage purposes, improving access to a reported 146 stream miles. ( C) Organizations working in Tillamook County have developed the I ." J aw#~ t Tillamook County Performance Partnership. The Partnership is implementing the \*. Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program by addressing water quality, fisheries, floodplain management and economic development in the county. Among the actions that the Partnership has already accomplished are: ( i) the closure of seven miles of degraded forest roads and the rehabilitation of 469 miles of roads to meet current standards, at a cost of $ 1 8 million; ( ii) the fencing of 53 miles of streambank, and the construction of three cattle bridges and 100 alternative cattle watering sites, at a cost of $ 214,000; and ( iii) the completion of 24 instream restoration projects and 34 barbs protecting 4,200 feet of streambank, at a cost of $ 1.3 million dollars. ( D) The Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon have completed a forest management plan that establishes standards for the protection of aquatic resources that are comparable to those found in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy ' of the Northwest Forest Plan. . % ( E) A combination of funding from the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Heritage Foundation ( private, non- profit organizations) is provi, ding support for seven biologists to design restoration projects. These projects are prioritized based on stream surveys, and are carried out with the voluntary participation and support of landowners. A ten- year monitoring plan has been funded- and implemented to determine project effectiveness: ( F) The Oregon Cattlemen's Association has implemented its WESt Program that is designed to help landowners better understand their watersheds and stream functions through assessments and monitoring. h he WESt Program brings landowners together along stream reaches, and offers a series of workshops, conducted on a site specific basis, free of charge. The workshops include riparian ecology, setting goals and objectives, Proper Functioning Condition ( PFC), data. collection and monitoring. Over 25 workshops have been held, with attendance ranging from 5 to 30 landowners per workshop. The WESt Program is sponsored by the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, DEQ, Oregon State University, and GWEB. ( G) Within the Tillamook State Forest road network 1,902 culverts have been replaced or added to'improve road drainage and to disconnect storm water runoff from roads reducing stream sediment impacts. Additionally, some of these culverts also improved fish passage at stream crossings. In this process, ODF has also replaced six culverts with bridges improving fish passage to approximately four miles of stream. The Tillamook State Foresl in conjunction with many partners, such F-as the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, G W EB, Simpson Timber Company, Tillamook County, the FishAmerica Foundation, Hardrock Construction Company, the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation, the F& WS, the Oregon Youth Conservation Corps, Columbia Helicopters and Terra Helicopters, has also recently completed instream placement of over 400 rootwads, trees and boulders at a cost of $ 300,000 for habitat enhancement. ( 3) Key Agency Efforts. Continuation and completion of the following state agency efforts is critical to the success of the Oregon Plan. State agencies will make continuation or completion ( as appropriate) of the following efforts a high priority. ( a) The State of Oregon and the US. Department of Agriculture have entered into a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ( CREP). This cost- share program, one of the first of its kind, . will be used to reduce the impacts of agricultural practices through water quality. add habitat improvement. The objectives of the CREP are to: ( i) provide incentives'for farmers and ranchers to establish riparian buffers; ( ii) protect - . and restore at least 4,000 miles of stream habitat by providing up to 95,000 acres of riparian buffeis; ( i4) restore up to 5,000 acres of wetlands that will benefit salmonids; and ( iv) provide a mechanism for farmers and ranchers to comply with Oregon's ,- Senate Bill 101 0 ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). ( b) ODF will work with non- industrial forest landowners to'administer the Stewardship Incentive Program and the Forest Resources Trust programs to protect and restore riparian and wetland areas that benefit salmonids. ( c) The Oregon Board of Forestry will determine, with the assistance of an advisory committee, to what extent changes to forest practices are needed to meet state water quality standards and to protect and restore salmonids. A substantial body of information regarding the effectiveness of current practices is being . developed. This information includes: ( i) the IMST report regarding . the role of forest practices and forest habitat in protecting and restoring salmonids; and ( ii) a series of - monitoring projects that include the Storms of 1996 study, a riparian areas study, a stream temperature study, and a road drainage study. Using this information, as well as other available scientific information including scientific information from NMFS, the advisory committee will make recommendations to the Board at both site and watershed scales on threats to salmonid habitat relating to sediment, water temperature, freshwater habitat needs, roads and fish passage. Based on the advisory committee's recommendations and other scientific information, the Board will make every effort to make its determinations by June 1999. The Board may . . determine that the most effective means of achieving any necessary changes to . - d;.~ .;* i;. z . I:@;.. %- .~ + k forest practices is through regulatory changes, statutory changes or through other programs . including programs to create incentives for forest landowners. In the event that the Board determines that legislative changes. are necessary to carry out its determinations, the Board will transmit any recommendations for such changes to the . Governor and to the Joint Committee at the earliest possible date. ( d) Consistent with administrative rule, and statutory and constitutional mandates for the management of state forests, ODF State Forest management plans will include an aquatic conservation strategy that has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat for salmonids on state forest lands. ( e) ODF will present to NMFS a Habitat Conservation Plan ( HCP) under Section 10 of the federal ESA that includes the Clatsop and Tillamook State Forests. ODF has already completed scierkific review and has public review underway for this draft HCP. The scientific and public review comments will be considered by ODF in . . completing the draft HCP. The draft HCP will be presented to NMFS by June 1999. An HCP for the ~ jliotSt tate Forest was approved by the US. Fish & Wildlife Service in 1995. In October af 1997, ODF and DSL forwarded the Elliott State Forest HCP to NMFS with the request that it be reviewed to determine whether it has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat conditions on state forest lands necessary to protect and restore salmonids. Based on discussions surrounding the NMFS review, ODF and DSL will determine what revisions, if any, are required to the Elliott HCP and/ or Forest Management Plan to ensure a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat for salmonids. ( f) Before the OFWC adopts and implements fishery regulations that may result in taking of coho, ODFW will provide NMFS with'all available scientific information and analyses pertinent to the proposed regulation where the harvest measures are not under the jurisdiction of the PFMC, including results of the Oregon Plan monitoring and evaluation program. This information, together with the proposed regulation and supporting analysis, will be provided at least two weeks prior to the OFWC's action, to give NMFS time to review and comment on the proposed regulations. ( g) ODFW will evaluate the effects of predation on salmonids, and . will . work with . affected federal agencies to determine whether changes to programs and law relating to predation are warranted in order to protect and restore salmonids. P ( h) Under Oregon Senate Bill 101 0 ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 2631, ODA will adopt Agricultural Water Qualify Management Area Plans ( AWQMAPs) for Tier I and Tier ll watersheds by the end of 2002. The AWQMAPs will be designed and implemented to meet load allocations for agriculture needed to achieve state water quality . . standards. In addition, ODA will work with ODFW, DEQ, GWEB, SWCDs, federal . agencies and watershed councils to determine to what extent additional measures related to achieving properly functioning riparian and aquatic habitat on agricultural lands are needed to protect and restore salmonids, giving attention first to priority areas identified in. the Oregon Plan. In the event ODA is unable to reach a consensus regarding such measures, ODA will ask the IMST to review areas of substantive ' scientific disagreement and to'make recommendations to ODA regarding how they should be resolved. In the event that legislative changes are needed to implement such measures, ODA will transmit any recommendations for such changes to. the Governor and to the Joint Committee at the earliest possible date. In addition, any measures identified as rieeded by ODA will be implemented at the earliest practicable time. * . ( i) ODFW will expedite its applications for instream water rights and OWRD will process such applications promptly where flow deficits are identified as adversely affecting salmonids, and where such rights. are not already in place. The Oregon - water Resources Department ( OWRD) and the Oregon Water Resources Commission ( OWRC) will- also seek to facilitate flow restoration targeted to streams identified by OWRD and ODFW as posing the most critical low- flow barriers to salmonids. In addition, where necessary, OWRD will continue to work with the Oregon State Police to provide enforcement of water use. Where illegal water uses are identified, OWRD will ensure outcomes consistent with maintenance and restoration of flows. ( j) The Oregon Environmental Quality commission ( EQC). and DEQ will evaluate and will make every effort to utilize their authorities to continue to provide additional protection to . priority areas ( as determined under section 1 ( f) of this Executive Order), including in- stream flow protection under state law, and antidegradation policy under . the federal Clean Water Act ( including Outstanding Resource Waters designations . and high quality waters designations). . ( k) DSL has proposed to adopt changes to its Essential Salmonid Habitat rules that will provide additional protection for spawning and rearing areas of anadromous salmonids. In addition, ODFW and DSL will consult with the OWRC to determine where it is necessary to administratively close priority areas ( including ' work under General Authorizations) to fill and removal activities in order to protect salmonids. . . DSL, ODFW, ODF and ODA also will work together to identify means of regulating the . uy- w :.-:: st. removal of organic material ( such as large woody debris) from streams where such removal would adversely affect salmonids and would not be contrary to other agency mandates. ( I) DSL will seek the advice of the IMST regarding whether gravel removal affects gravel and/ or sediment budgets in a manner that adversely affects salmonids. ( m) The Department of Land Conservation and ~ e v e l o p r n e n t ' ( ~ ~ acn~ d ) th, e Land Conservation- and Development Commission ( LCDC) will evaluate and, to the extent feasible, speed implementation of existing Goal 5 requirements for riparian corridors. ( n) DLCD, DEQ, ODF, ODA, ODFW, and DSL and their respective boards and commissions will evaluate and implement programs to protect and restore riparian vegetation for the purposes of achieving statewide water quality standards and . . protecting and restoring a aquatic habitat for salmonids. ' ( 0) DLCD, with, the assistance of DSL and ODFW, and in consultation with coastal cities and counties, shall review the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal i 6 as they pertain to estuarine resources important to the restoration of salmonids, and shall, report its findings to LCDC for its consideration. ( p) The Oregon State Police will work to facilitate the existing cooperative relationship with the NMFS Office of ~ a Ewnfo rcement, as well as tomaintain cooperation with other enforcement entities, in order to enhance law enforcement, public awareness and voluntary compliance related to harvest, habitat and other issues addressed in the Oregon Plan. ( q) The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department will continue to work to p. rovide information and education to the public on salmon and steelhead needs through park programs and interpretive aids. ( r) The Oregon Marine Board will work to ensure fish friendly boating and to develop boating facilities that protect salmonids. ( s) State natural resource agencies will continue, to the extent feasible, to support watershed councils by providing technical assistance to develop watershed assessments, restoration plans and to develop watershed priorities to benefit 7- salmonids. In addition, state natural resource agencies will work'on a larger . .:.... watershed scale to develop basin- wide restoration priorities. ( 4) Future Modifications; Public Involvement for the Oregon Plan Generally. The GNRO will solicit public co'mments and input from participants in the Oregon Plan regarding whether there are refinements or changes to the Plan and/ or the organizational framework for implementing the Plan that are necessary or desirable based on the experience gained over the past three years, or resulting from the widespread listings and proposed listings of salmon and trout under the federal ESA. Based on this public involvement, the GNRO will provide a report and recommendations to the Governor and the Joint Committee regarding whether modifications are necessary to the Oregon Plan in order to protect and restore coho and other salmonids. ( 5) Definitions. For purioses'of this Executive Order: . . ( aj The " Oregon Plan" means the Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery lnitiative, dated March 1991, and the Steelhead. Supplement, dated January 1998. " Oregon Plan," as used in this Order, is intended to be consistent with the definition of the' Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery lnitiative in Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1997 Or. Laws, .- cti. 7), and to include the Healthy Streams Partnership ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). -. - ( b) " Protect" has the meaning given in section ( l)( d) of this Executive Order. ( c) " Restore" has the meaning'given in section ( l)( e) of this Executive Order. Restore necessarily includes actions to manage salmonids to provide for adequate escapement levels, and actions to increase the quantity and improve the quality of properly functioning habitat upon which salmonids depend. ( d) " Coho" means native wild coho salmon found in rivers and lakes along the Oregon Coast. ( el " Salmonids" means native wild salmon, char and trout in the State of Oregon. ( 6) Effective Date; Relation to Federal ESA. This Executive Order will take effect on the date that it is filed with the Secretary of State. The State of Oregon will continue to work with NMFS to determine the appropriate relationship between the Oregon Plan and NMFS's efforts under the federal ESA. Done at Salem, Oregon, this $ day of & ~ 4 y , 1999. ha26 . ~ it& er, M. D. Suz adnd .~. ow& end DEPUTY SECR~ ARYOF - STATE Title: The Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds Author: Oregon. Office of the Governor Year: 1999, 2005, 2004 KCAMATH FALLS. QREEON THE OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS The purpose of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ( the " Oregon Plan") as stated in the Plan and reaffirmed in this Executive Order is to restore Oregon's wild salmon and trout populations and fisheries to sustainable and productive levels that will provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits and to improve water quality. The Oregon Plan is a long- term, ongoing effort that began as a focused set of actions by state, local, tribal and private organizations and individuals in October of 1995. The Oregon Plan first addressed coho salmon on the Oregon Coast, was then broadened to include steelhead trout on the coast and in the Lower Columbia River, and is now expanding to all at- risk wild salmonids throughout the state. The Oregon Plan addresses all factors for decline of these species, including watershed conditions arid fisheries, to the extent those factors can be affected by the state. The Oregon Plan was endorsed and funded by the Oregon Legislature in 1997 through Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch. 7) and House Bill 3700 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch.' 8). The Oregon Plan is described in two principal documents: " The Oregon Plan," dated March 1997, and " The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Supplement I - steelhbad," dated January 1998. As used in this Executive Order, + the Oregon Plan also incorporates the Healthy Streams Partnership ( Oregon Senate Bill 101 0, 1 993- Or. Laws, ch. 263). The Oregon Plan is a cooperative effort of state, local, federal, tribal and private organizations and individuals. Although the Oregon Plan contains a strong foundation of protective regulations -- continuing existing regulatory programs and speeding the implementation of others - an essential principle of the Plan is the need to move beyond prohibitions and to encourage efforts to improve conditions for salmon through non- regulatory means. Many of the most significant contributions to the Oregon Plan are private and quasi- governmental efforts to protect and . restore salmon on working landscapes, including efforts by watershed councils. Salmon and trout restoration requires action and sacrifice across the entire economic and geographic spectrum of Oregon. The commercial and sport fishing industries in Oregon have been heavily affected by complete or partial closures of fisheries. The forest industry operates under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, and has contributed substantially to salmon recovery through habitat restoration projects on private lands and by funding a large pan of the state recovery efforts. The agriculture and mining industries are also taking actions that will protect and restore salmon and trout habitat and improve water quality ( including financial support of restoration efforts by the mining industry). Urban areas are developing water conservation programs, spending funds for wastewater treatment improvements to reduce point source pollution, reducing non- point source pollution and reducing activities that degrade riparian areas. All citizens of Oregon share responsibility for declining populations of wild salmon and trout, and it is important that there be both a broad commitment to reversing these historic trends and a sense that the burdens of restoration are being shared by all of society. It is also important that there be independent scientific oversight of the Oregon Plan. This oversight is being provided by the Independent Mutidisciplinary Science Team ( IMST), established under Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch. 7). ~ d'ditional legislative oversight for the Oregon Plan is being provided by the Joint Legislative Committee on . Salmon and Stream Enhancement ( the " Joint Committee!'). Under the federal Endangered Species Act ( ESA) the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service . . ( F& WS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) are responsible for identifying species that are threatened or endangered, and for developing programs to conserve and recover lhose species. F& WS and NMFS have now listed salmonids under the ESA on the entire Oregon Coast, the lower Columbia River ( including most of the Portland metropolitan area). the la math River basin, and in the upper Columbia and Snake River basins. More listings are expected within the next year. To date, the F& WS and NMFS generally have not had the resources to develop and implement effective recovery plans for fisheries. In addition, in many areas a large proportion of the habitat that list'ed'salmonids depend on is located on private lands, where the regulatory tools under the ESA are relatively ' ill- defined and indirect. Finally, federal agencies alone, even if they take an active regulatory approach. to recovery, will not restore listed salmonids. The federal ESA may work to prohibit certain actions, but there is simply too much habitat on private lands for restoration to succeed without pro- active involvement and incentives for individuals, groups, and local governments to take affirmative actions to restore habitat on working landscapes. In April, 1997 the State of Oregon and NMFS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) under which the State agreed to continue existing measures under the March 1997 Oregon Plan and to take certain additional actions to protect and restbre coho salmon on the Oregon Coast. On May 6, 1997, NMFS determined that the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit ( ESU) of coho salmon did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. On June 2, 1998, the US. District Court for Oregon ordered NMFS to reconsider its decision without taking into account any parts of the Oregon Plan or MOA that are not " current enforceable measures." The U. S. District Court for Oregon also held that the MOA was speculative, due to the fact that it provided for termination by either party on thirty days notice, and that therefore the MOA could not be considered by NMFS ' in its listing decision. Under court order, NMFS reconsidered its decision without taking into account the application in the future of the harvest and hatchery measures contained in the Oregon Plan, or the habitat improvement programs being undertaken under the Oregon Plan, or the commitments made by the State of Oregon in the MOA for improvement of applicable habitat measures. Accordingly, NMFS listed Oregon Coast .. . coho as threatened undefthe ESA on or about October 2, 1998. - The MOA provided for the State of Oregon to take actions necessary to ensfie that - Oregon Coast coho did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the federal ESA. Now that Oregon Coast coho are listed as a threatened species as a- result of the U. S. District Court's order, the central purpose of the MOA has been eliminated. Due to the uncertainties created by the District Court's decision and the increasing extent of salmonids listed or proposed for listing under the federal ESA, it is important that the status of the State of Oregon's substantive commitments under the MOA and the purpose of the Oregon Plan be clarified. Through this Executive Order, the State of Oregon reaffirms its intent to play the leading role in protecting and restoring Oregon Coast coho and other salmonids. through the implementation of the Oregon Plan. This Executive Order provides the framework and direction for state agencies to implement ( to the extent of their authorities) the Oregon Plan in a timely and effective manner. This Executive Order also provides a framework for extending the state's efforts beyond a focus on Oregon Coast coho, to watersheds and fisheries statewide. Consistent with the principle of adaptive management, this Order applies the experience gained to date in implementing the Oregon Plan to provide additional detailed direction to state agencies. Finally, this Executive Order establishes a public involvement process to prioritize continuing efforts under the Oregon Plan. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED: ( 1) Overall Direction ( a) Agencies of the State of Oregon will, consistent with their authorities, fully implement the state agency efforts described in the Oregon Plan and in this Executive Order. ( b) The overall objective for state agencies under the Oregon Plan and this Executive Order is to protect and restore salmonids and to improve water quality. ( c) The Governor will, in cooperation with the Joint Committee, IMST, affected state agencies, watershed councils, and other affected local entities and persons develop and implement, a process to set biological and habitat goals and objectives to protect and restore salmonids on a basin or regional basis as soon as practicable. Once these goals and objectives are established, they will be used by state agencies . . . to evaluate their regulatory and non- regulatory programs and measures relating to the protection and re'storation of salmonids. Through this on- going evaluation, state agencies will determine any changes to their programs or measures that may be necessary to meet the biological and habitat goals and objectives. In the interim, the following objectives in subsections ( d) and ( e) shall apply to agencies' implem'entation of the OregGn Plan and this Executive Order. . . ( d) Actions that state agencies take, fund and/ or authorize that are primarily for a purpose other than restoration of salmonids or the habitat they depend upon will, considering the anticipated duration and geographic scope of the actions: ( A) to the maximum extent practicable minimize and mitigate adverse effects of the actions on salmoni. ds or the habitat they depend on; and ( 8) not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of salmonids in the wild. ( e) State agencies will take, fund and/ or authorize actions that are primarily for the purpose of restoring salmonids or the habitat they depend upon, including actions implementing the Oregon Plan, with the goal of producing a conservation benefit that ( if taken together with comparable and related actions by all persons and entities within the range of the species) is likely to result in sustainable population levels of salmonids in the foreseeable future, and in population levels of salmonids that provide substantial environmental, cultural and economic benefits to Oregonians in the long term. ( f) With the broadening of the Oregon Plan,' prioritizing all agency actions according to coho core areas is no longer appropriate. Each state agency participating in the Oregon Plan, in consultation with ODFW and other partners involved in the implementation of the Plan and through a public involvement process, will modify their existing work programs in the Oregon Plan to prioritize agency measures to protect and restore salmonids in a timely and effective manner. The work programs will continue to identify key specific outcomes, refine and improve designations of priority areas, and establish completion dates. These modifications will be submitted to the , Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and commissions as soon as possible, but in no event later than June 1, 1999. Progress reports on action plans will be submitted to the Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and commissions on an annual basis. In prioritizing their efforts,' state agencies shall consider how to maximize conservation -, benefits for salmonids and the habitat they depend on within limited resources and - . whether their- actions are likely to increase populations of salmonids in the foreseeable future. I p ( g) State agencies will work cooperatively with landowners, local entities and other persons taking actions to protect or restore salmonids. ( h) As the Oregon Plan grows in geographic scope and . in intensity of activity,' there is a growing need to streamline and prioritize state agency activity at the . regional level. One proposal has been to organize state natural resource agency field operations along hydrologic units. Therefore, state agencies will consider this proposal and, through the collective efforts of state agency directors, develop an organization plan that focuses state agency field effort on the activities and areas of highest priority under the Oregon Plan. ( i) State. agencies will continue to encourage and work with agencies of the U. S. government to implement the federal measures described in the Oregon Plan.. In addition, the state agencies will work with the federal government to develop additional means of protecting and restoring salmonids. Where appropriate, state agencies will request that federal agencies obtain incidental take permits under Section 7 of the federal ESA for state actions that ace funded or authorized by a , federal agency. ( j) State agencies will help support efforts to evaluate watershed conditions, and to develop'specific strategic plans to provide for flood management, water quality improvement, and salmonid restoration in basins around the state, including the Willamette basin through the Willamette Restoration Initiative. ( k) The IMST will continue to provide oversight to ensure the use of the best scientific information available as the basis for implementation of and for adaptive changes to the Oregon Plan. State agencies will ensure that the IMST receives data and other information reasonably required for its functions in a timely manner. The Governor's Natural Resources Office ( GNRO) has requested that the IMST's initial priority be review of the freshwater habitat needs of coho and the relationship between population levels, escapement levels, and habitat characteristics. The GNRO also will continue to request that the IMST annually review monitoring results and identify where the Oregon Plan warrants change for scientific or technical reasons and make recommend& ions to the appropriate agency on those adjustments that appear necessary. Agencies will report their responses to any recommendations by . . the IMST to the Governor and to the Joint Committee. Any other changes identified by the IMST as necessary to achieve properly functioning riparian and aquatic habitat conditions required to, protect and restore salmonids will be forwarded to the appropriate governmental entity for its consideration of the adoption of new, changed, or supplemental measures as rapidly as possible while providing for public involvement: Each state agency, by June 1, 1999, will ratify a monitoring team charter through an interagency memorandum. A draft of the charter is contained in the 1998 Oregon Plan Annual Report. ( I) Monitoring is a key element of the Oregon Plan. Each state agency will actively support the monitoring strategy described in the Oregon Plan. Each affected agency will participate on the monitoring team to coordinate activities and integrate analyses. Each agency will implement . an appropriate monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of their programs and measures in meeting the objectives set forth in the Oregon Planon an annual basis. In addition, agencies with regulatory programs that are included in the Oregon Plan will determine levels of compliance with regulatory standards and identify and act on opportunities to improve compliance levels: ( m) If information gathered regarding the effectiveness of measures in the Oregon Plan shows that existing strategies within state control are not achie, ving expected improvements and objectives, the agency( ies1 responsible for those measures will seek appropriate changes in their regulations, policies, programs, r-measures and other areas of the Oregon Plan, as required to protect and restore coho and other sal'monids. Such modification or supplementation will be done as rapidly as possible, consistent with public involvement. ( n) Agencies are using geographically- referenced data in their efforts under the Oregon Plan, and will be using Geographic Information Systems ( GIs) in the analysis of these , data. In doing so, the State GIs Plan, developed by the Oregon Geographic lnformation Council ( OGIC) ( see Executive Order 96- 40) will be followed, with specific adherence to the Plan guidance on data documentation, coordination and data sharing. The agency with primary responsibility for gathering and updating the specific data will be responsible for meeting the requirements of the Plan, and to ensure coordination- with OGIC, the State Service Center for GIs and other' cooperating agencies. In addition, state agencies will cooperate with the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board ( GWEB), Soil and. Water Conservation Districts ( SWCDs), local waters$ ed councils, landowners and others in making these essential data available. ( 0) Geographically- based strategies to assess and achieve habitat needs and adequate escapement levels will be used, and the state agencies will continue with the development of standardized watershed assessment protocols, including a -- cumulative effects assessment. State agencies will also continue with the development of habitat restoration guides to evaluate and direct habitat restoration efforts. ( 2) Continuation and Expansion of Existing Efforts. Without limiting the generality of section ( l)( a) of this Executive Order, the following subsections of this Executive Order describe some of the many efforts in the Oregon Plan where the initial phase of work has been completed, and where efforts will be continued. ( a) The Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission ( OFWC), the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife ( ODFW), and the Pacific Fishery Management Council ( PFMC) are managing ocean and terminal fisheries according to the measures set forth in the Oregon Plan ( ODFW I- A. l and Ill- A. l). These measures set a maximum mortality rate ( resulting from other fisheries) for any of four disaggregated stocks of coho of fifteen percent ( 1 5%) under poor ocean conditions. In 1997, the mortality rate. from harvest is estimated to have been between nine and eleven percent ( 9- 1 1 %). ODFW and OFWC will continue these measures in state waters, and will actively support continued implementation of the ocean harvest measures by the PFMC ( Amendment 13 to the Council's salmon management plan) until and unless a different management regime agreeable to NMFS is adopted. ( b) The OFWC and ODFW will ensure that the fish hatchery measures set forth in the Oregon Plan are continued by the OFWC and ODFW. ODFW is marking all hatchery coho on the Oregon Coast. This marking will allow increased certainty in estimating hatchery stray rates beginning in 1999. Available data on hatchery stray rates for coho and steelhead are being provided to NMFS on an annual basis. The number of hatchery coho released is estimated to have been 1.7 million in 1998 - substantially below the level called for in the Oregon Plan. This number will be reduced to 1.2 million in 1999. In addition, ODFW has, and will continue to provide. annual reports regarding: ( i) the number of juvenile hatchery coho that are released by brood year, locations and dates of release, life stage, and broodstock origin; ( ii) the number of adult coho taken for broodstock for each hatchery, the location and date of collection, and the origin ( hatchery or natural); ( iii) the number of hatchery coho . . estimated to have spawned in natural habitat by basin; ( iv) the estimated percentage of hatchery coho% the total natural spawning population; and ( v) the mortality of naturally- spawning coho resulting from each fishery. NMFS may provide comments about hatchery prograk affecting coho to ODFW, with any concerns to be resolved between NMFS and ODFW. - - ( c) ln addition to recent modifications to hatchery practices and programs, a new vision is needed for how Oregon will utilize hatcheries in the best and most effective manner. Therefore, the ODFW and the OFWC shall engage in a process to create a strategic plan for fish hatcheries in Oregon over the next decade ( including state and federally- funded hatcheries, private hatcheries, and the STEP program). The essential elements of this process are as follows: ( i) Impartial analysis - conduct an impartial analysis of the scientific bases, and the social and economic effects of Oregon hatchery programs utilizing existing analyses and review where feasible, but conducting new analyses if necessary; ( ii) Review the Wild Fish Management Policy ( WFMP) - because the future plan for hatcheries in Oregon is dependent on implementation of the WFMP, ODFW shall conduct a science and stakeholder review to determine if this significant policy should be revised and shall make any revision by July 2000; ( iii) Frame alternative strategies -- convene a group of stockholders to . frame alternative strategies, including outcomes and descriptions, of how hatcheries will be used in Oregon over the next decade ( these strategies will address the use of hatcheries for wild fish population recovery including supplementation, research and monitoring, public education, and sport and commercial fishing opportunities); ( iv) Public review and selection of a strategy -- the OFWC shall, after public review and ' ;-'-!&%; f$'. i comment, adopt a strategic plan to guide development of future hatchery programs, incorporating the strategy developed and adopted in accordance with subpart ( iii) of this paragraph. ( d) Criteria and guidelines directing the design of projects that may affect fish passage have been established in a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the Oregon Department of Transportation ( ODOT), ODFW, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF), the Oregon Department of Agriculture ( ODA), the Division of State Lands ( DSL) and the Federal Highway Administration. These guidelines apply to the design, construction and consultations of projects affecting fish passage. Under the MOU, projects requiring regulatory approvals that follow these criteria and guidelines are expedited. Oregon agencies will continue to provide technical assistance to ensure that the criteria and guidelines are applied appropriately in restoration projects, as well as any other projects that may affect fish passage through road crossings and similar structures. ODFW will work with state agencies, local governments, and watershed councils to ensure that Oregon's standards for fish passage set forth in Exhibit A to the MOU are understood and are implemented. - ( e) Fish presence, stream habitat, road and culvert surveys have been conducted for roads within ODOT jurisdiction and county roads in coastal basins, the Lower Columbia basin, the Willamette basin, and the Grande Ronbe/ lmnaha basins. Among the results of these surveys is the finding that culvert barriers to fish passage affect a substantial quantity of salmonid habitat. For example, surveys of county and state highways in western Oregon found over 1,200 culverts that are barriers to passage. As a result, ODOT is placing additional priority on restoring fish access. For 1998, ODOT repaired or replaced 35 culverts restoring access to 101 miles of salmonid habitat. For 1999, the Oregon Transportation Commission will be asked to fund approximately $ 4.0 million for culvert modification. ODOT and the Commission will continue to examine means to speed restoration of fish passage and to coordinate priorities with ODFW. ( f) Draft watershed assessment protocols have been developed and are being field tested. Beginning in 1999, SWCDs, watershed councils and others will be able to use the protocols as the basis for action plans to identify and prioritize opportunities to protect and restore salmonids. Watershed action plans have already been completed in a number of basins including the Rogue, Coos, Coquille and Grande Ronde. State agencies will work to support these watershed assessments and plans to the maximum extent practicable. Where watershed action plans have been developed under the protocols, GWEB will ensure that projects funded through the Watershed Improvement Grant Fund are consistent with watershed action plans, and other state agencies will work with SWCDs and watershed councils to ensure that activities they authorize, fund or undertake are consistent with watershed action plans to the maximum extent practicable. ( g) The State of Oregon has developed interim aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement guidelines for 1998. State agencies involved with restoration activities ( ODFW, ODF, DSL, ODA, DEQ, and GWEB) will continue to develop and refine the interim guidelines for final publication in April 1999. The guidelines will be applied in restoration activities funded or authorized by state agencies. The purpose of ' the guidelines will be to define aquatic restoration and to identify and encourage aquatic habitat restoration techniques to restore salmonids. . . ( h) ODA and O ~ hFave each entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Oregon Department'of Environmental Quality relating to the development of . Total Maximum Daily Loads ( TMDLs) and Water Quality Management Area Plans ( WQMAPs). O Dw~ ill adopt. a nd implement WQMAPs ( through the Healthy Streams Partnership) and ODF , will review the adequacy of forest practices rules to meet water quality standards. ODF and ODA will evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in achieving water quality standards on a regular basis and implement any changes required to meet the standards. ( i) Agencies are implementing a coordinated monitoring program, as described in the Oregon Plan. This program includes technical support and standardized protocols for watershed councils, stream habitat surveys, forest practice effectiveness monitoring, water withdrawal monitoring, ambient water quality monitoring, and biotic index studies, as well as fish presence surveys and salmonid abundance and survival monitoring in selected subbasins. State agencies are also' working to coordinate monitoring efforts by state, federal, and local entities, including watershed councils. State agencies will work actively to ensure that the monitoring measures' in the Oregon Plan are continued. - .. ( j) GWEB has put into place new processes for identifying and coordinating the delivery of financial and technical assistance to individuals, agencies, watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts as they implement watershed ' restoration projects to improve water quality and restore aquatic resources. Over $ 25 ' million has been distributed for watershed restoration projects in the last ten years. During the present ( 1 997- 99 biennium) GWEB has awarded over $ 1 2 million dollars in f- state and federal funds for technical'assistance and watershed restoration activities to implement the Oregon Plan. GWEB and state agencies will continue to seek financial resources to be allocated by GWEB for watershed restoration activities at the local and. statewide levels. ( k) State agencies will continue to encourage, support and work to provide incentives for local, tribal, and private . efforts to implement the Oregon Plan. In addition, state agencies will continue to provide financial assistance to local entities for projects to protect and restore salmonids to the extent consistent with their budgetary and legal authorities, and consistent with their work programs in the Oregon Plan. To the. maximum extent practicable, state agencies will also provide technical assistance and planning tools to provide local conservation groups to assist in and target watershed restoration efforts. These efforts ( during 1996 and 1997) are reported in " The Oregon. Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: Watershed Restoration Inventory, 1998." ~ u s c afe w of the important efforts that have been completed include: ( A) Eighty- two watershed councils have joined with forty- five Soil and Water Conservation Districts as well as private and public landowners to implement on- the- ground projects' to protect and restore salmonids. During 1996 and 1997, a reported $ 27.4 million was spent on 1,234 watershed restoration projects on non-federal lands. Both the amount spent and the number of projects represent significant increases ( of over 300 percent) over prior years. In 1996- 97, watershed councils, SWCDs and other organizations and individuals completed: ( i) 138 stream fencing projects, involving at least 301 miles of streambank; ( ii) 196 riparian area planting projects, involving at least 11 1 miles of streams; and ( iii) 458 instream habitat improvement projects. . . . ( B) Private and state forest landowners are implementing key efforts under the Oregon Plan, including the road risk and remediation program ( ODF- 1 and 2). Under this effort in 1996 and 1997, close to 4,000 miles of roads'have been surveyed to identify risks that the roads may pose to salmonid habitat. As the risks are identified, they are then prioritized for remediation following an established. protocol. Already, 52 miles of forest roads have been closed, 843 miles of road repair and reconstruction projects to - protect salmonid habitat have been completed, and an additional 14 miles of roads have been decommissioned or relocated.. In addition, 530 culverts have been replaced, upgraded or installed for fish passage purposes, improving access to a reported 146 stream miles. ( C) Organizations working in Tillamook County have developed the I ." J aw#~ t Tillamook County Performance Partnership. The Partnership is implementing the \*. Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program by addressing water quality, fisheries, floodplain management and economic development in the county. Among the actions that the Partnership has already accomplished are: ( i) the closure of seven miles of degraded forest roads and the rehabilitation of 469 miles of roads to meet current standards, at a cost of $ 1 8 million; ( ii) the fencing of 53 miles of streambank, and the construction of three cattle bridges and 100 alternative cattle watering sites, at a cost of $ 214,000; and ( iii) the completion of 24 instream restoration projects and 34 barbs protecting 4,200 feet of streambank, at a cost of $ 1.3 million dollars. ( D) The Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon have completed a forest management plan that establishes standards for the protection of aquatic resources that are comparable to those found in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy ' of the Northwest Forest Plan. . % ( E) A combination of funding from the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Heritage Foundation ( private, non- profit organizations) is provi, ding support for seven biologists to design restoration projects. These projects are prioritized based on stream surveys, and are carried out with the voluntary participation and support of landowners. A ten- year monitoring plan has been funded- and implemented to determine project effectiveness: ( F) The Oregon Cattlemen's Association has implemented its WESt Program that is designed to help landowners better understand their watersheds and stream functions through assessments and monitoring. h he WESt Program brings landowners together along stream reaches, and offers a series of workshops, conducted on a site specific basis, free of charge. The workshops include riparian ecology, setting goals and objectives, Proper Functioning Condition ( PFC), data. collection and monitoring. Over 25 workshops have been held, with attendance ranging from 5 to 30 landowners per workshop. The WESt Program is sponsored by the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, DEQ, Oregon State University, and GWEB. ( G) Within the Tillamook State Forest road network 1,902 culverts have been replaced or added to'improve road drainage and to disconnect storm water runoff from roads reducing stream sediment impacts. Additionally, some of these culverts also improved fish passage at stream crossings. In this process, ODF has also replaced six culverts with bridges improving fish passage to approximately four miles of stream. The Tillamook State Foresl in conjunction with many partners, such F-as the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, G W EB, Simpson Timber Company, Tillamook County, the FishAmerica Foundation, Hardrock Construction Company, the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation, the F& WS, the Oregon Youth Conservation Corps, Columbia Helicopters and Terra Helicopters, has also recently completed instream placement of over 400 rootwads, trees and boulders at a cost of $ 300,000 for habitat enhancement. ( 3) Key Agency Efforts. Continuation and completion of the following state agency efforts is critical to the success of the Oregon Plan. State agencies will make continuation or completion ( as appropriate) of the following efforts a high priority. ( a) The State of Oregon and the US. Department of Agriculture have entered into a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ( CREP). This cost- share program, one of the first of its kind, . will be used to reduce the impacts of agricultural practices through water quality. add habitat improvement. The objectives of the CREP are to: ( i) provide incentives'for farmers and ranchers to establish riparian buffers; ( ii) protect - . and restore at least 4,000 miles of stream habitat by providing up to 95,000 acres of riparian buffeis; ( i4) restore up to 5,000 acres of wetlands that will benefit salmonids; and ( iv) provide a mechanism for farmers and ranchers to comply with Oregon's ,- Senate Bill 101 0 ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). ( b) ODF will work with non- industrial forest landowners to'administer the Stewardship Incentive Program and the Forest Resources Trust programs to protect and restore riparian and wetland areas that benefit salmonids. ( c) The Oregon Board of Forestry will determine, with the assistance of an advisory committee, to what extent changes to forest practices are needed to meet state water quality standards and to protect and restore salmonids. A substantial body of information regarding the effectiveness of current practices is being . developed. This information includes: ( i) the IMST report regarding . the role of forest practices and forest habitat in protecting and restoring salmonids; and ( ii) a series of - monitoring projects that include the Storms of 1996 study, a riparian areas study, a stream temperature study, and a road drainage study. Using this information, as well as other available scientific information including scientific information from NMFS, the advisory committee will make recommendations to the Board at both site and watershed scales on threats to salmonid habitat relating to sediment, water temperature, freshwater habitat needs, roads and fish passage. Based on the advisory committee's recommendations and other scientific information, the Board will make every effort to make its determinations by June 1999. The Board may . . determine that the most effective means of achieving any necessary changes to . - d;.~ .;* i;. z . I:@;.. %- .~ + k forest practices is through regulatory changes, statutory changes or through other programs . including programs to create incentives for forest landowners. In the event that the Board determines that legislative changes. are necessary to carry out its determinations, the Board will transmit any recommendations for such changes to the . Governor and to the Joint Committee at the earliest possible date. ( d) Consistent with administrative rule, and statutory and constitutional mandates for the management of state forests, ODF State Forest management plans will include an aquatic conservation strategy that has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat for salmonids on state forest lands. ( e) ODF will present to NMFS a Habitat Conservation Plan ( HCP) under Section 10 of the federal ESA that includes the Clatsop and Tillamook State Forests. ODF has already completed scierkific review and has public review underway for this draft HCP. The scientific and public review comments will be considered by ODF in . . completing the draft HCP. The draft HCP will be presented to NMFS by June 1999. An HCP for the ~ jliotSt tate Forest was approved by the US. Fish & Wildlife Service in 1995. In October af 1997, ODF and DSL forwarded the Elliott State Forest HCP to NMFS with the request that it be reviewed to determine whether it has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat conditions on state forest lands necessary to protect and restore salmonids. Based on discussions surrounding the NMFS review, ODF and DSL will determine what revisions, if any, are required to the Elliott HCP and/ or Forest Management Plan to ensure a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat for salmonids. ( f) Before the OFWC adopts and implements fishery regulations that may result in taking of coho, ODFW will provide NMFS with'all available scientific information and analyses pertinent to the proposed regulation where the harvest measures are not under the jurisdiction of the PFMC, including results of the Oregon Plan monitoring and evaluation program. This information, together with the proposed regulation and supporting analysis, will be provided at least two weeks prior to the OFWC's action, to give NMFS time to review and comment on the proposed regulations. ( g) ODFW will evaluate the effects of predation on salmonids, and . will . work with . affected federal agencies to determine whether changes to programs and law relating to predation are warranted in order to protect and restore salmonids. P ( h) Under Oregon Senate Bill 101 0 ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 2631, ODA will adopt Agricultural Water Qualify Management Area Plans ( AWQMAPs) for Tier I and Tier ll watersheds by the end of 2002. The AWQMAPs will be designed and implemented to meet load allocations for agriculture needed to achieve state water quality . . standards. In addition, ODA will work with ODFW, DEQ, GWEB, SWCDs, federal . agencies and watershed councils to determine to what extent additional measures related to achieving properly functioning riparian and aquatic habitat on agricultural lands are needed to protect and restore salmonids, giving attention first to priority areas identified in. the Oregon Plan. In the event ODA is unable to reach a consensus regarding such measures, ODA will ask the IMST to review areas of substantive ' scientific disagreement and to'make recommendations to ODA regarding how they should be resolved. In the event that legislative changes are needed to implement such measures, ODA will transmit any recommendations for such changes to. the Governor and to the Joint Committee at the earliest possible date. In addition, any measures identified as rieeded by ODA will be implemented at the earliest practicable time. * . ( i) ODFW will expedite its applications for instream water rights and OWRD will process such applications promptly where flow deficits are identified as adversely affecting salmonids, and where such rights. are not already in place. The Oregon - water Resources Department ( OWRD) and the Oregon Water Resources Commission ( OWRC) will- also seek to facilitate flow restoration targeted to streams identified by OWRD and ODFW as posing the most critical low- flow barriers to salmonids. In addition, where necessary, OWRD will continue to work with the Oregon State Police to provide enforcement of water use. Where illegal water uses are identified, OWRD will ensure outcomes consistent with maintenance and restoration of flows. ( j) The Oregon Environmental Quality commission ( EQC). and DEQ will evaluate and will make every effort to utilize their authorities to continue to provide additional protection to . priority areas ( as determined under section 1 ( f) of this Executive Order), including in- stream flow protection under state law, and antidegradation policy under . the federal Clean Water Act ( including Outstanding Resource Waters designations . and high quality waters designations). . ( k) DSL has proposed to adopt changes to its Essential Salmonid Habitat rules that will provide additional protection for spawning and rearing areas of anadromous salmonids. In addition, ODFW and DSL will consult with the OWRC to determine where it is necessary to administratively close priority areas ( including ' work under General Authorizations) to fill and removal activities in order to protect salmonids. . . DSL, ODFW, ODF and ODA also will work together to identify means of regulating the . uy- w :.-:: st. removal of organic material ( such as large woody debris) from streams where such removal would adversely affect salmonids and would not be contrary to other agency mandates. ( I) DSL will seek the advice of the IMST regarding whether gravel removal affects gravel and/ or sediment budgets in a manner that adversely affects salmonids. ( m) The Department of Land Conservation and ~ e v e l o p r n e n t ' ( ~ ~ acn~ d ) th, e Land Conservation- and Development Commission ( LCDC) will evaluate and, to the extent feasible, speed implementation of existing Goal 5 requirements for riparian corridors. ( n) DLCD, DEQ, ODF, ODA, ODFW, and DSL and their respective boards and commissions will evaluate and implement programs to protect and restore riparian vegetation for the purposes of achieving statewide water quality standards and . . protecting and restoring a aquatic habitat for salmonids. ' ( 0) DLCD, with, the assistance of DSL and ODFW, and in consultation with coastal cities and counties, shall review the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal i 6 as they pertain to estuarine resources important to the restoration of salmonids, and shall, report its findings to LCDC for its consideration. ( p) The Oregon State Police will work to facilitate the existing cooperative relationship with the NMFS Office of ~ a Ewnfo rcement, as well as tomaintain cooperation with other enforcement entities, in order to enhance law enforcement, public awareness and voluntary compliance related to harvest, habitat and other issues addressed in the Oregon Plan. ( q) The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department will continue to work to p. rovide information and education to the public on salmon and steelhead needs through park programs and interpretive aids. ( r) The Oregon Marine Board will work to ensure fish friendly boating and to develop boating facilities that protect salmonids. ( s) State natural resource agencies will continue, to the extent feasible, to support watershed councils by providing technical assistance to develop watershed assessments, restoration plans and to develop watershed priorities to benefit 7- salmonids. In addition, state natural resource agencies will work'on a larger . .:.... watershed scale to develop basin- wide restoration priorities. ( 4) Future Modifications; Public Involvement for the Oregon Plan Generally. The GNRO will solicit public co'mments and input from participants in the Oregon Plan regarding whether there are refinements or changes to the Plan and/ or the organizational framework for implementing the Plan that are necessary or desirable based on the experience gained over the past three years, or resulting from the widespread listings and proposed listings of salmon and trout under the federal ESA. Based on this public involvement, the GNRO will provide a report and recommendations to the Governor and the Joint Committee regarding whether modifications are necessary to the Oregon Plan in order to protect and restore coho and other salmonids. ( 5) Definitions. For purioses'of this Executive Order: . . ( aj The " Oregon Plan" means the Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery lnitiative, dated March 1991, and the Steelhead. Supplement, dated January 1998. " Oregon Plan," as used in this Order, is intended to be consistent with the definition of the' Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery lnitiative in Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1997 Or. Laws, .- cti. 7), and to include the Healthy Streams Partnership ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). -. - ( b) " Protect" has the meaning given in section ( l)( d) of this Executive Order. ( c) " Restore" has the meaning'given in section ( l)( e) of this Executive Order. Restore necessarily includes actions to manage salmonids to provide for adequate escapement levels, and actions to increase the quantity and improve the quality of properly functioning habitat upon which salmonids depend. ( d) " Coho" means native wild coho salmon found in rivers and lakes along the Oregon Coast. ( el " Salmonids" means native wild salmon, char and trout in the State of Oregon. ( 6) Effective Date; Relation to Federal ESA. This Executive Order will take effect on the date that it is filed with the Secretary of State. The State of Oregon will continue to work with NMFS to determine the appropriate relationship between the Oregon Plan and NMFS's efforts under the federal ESA. Done at Salem, Oregon, this $ day of & ~ 4 y , 1999. ha26 . ~ it& er, M. D. Suz adnd .~. ow& end DEPUTY SECR~ ARYOF - STATE Close

• 237. [Image] Williamson River delta restoration project : environmental assessment

  	"May 2000"; From cover: Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2316 South 6th Street, Suite C, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601. In Partnership with The Nature Conservancy, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Williamson River delta restoration project : environmental assessment Year: 2000, 2005 "May 2000"; From cover: Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2316 South 6th Street, Suite C, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601. In Partnership with The Nature Conservancy, 821 SE 14th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97214 and US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Tribes, PacifiCorp, Cell Tech International; Includes bibliographic references (p. 60-66) Title: Williamson River delta restoration project : environmental assessment Year: 2000, 2005 "May 2000"; From cover: Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2316 South 6th Street, Suite C, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601. In Partnership with The Nature Conservancy, 821 SE 14th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97214 and US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Tribes, PacifiCorp, Cell Tech International; Includes bibliographic references (p. 60-66) Close

• 238. [Image] Larval ecology of shortnose and Lost River suckers in the lower Williamson River and Upper Klamath Lake

  	One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Larval ecology of shortnose and Lost River suckers in the lower Williamson River and Upper Klamath Lake Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Title: Larval ecology of shortnose and Lost River suckers in the lower Williamson River and Upper Klamath Lake Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Close

• 239. [Image] Annual survey of abundance and distribution of age 0 shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake

  	One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Annual survey of abundance and distribution of age 0 shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Title: Annual survey of abundance and distribution of age 0 shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Close

• 240. [Image] The Klamath Basin sucker species complex

  	One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Klamath Basin sucker species complex Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Title: The Klamath Basin sucker species complex Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Close

• 241. [Image] Molecular evolution and ecology of Klamath Basin suckers. Part B - Evidence for a lethal homozyhous genotpe at the Ankyrin(g) locus in Klamath Basin suckers (Catostomidae)

  	One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Molecular evolution and ecology of Klamath Basin suckers. Part B - Evidence for a lethal homozyhous genotpe at the Ankyrin(g) locus in Klamath Basin suckers (Catostomidae) Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Title: Molecular evolution and ecology of Klamath Basin suckers. Part B - Evidence for a lethal homozyhous genotpe at the Ankyrin(g) locus in Klamath Basin suckers (Catostomidae) Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Close

• 242. [Image] Effects of water quality on growth of juvenile shortnose suckers, Chasmistes brevirostris (Catostomidae: Cypriniformes), from Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon

  	One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Effects of water quality on growth of juvenile shortnose suckers, Chasmistes brevirostris (Catostomidae: Cypriniformes), from Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Title: Effects of water quality on growth of juvenile shortnose suckers, Chasmistes brevirostris (Catostomidae: Cypriniformes), from Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Close

• 243. [Image] Draft upper Williamson River Watershed assessment

  	"Prepared for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation, and the Upper Williamson River Catchment Group, in cooperation with the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, and the Klamath Watershed Council."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Draft upper Williamson River Watershed assessment Author: David Evans and Associates, Inc. Year: 2004, 2005 "Prepared for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation, and the Upper Williamson River Catchment Group, in cooperation with the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, and the Klamath Watershed Council." Title: Draft upper Williamson River Watershed assessment Author: David Evans and Associates, Inc. Year: 2004, 2005 "Prepared for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation, and the Upper Williamson River Catchment Group, in cooperation with the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, and the Klamath Watershed Council." Close

• 244. [Image] Western water supply : hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, to receive testimony regarding water supply issues in the arid West, March 9, 2004

  	CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page American Farm Bureau Federation 26963 Bell, Craig, Executive Director, Western States Water Council 26945 Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico 2691 Gaibler, Floyd, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Western water supply : hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, to receive testimony regarding water supply issues in the arid West, March 9, 2004 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page American Farm Bureau Federation 26963 Bell, Craig, Executive Director, Western States Water Council 26945 Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico 2691 Gaibler, Floyd, Deputy Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture 26932 Grisoli, Brigadier General William T., Commander, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 26918 Hall, Tex G., President, National Congress of American Indians, and Chair man, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation 26950 Raley, Bennett, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior 2695 Uccellini, Dr. Louis, Director, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 26926 APPENDIX Responses to additional questions 2620 67 Title: Western water supply : hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, to receive testimony regarding water supply issues in the arid West, March 9, 2004 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page American Farm Bureau Federation 26963 Bell, Craig, Executive Director, Western States Water Council 26945 Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico 2691 Gaibler, Floyd, Deputy Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture 26932 Grisoli, Brigadier General William T., Commander, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 26918 Hall, Tex G., President, National Congress of American Indians, and Chair man, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation 26950 Raley, Bennett, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior 2695 Uccellini, Dr. Louis, Director, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 26926 APPENDIX Responses to additional questions 2620 67 Close

• 245. [Image] Klamath Basin summary of recent federal government activities, March 2003

  	The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin Work Plans and Reports
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Basin summary of recent federal government activities, March 2003 Author: United States. Dept. of the Interior Year: 2003, 2005 The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin Work Plans and Reports Title: Klamath Basin summary of recent federal government activities, March 2003 Author: United States. Dept. of the Interior Year: 2003, 2005 The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin Work Plans and Reports Close

• 246. [Image] Summary of ongoing and planned work of the Department of the Interior related to the Klamath River Basin, March 2003

  	The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin, Work Plans and Reports
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Summary of ongoing and planned work of the Department of the Interior related to the Klamath River Basin, March 2003 Author: United States. Dept. of the Interior Year: 2003, 2005 The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin, Work Plans and Reports Title: Summary of ongoing and planned work of the Department of the Interior related to the Klamath River Basin, March 2003 Author: United States. Dept. of the Interior Year: 2003, 2005 The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin, Work Plans and Reports Close

• 247. [Image] Klamath and Trinity River basins : hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, second session, on H.R. 4712 ... July 16, 1986

  	Serial no. 99-54 (United States. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath and Trinity River basins : hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, second session, on H.R. 4712 ... July 16, 1986 Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment Year: 1986, 2005 Serial no. 99-54 (United States. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries) Title: Klamath and Trinity River basins : hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, second session, on H.R. 4712 ... July 16, 1986 Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment Year: 1986, 2005 Serial no. 99-54 (United States. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries) Close

• 248. [Image] Endangered species : Fish and Wildlife Service generally focuses recovery funding on high priority species, but needs to periodically assess its funding decisions : report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives

  	"GAO-05-211"; "April 2005"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Endangered species : Fish and Wildlife Service generally focuses recovery funding on high priority species, but needs to periodically assess its funding decisions : report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2005 "GAO-05-211"; "April 2005" Title: Endangered species : Fish and Wildlife Service generally focuses recovery funding on high priority species, but needs to periodically assess its funding decisions : report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2005 "GAO-05-211"; "April 2005" Close

• 249. [Image] Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose suckers and shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999

  	Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose Suckers at Shoreline Spawning Areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 Prepared by: Rip S. Shively1 Mark F. Bautista2 Andre E. Kohler2 1 U. S. Geological Survey, Biological ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose suckers and shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 Author: Shively, Rip S.; Bautista, Mark F.; Kohler, Andre E. Year: 1999, 2005 Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose Suckers at Shoreline Spawning Areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 Prepared by: Rip S. Shively1 Mark F. Bautista2 Andre E. Kohler2 1 U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Klamath Falls Duty Station 6937 Washburn Way Klamath Falls, OR 97603 2 Johnson Controls World Services Inc. NERC Operation Post Office Box 270308 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Executive Summary In 1999, we sampled Lost River { Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose ( Chasmistes brevirostris) suckers from 5 April to 17 June at five shoreline spawning locations in Upper Klamath Lake ( UKL). Trammel nets were set to encompass identified spawning areas and were fished approximately 1- 1.5 hours before sunset until 3 hours after sunset or until 20 or more fish were captured. A total of 808 Lost River and 19 shortnose suckers were captured from Sucker, Silver Building, Ouxy, and Boulder springs, and Cinder Flats. The majority of Lost River suckers were captured at Cinder Flats ( 35%) and Sucker Springs ( 34%), followed by Ouxy Springs ( 16%), Silver Building Springs ( 12%), and Boulder Springs ( 3%). Males dominated the catch at all sites, but the sex ratios at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs were particularly skewed towards males. We recaptured 32 Lost River suckers that had been tagged during previous years sampling efforts. All of these fish, with the exception of two fish tagged at Ball Point in July, were originally tagged during the spawning season at shoreline spawning areas in UKL. This information provides further evidence that distinct stocks of Lost River suckers exist based on spawning location ( i. e., UKL and Williamson River). We also recaptured 23 Lost River suckers that were tagged in 1999 at shoreline spawning areas. Approximately half of these fish were recaptured at different locations than tagged indicating these fish were moving between spawning areas. The size offish captured at shoreline spawning areas decreased as the spawning season progressed, although the decrease in size was not as dramatic as reported in previous years. A limited number of shortnose suckers were captured at shoreline spawning areas in 1999, with a majority sampled after 1 May. Previous data for shortnose suckers at these sites is limited with respect to size, timing of spawning, sex composition, and relative numbers. Continuation of systematic sampling efforts at shoreline spawning areas will provide valuable information on the demographics and life history of Lost River and shortnose suckers utilizing these areas. Acknowledgements We thank Anita Baker, Brooke Bechen, Lani Hickey, and Tonya Wiley for assisting with sampling offish at shoreline spawning areas. Mark Buettner and Brian Peck ( U. S. Bureau of Reclamation) provided support during the early phases of our sampling as well as helpful comments on this report. We also appreciate the cooperation and support of Larry Dunsmoor ( Klamath Tribes) for identifying spawning areas, providing logistical support, and for the thoughtful review of this report. Cassandra Watson and Elizabeth Neuman produced finalized versions of tables and figures within this report and their efforts are greatly appreciated. This research was funded by the U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division through the Western Reservoirs Initiative. Introduction Severe water quality problems in Upper Klamath Lake ( UKL) have led to critical fisheries concerns for the region. Historically, UKL was eutrophic but has become hypereutrophic ( Goldman and Home 1983) presumably due to land- use practices within the basin ( USFWS 1993). As a result, the algal community has shifted to a monoculture of the blue- green algae Aphanizomemon flos- aquae and massive blooms of this species have been directly related to poor water quality episodes in UKL. The growth and decomposition of dense algal blooms in the lake frequently cause extreme water quality conditions characterized by high pH ( 9- 10.5), widely variable dissolved oxygen ( anoxic to supersaturated), and high ammonia concentrations (> 0.5 mg/ 1 unionized). In addition to water quality problems associated with A. flos- aquae, it is believed the loss of marsh habitat near the lake, timber harvest, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, and agricultural practices within the basin has contributed to hypereutrophic conditions. It is likely that these disturbances have altered the UKL ecosystem substantially enough to contribute to the near monoculture of A. flos- aquae. Investigations in 1913 documented the algal community as a diverse mix of blue- green and diatom communities, however, by the 1950' s A. flos- aquae was dominant ( USFWS 1993). The Lost River sucker ( Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker ( Chasmistes brevirostris) are endemic to the Upper Klamath Basin of California and Oregon ( Moyle 1976). Declining population trends for both species were noted as early as the mid- 1960' s, however, the severities of the population declines were not evident until the mid- 1980' s. In 1988 the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed both Lost River and shortnose suckers as endangered. Suspected reasons for their decline included damming of rivers, dredging and draining of marshes, water diversions, hybridization, competition and predation by exotic species, insularization of habitat, and water quality problems associated with timber harvest, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, and agricultural practices ( USFWS 1993). The U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division ( BRD) has been conducting field investigations on Lost River and shortnose suckers in UKL since 1994. The majority of these sampling efforts have focused on catching fish in UKL and the Lower Williamson River. Sampling in the Lower Williamson River focused on developing indices of relative abundance of Lost River and shortnose suckers. In 1999, Oregon State University continued sampling in the Lower Williamson River fishing trammel nets from April to August at four standardized locations. In addition to sampling efforts in the Lower Williamson River, BRD crews conducted periodic sampling at several shoreline spawning areas on the east side of UKL. This sampling was beneficial because it provided information on species composition, size, and sex ratios of suckers utilizing these areas. However, temporal changes in abundance may have been missed because consistent sampling never occurred throughout the entire spawning season ( Perkins et al, In preparation). Recently, there has been increased concern on the effects of water level management in UKL on spawning suckers. Information is needed on the timing, relative abundance, and distribution of sucker spawning in UKL to make informed decisions with respect to management of lake elevation. In 1999, we conducted systematic trammel netting surveys at Sucker, Silver Building, Ouxy, and Boulder springs and Cinder Flats along the east shore of UKL. In addition, we sampled periodically at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point to determine if suckers were utilizing these areas for spawning. This report summarizes data collected in 1999 on shoreline spawning populations of Lost River and shortnose suckers with emphasis on timing, species composition, sex ratios, and relative abundance. Methods We conducted systematic trammel netting surveys at five locations along the east shore of UKL ( Figure 1). We began sampling at Cinder Flats, Sucker, Silver Building, and Ouxy springs in early April with Boulder Springs added to the list of sampling sites on 27 April. In addition to these sites, we periodically sampled at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point ( Table 1). We attempted to sample each site twice per week although certain sites were only sampled once per week when catch rates of suckers were low ( i. e., less than 5 fish per evening). Trammel nets were fished for about 4 hours ( approximately 1- 1.5 hours before sunset until 3 hours after dark) or until we captured 20 or more fish. Nets used at individual sites varied in length from 15- 30 m, were 1.8 m tall with two outer panels ( 30cm bar mesh), an inner panel ( 3.8 cm bar mesh), a foam core float line, and a lead core bottom line. Generally, we set 1- 2 nets starting at the shoreline and extending out to encompass the perimeter of the identified spawning area. Nets were checked at approximately 1 hour intervals and captured fish were cut from the inner mesh panel and placed in a mesh cage and processed within 2 hours. Suckers were identified by species and sex, measured to the nearest mm ( fork length), inspected for tags ( both PIT and Floy tags), and examined for physical afflictions ( e. g., presence oiLernaea spp. and lamprey scars). If a sucker did not have a PIT tag, one was inserted with a hypodermic needle along the ventral surface 1- 2 cm anterior of the pelvic girdle. The catch per unit effort ( CPUE) of adult Lost River suckers was calculated for individual sampling locations for each evening sampled. Because identified spawning areas varied in size we used different length trammel nets to encompass the spawning areas. We did not attempt to standardize CPUE based on length of trammel nets used at each location. Results We sampled shoreline spawning areas from 5 April - 17 June capturing a total of 808 Lost River suckers and 19 shortnose suckers from 5 sites ( Table 1). Lost River and shortnose suckers were captured at Sucker Springs, Silver Building Springs, Ouxy Springs, and Cinder Flats, while only Lost River suckers were captured at Boulder Springs. No suckers were captured at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point ( Table 1). The majority of Lost River suckers were captured at Cinder Flats ( 35%) and Sucker Springs ( 34%; Figure 2). Males dominated the catch at all sites and were generally smaller ( mean length = 538 mm) than females captured ( mean length = 596 mm). In particular, sex ratios ( males to females) were most skewed at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs ( Figure 3). Large females (> 650 mm) were captured at most sites, except Boulder Springs, and the size range offish captured over time remained similar with the exception that a fewer large individuals (> 600 mm) were captured in the late sampling period ( 1 May - 17 June) as compared to the early sampling period ( 6- 30 April; Figure 4; Appendix Figure A). The catch of shortnose suckers was limited at all sites sampled. Most ( 12 of 19) of the shortnose suckers were collected at Sucker Springs, with 1- 3 fish captured at Cinder Flats, Ouxy Springs, and Silver Building Springs ( Table 1). We identified 8 males and 8 females during the sampling period and were unable to determine sex for three individuals. The mean size of shortnose suckers was 360 mm ( range 289- 528 mm) similar to data reported by Perkins et al. ( In preparation) from Sucker, Silver Building, and Ouxy springs. We observed the highest CPUE of Lost River suckers at Cinder Flats ( mean CPUE= 12.7/ h) followed by Sucker Springs ( mean CPUE= 6.0/ h), Silver Building Springs ( mean CPUE = 2.8/ h), and Ouxy Springs ( mean CPUE= 2.4/ h) ( Figure 5). On three occasions at Cinder Flats, 20 or more suckers were captured within an hour or less resulting in the termination of sampling for the evening. CPUE was calculated for sampling dates at Boulder Springs ( mean CPUE= 1.4/ h), although comparisons with other sites is not applicable because this site was not initially included in systematic sampling efforts. We did not calculate CPUE for shortnose suckers. We captured a total of 32 Lost River and 2 shortnose suckers that were tagged during previous years sampling efforts. The majority ( 96%) of these fish was originally tagged at shoreline locations ( Table 2), which is consistent with historical recapture data ( Appendix Table A). Two Lost River suckers were originally tagged at Ball Point in UKL in July, after the spawning season. In addition, most Lost River suckers were recaptured before 1 May, including 15 fish that were collected at Sucker Springs during two sampling occasions in March ( Figure 6). We also recaptured a total of 21 Lost River suckers that were tagged in 1999 at shoreline spawning areas. Approximately half of these fish were recaptured at different areas than where they were tagged, indicating that some suckers are moving between spawning areas within the season ( Table 3). Discussion Our sampling indicated the spawning period for Lost River suckers lasted from mid- March through the beginning of June at shoreline spawning areas in 1999. The catch of Lost River suckers was dominated by males at all sites sampled, particularly at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs. Perkins et al., ( In preparation) reported skewed sex ratios at shoreline spawning locations following the fish kills that occurred in UKL from 1995- 1997. However, the ratios we observed were considerably higher than those reported by Perkins et al., ( In preparation). At this time we are unable to determine the reason for the sex ratios observed. It is possible that males remain longer at the spawning areas than females making them more vulnerable to capture. Perkins et al., ( In preparation) observed spawning acts and reported that males remained near the actual site where spawning occurs while females move onto the spawning site only when ready to spawn. We captured 23 Lost River suckers twice in 1999 and all but one of these fish were males. However, it is difficult to determine if this percentage is due to males remaining at these sites longer than females or a reflection of the existing sex ratios. Another possible explanation could be the large numbers of males in the catch are from the 1991- 1993 year classes and females from these year classes have yet to be recruited into the adult population. The majority of males captured ( 81%) were between 475 - 574 mm. Age and growth information from Lost River suckers collected during the 1996- 1997 fish kills indicate these fish would be between 5- 9 years old ( USGS, BRD, 10 unpublished data). Perkins et al., ( In preparation) reported that male Lost River suckers migrating up the Williamson River begin to be recruited into the adult population starting at age 4+, while females did not begin to mature until age 7+ . These data were based on examining length frequency distributions and noting when fish from the 1991 year class, which is presumed to be a strong year class, began showing up in trammel net catches. Fish from the 1991 year class would have been age 8+ in 1999. Buettner and Scoppetone ( 1990) examined opercles from Lost River suckers collected during the 1986 fish kill in UKL and reported that individuals matured between 6- 14 years of age with the peak being 9 years. It is possible that in the next few years more females from the 1991- 93 year classes will be recruited into the adult population spawning at shoreline areas. Our data provides additional evidence that distinct stocks of Lost River suckers may exist based on fidelity to spawning area. Of the 32 suckers we recaptured from previous years sampling efforts, all but two were originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations. The two fish that were not originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations were captured at Ball Point in July and were not presumed to be spawning in this location. Perkins et al. ( In preparation) reported that of 316 Lost River and 11 shortnose suckers recaptured at shoreline spawning areas all were originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations. Continuation of systematic sampling at both shoreline spawning areas and the Williamson and Sprague rivers will continue to provide information on potential separation of spawning populations. The majority of recaptured fish were tagged during the first half of our sampling efforts including 13 fish that were recaptured on 25 March while sampling with Larry Dunsmoor of the Klamath Tribes. Historically, the majority of sampling effort at 11 shoreline spawning locations occurred prior to 1 May, which may explain why most recaptures were collected during the early part of our sampling period. In fiiture years, we plan to continue systematic sampling through June to determine if temporal aspects of spawning remain consistent between years. The size offish captured at shoreline spawning areas decreased as the spawning season progressed, particularly near the end of our sampling period, although the decrease was not as dramatic as reported by Perkins et al., ( In preparation). It is possible that individual timing of Lost River sucker spawning is affected by size. Scoppettone et al., ( 1986) observed that smaller, younger cui- ui ( Chasmistes cujus) at Pyramid Lake spawned at the end of the spawning season. We believe further investigation is needed to determine if differences in spawning timing among individuals is due to size or related to stock differences. A limited number of shortnose suckers were captured in 1999. Sampling continued well into June and was sufficient to detect spawning concentrations of shortnose suckers at these sites. Based on previous sampling conducted at shoreline spawning areas, there appears to be a decreasing trend in the number of shortnose suckers captured at these sites ( Perkins, et al., In preparation). Our sampling efforts at shoreline spawning areas on the east side of UKL represents the first time these areas have been systematically sampled during the spawning season. Continuation of systematic sampling at these areas is important to provide information on species composition, timing and duration of spawning, fidelity to spawning areas, sex ratios, size distribution, and relative abundance. How these 12 population characteristics change over time will also provide important insights into the population stability of Lost River and shortnose suckers in UKL. 13 Literature Cited Buettner, M. And G. Scoppettone. 1990. Life history status of catostomids in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. U. S. F. W. S. Completion Report. 108 pp. Goldman, C. R. and A. J. Home. 1983. Limnology. McGraw Hill, New York. Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Perkins, D. L., G. G. Scoppettone, and M. Buettner. In preparation. Reproductive biology and demographics of endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Lost River ( Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose ( Chasmistes brevirostris) sucker recovery plan. Portland, Oregon. 108 pp. 14 Table 1. Summary of the shoreline locations sampled in Upper Klamath Lake and the number of Lost River ( LRS) and shortnose ( SNS) suckers captured in 1999. Sampling Dates Sampled Number of days Number of LRS Number of SNS Location ( range) Sampled Captured Captured Barkley Springs 4/ 5- 4/ 27 4 0 0 11 21 0 19 284 2 4 0 0 20 129 3 19 100 2 Sucker Springs 4/ 5- 6/ 17 20 274 13 Total 808 20 Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Modoc Point Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs 4/ 27- 4/ 6- 4/ 13- 4/ 6- 4/ 5- 6/ 17 6/ 17 4/ 21 6/ 17 6/ 17 15 Table 2. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured from previous years sampling efforts at shoreline spawning locations in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Site Originally Captured Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Ball Point Total Boulder Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Cinder Flats 0 1 0 0 4 2 7 Recaptured Ouxy Springs 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 in 1999 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Sucker Springs 0 0 1 2 19 0 22 16 Table 3. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured at shoreline locations in Upper Klamath Lake originally tagged in 1999. Site Originally Captured in 1999 Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Total Boulder Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Cinder Flats 0 3 1 3 1 8 Recaptured Ouxy Springs 0 1 0 0 3 4 in 1999 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 1 1 0 2 Sucker Springs 0 2 0 1 6 9 17 1. Sucker Springs 2. Silver Building Springs 3. Ouxy Springs 4. Cinder Flats 5. Boulder Springs Figure 1. Map of Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes showing major tributaries and shoreline spawning areas sampled in 1999. 18 o I 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BOULDER SPRINGS 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 D LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish Jtt * * * * * * OUXY SPRINGS D LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 CINDER FLATS D LRS Unknow n _ r i • LRS Male • i_ r\ o remaie ic No Fish EII1IJ n „ * * * * 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 > SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS • LRS Unknow n • LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish D n n p » * * * * * SUCKER SPRINGS ALL AREAS COMBINED • LRS Unknown D LRS Male • LRS Female • LRS Unknow n • LRS Male • LRS Female / / / / / / Figure 2. Summary of the number and sex of Lost River Suckers ( LRS) captured at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 sampling. LRS unknown refers to captured individuals in which sex could not be determined. 19 70% -, 60% 50% 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% 0% CINDER FLATS _ o_ n= 283 9.1 : 1 8C O in io in om CD o i n 70% -, 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% - 0% - BOULDER SPRINGS y n 11 7 6 2 n= 21 9.5: 1 • g si n 8 CD omr o in oo § 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% OUXY SPRINGS om CN oi n co o ini o in in SUCKER SPRINGS 70% -, 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% - 0% - n= 129 4.1 : 0 • _ o in CD omh omoo n= 273 3.5: 1 U • - - sC O oi n oi nm om o i n 00 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% - 10% 0% SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS 70% 60% - 50% - 40% 30% 20% 10% - 0% 8 CM ALL SITES 8 CO JL 8 8 i n n= 99 8.1 : 1 • H „ - in in in CD h- 00 n= 805 5.3: 1 _ D • Male • Female 8 C N O O O O O O O O O O O i n o m oin i nin oCDi nCDo i n o i nco Fork length Figure 3. Length frequency histogram of male and female Lost River suckers ( LRS) captured at shore-line spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. The total number of LRS captured in 1999 and ratio of males to females are presented in the upper right hand corner of each graph. 20 E QJ D 160 i 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 A) 1999 LR Length Frequency ( 3/ 18/ 99- 4/ 30/ 99) DMale • Female • male = 457 xM = 541.4 i siaev - jo. y female = 60 xF = 611.9 stdev = 77.2 (—| Qy O ^ D 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 # 4? B) o - I— # $ # C) # # $ # 1999 LR Length Frequency ( 5/ 1/ 99 - 6/ 8/ 99) DMale • Female male = 219 xM = 531.4 5> lUeV — H 1 , , — i remaie = bB xF = 582 8 stdev = 68.1 • y . _ _ # ^ # # # # # # # ^ 1999 SN Length Frequency ( 4/ 30/ 99 - 5/ 30/ 99) 1 U 14 - 12 - 10 s p. A 2 0 - , Dmale • female y y • l i y n male = 8 xM = 363 stdev - 29.7 fpryiolp — ft xF = 357.1 stdev = 35.5 Forklength ( mm) Figure 4. Length frequency for Lost River ( LRS) and shortnose ( SNS) suckers captured at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Graphs represent A) LRS caught from March 19- April 30, 1999, B) LRS caught from May 1- June 8, 1999, and C) SNS caught from April 30- May 30, 1999 ( all SNS sampling days were combined due to limited SNS numbers). Four LRS with unknown gender were not included in the graph, two were caught before May 1st, and two after May 1st. Three SNS with unknown gender were not included in the graph. 21 BOULDER SPRINGS 20 i 18 16 - I 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 O) O) O) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) in CM O) $ § I co o L? 5 LO O) O) O) g> g> g> o r^ •<*• n ^ CN CD CD CD 45 40 - 35 30 25 20 15 10 - 5 0 CINDER FLATS 0 ) 0 ) OO - f - r in in 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) C D C D C D 1 sw 20 18 16- 14- 12 - 10 8 6 4 OUXYSPRNGS Jl 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) OO 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) C N I O C D O) O) O) O) Q < o z: ? z in CD CD 20- 18 - 16 14 - 12 - 10 - 8 6 4 - 2 - 0 - SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS ii , II p l, « u u •———,—— O) O) O) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) in CN O) T- CM CM O) O) O) O) O) O) CO O h » - in O) O) O) ill CD CD CD SUCKER SPRINGS ALL SITES Figure 5. Summary of catch per unit effort ( CPUE) of Lost River suckers at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Note change in scale for the Cinder Flats and the All Sites graphs. 22 BOULDER SPRINGS 14 12 10 8 -| 6 4 2 0 n= 0 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) O) CD CN O) CD CO O T - C\| ^ ^ T- CNJ CO CO CO ^" ^" ^" OUXY SPRINGS 1 C D n= 2 14 1 8 4 2^ 0 oo S ^ ^ SUCKER SPRINGS ^ £ j CNJ in in to n= 22 - U-CD CO O j - CM CO 1 C D 14 12 -\ 10 8 -] 6 4 2 - 0 CINDER FLATS n= 7 LJl 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) T^ Cr^ N ^? ^ T- 14 12 10 - 8 6 4 - 2 0 SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS Tt x- 00 - CN CN in in in n= 1 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) O) CD CN O> CD CO ^ CJ ^ ^ ^ CN co co ^ j- "< t ALL SITES O) O) O) O) O) O) in in in n= 32 I 0 0) in in in Figure 6. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured at shoreline spawning areas, Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Recaptured fish were originally tagged betweeen 1988- 1998. 23 Appendix Table A. Summary of recapture data for Lost River Suckers in the Upper Klamath Lake Basin from 1985- 1999. Sampling was generally conducted from March- July of each year, although the emphasis in sampling was during the spawning period. Recapture data includes fish that were tagged with Floy and PIT tags. Site Last Recaptured Site Originally Captured Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Williamson River Sprague River Upper Lake Middle Lake Total Cinder Flats 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 7 Ouxy Springs 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 7 Sucker Springs 0 0 6 288 4 0 0 0 298 Williamson River 0 0 0 1 6 3 0 0 10 Sprague River 0 0 0 0 1 13 1 0 15 Upper Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle Lake 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Total 1 1 9 300 12 16 3 0 342 Appendix Table B. Summary of recapture data for shortnose suckers in the Upper Klamath Lake Basin from 1985- 1999. Sampling was generally conducted from March- July of each year, although the emphasis in sampling was during the spawning period. Recapture data includes fish that were tagged with Floy and PIT tags. Site Last Recaptured Site Originally Captured Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Williamson River Sprague River Lower Lake Middle Lake Total Ouxy Springs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sucker Springs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Williamson River 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Sprague River 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 Lower Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle Lake 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 8 Upper Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reeder Road Bridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 2 0 0 7 5 0 6 20 25 5 2iu5 Appendix Figure A. Summary of the size range of Lost River suckers captured at shoreline sampling areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999, by date sampled. Title: Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose suckers and shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 Author: Shively, Rip S.; Bautista, Mark F.; Kohler, Andre E. Year: 1999, 2005 Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose Suckers at Shoreline Spawning Areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 Prepared by: Rip S. Shively1 Mark F. Bautista2 Andre E. Kohler2 1 U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Klamath Falls Duty Station 6937 Washburn Way Klamath Falls, OR 97603 2 Johnson Controls World Services Inc. NERC Operation Post Office Box 270308 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Executive Summary In 1999, we sampled Lost River { Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose ( Chasmistes brevirostris) suckers from 5 April to 17 June at five shoreline spawning locations in Upper Klamath Lake ( UKL). Trammel nets were set to encompass identified spawning areas and were fished approximately 1- 1.5 hours before sunset until 3 hours after sunset or until 20 or more fish were captured. A total of 808 Lost River and 19 shortnose suckers were captured from Sucker, Silver Building, Ouxy, and Boulder springs, and Cinder Flats. The majority of Lost River suckers were captured at Cinder Flats ( 35%) and Sucker Springs ( 34%), followed by Ouxy Springs ( 16%), Silver Building Springs ( 12%), and Boulder Springs ( 3%). Males dominated the catch at all sites, but the sex ratios at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs were particularly skewed towards males. We recaptured 32 Lost River suckers that had been tagged during previous years sampling efforts. All of these fish, with the exception of two fish tagged at Ball Point in July, were originally tagged during the spawning season at shoreline spawning areas in UKL. This information provides further evidence that distinct stocks of Lost River suckers exist based on spawning location ( i. e., UKL and Williamson River). We also recaptured 23 Lost River suckers that were tagged in 1999 at shoreline spawning areas. Approximately half of these fish were recaptured at different locations than tagged indicating these fish were moving between spawning areas. The size offish captured at shoreline spawning areas decreased as the spawning season progressed, although the decrease in size was not as dramatic as reported in previous years. A limited number of shortnose suckers were captured at shoreline spawning areas in 1999, with a majority sampled after 1 May. Previous data for shortnose suckers at these sites is limited with respect to size, timing of spawning, sex composition, and relative numbers. Continuation of systematic sampling efforts at shoreline spawning areas will provide valuable information on the demographics and life history of Lost River and shortnose suckers utilizing these areas. Acknowledgements We thank Anita Baker, Brooke Bechen, Lani Hickey, and Tonya Wiley for assisting with sampling offish at shoreline spawning areas. Mark Buettner and Brian Peck ( U. S. Bureau of Reclamation) provided support during the early phases of our sampling as well as helpful comments on this report. We also appreciate the cooperation and support of Larry Dunsmoor ( Klamath Tribes) for identifying spawning areas, providing logistical support, and for the thoughtful review of this report. Cassandra Watson and Elizabeth Neuman produced finalized versions of tables and figures within this report and their efforts are greatly appreciated. This research was funded by the U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division through the Western Reservoirs Initiative. Introduction Severe water quality problems in Upper Klamath Lake ( UKL) have led to critical fisheries concerns for the region. Historically, UKL was eutrophic but has become hypereutrophic ( Goldman and Home 1983) presumably due to land- use practices within the basin ( USFWS 1993). As a result, the algal community has shifted to a monoculture of the blue- green algae Aphanizomemon flos- aquae and massive blooms of this species have been directly related to poor water quality episodes in UKL. The growth and decomposition of dense algal blooms in the lake frequently cause extreme water quality conditions characterized by high pH ( 9- 10.5), widely variable dissolved oxygen ( anoxic to supersaturated), and high ammonia concentrations (> 0.5 mg/ 1 unionized). In addition to water quality problems associated with A. flos- aquae, it is believed the loss of marsh habitat near the lake, timber harvest, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, and agricultural practices within the basin has contributed to hypereutrophic conditions. It is likely that these disturbances have altered the UKL ecosystem substantially enough to contribute to the near monoculture of A. flos- aquae. Investigations in 1913 documented the algal community as a diverse mix of blue- green and diatom communities, however, by the 1950' s A. flos- aquae was dominant ( USFWS 1993). The Lost River sucker ( Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker ( Chasmistes brevirostris) are endemic to the Upper Klamath Basin of California and Oregon ( Moyle 1976). Declining population trends for both species were noted as early as the mid- 1960' s, however, the severities of the population declines were not evident until the mid- 1980' s. In 1988 the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed both Lost River and shortnose suckers as endangered. Suspected reasons for their decline included damming of rivers, dredging and draining of marshes, water diversions, hybridization, competition and predation by exotic species, insularization of habitat, and water quality problems associated with timber harvest, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, and agricultural practices ( USFWS 1993). The U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division ( BRD) has been conducting field investigations on Lost River and shortnose suckers in UKL since 1994. The majority of these sampling efforts have focused on catching fish in UKL and the Lower Williamson River. Sampling in the Lower Williamson River focused on developing indices of relative abundance of Lost River and shortnose suckers. In 1999, Oregon State University continued sampling in the Lower Williamson River fishing trammel nets from April to August at four standardized locations. In addition to sampling efforts in the Lower Williamson River, BRD crews conducted periodic sampling at several shoreline spawning areas on the east side of UKL. This sampling was beneficial because it provided information on species composition, size, and sex ratios of suckers utilizing these areas. However, temporal changes in abundance may have been missed because consistent sampling never occurred throughout the entire spawning season ( Perkins et al, In preparation). Recently, there has been increased concern on the effects of water level management in UKL on spawning suckers. Information is needed on the timing, relative abundance, and distribution of sucker spawning in UKL to make informed decisions with respect to management of lake elevation. In 1999, we conducted systematic trammel netting surveys at Sucker, Silver Building, Ouxy, and Boulder springs and Cinder Flats along the east shore of UKL. In addition, we sampled periodically at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point to determine if suckers were utilizing these areas for spawning. This report summarizes data collected in 1999 on shoreline spawning populations of Lost River and shortnose suckers with emphasis on timing, species composition, sex ratios, and relative abundance. Methods We conducted systematic trammel netting surveys at five locations along the east shore of UKL ( Figure 1). We began sampling at Cinder Flats, Sucker, Silver Building, and Ouxy springs in early April with Boulder Springs added to the list of sampling sites on 27 April. In addition to these sites, we periodically sampled at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point ( Table 1). We attempted to sample each site twice per week although certain sites were only sampled once per week when catch rates of suckers were low ( i. e., less than 5 fish per evening). Trammel nets were fished for about 4 hours ( approximately 1- 1.5 hours before sunset until 3 hours after dark) or until we captured 20 or more fish. Nets used at individual sites varied in length from 15- 30 m, were 1.8 m tall with two outer panels ( 30cm bar mesh), an inner panel ( 3.8 cm bar mesh), a foam core float line, and a lead core bottom line. Generally, we set 1- 2 nets starting at the shoreline and extending out to encompass the perimeter of the identified spawning area. Nets were checked at approximately 1 hour intervals and captured fish were cut from the inner mesh panel and placed in a mesh cage and processed within 2 hours. Suckers were identified by species and sex, measured to the nearest mm ( fork length), inspected for tags ( both PIT and Floy tags), and examined for physical afflictions ( e. g., presence oiLernaea spp. and lamprey scars). If a sucker did not have a PIT tag, one was inserted with a hypodermic needle along the ventral surface 1- 2 cm anterior of the pelvic girdle. The catch per unit effort ( CPUE) of adult Lost River suckers was calculated for individual sampling locations for each evening sampled. Because identified spawning areas varied in size we used different length trammel nets to encompass the spawning areas. We did not attempt to standardize CPUE based on length of trammel nets used at each location. Results We sampled shoreline spawning areas from 5 April - 17 June capturing a total of 808 Lost River suckers and 19 shortnose suckers from 5 sites ( Table 1). Lost River and shortnose suckers were captured at Sucker Springs, Silver Building Springs, Ouxy Springs, and Cinder Flats, while only Lost River suckers were captured at Boulder Springs. No suckers were captured at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point ( Table 1). The majority of Lost River suckers were captured at Cinder Flats ( 35%) and Sucker Springs ( 34%; Figure 2). Males dominated the catch at all sites and were generally smaller ( mean length = 538 mm) than females captured ( mean length = 596 mm). In particular, sex ratios ( males to females) were most skewed at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs ( Figure 3). Large females (> 650 mm) were captured at most sites, except Boulder Springs, and the size range offish captured over time remained similar with the exception that a fewer large individuals (> 600 mm) were captured in the late sampling period ( 1 May - 17 June) as compared to the early sampling period ( 6- 30 April; Figure 4; Appendix Figure A). The catch of shortnose suckers was limited at all sites sampled. Most ( 12 of 19) of the shortnose suckers were collected at Sucker Springs, with 1- 3 fish captured at Cinder Flats, Ouxy Springs, and Silver Building Springs ( Table 1). We identified 8 males and 8 females during the sampling period and were unable to determine sex for three individuals. The mean size of shortnose suckers was 360 mm ( range 289- 528 mm) similar to data reported by Perkins et al. ( In preparation) from Sucker, Silver Building, and Ouxy springs. We observed the highest CPUE of Lost River suckers at Cinder Flats ( mean CPUE= 12.7/ h) followed by Sucker Springs ( mean CPUE= 6.0/ h), Silver Building Springs ( mean CPUE = 2.8/ h), and Ouxy Springs ( mean CPUE= 2.4/ h) ( Figure 5). On three occasions at Cinder Flats, 20 or more suckers were captured within an hour or less resulting in the termination of sampling for the evening. CPUE was calculated for sampling dates at Boulder Springs ( mean CPUE= 1.4/ h), although comparisons with other sites is not applicable because this site was not initially included in systematic sampling efforts. We did not calculate CPUE for shortnose suckers. We captured a total of 32 Lost River and 2 shortnose suckers that were tagged during previous years sampling efforts. The majority ( 96%) of these fish was originally tagged at shoreline locations ( Table 2), which is consistent with historical recapture data ( Appendix Table A). Two Lost River suckers were originally tagged at Ball Point in UKL in July, after the spawning season. In addition, most Lost River suckers were recaptured before 1 May, including 15 fish that were collected at Sucker Springs during two sampling occasions in March ( Figure 6). We also recaptured a total of 21 Lost River suckers that were tagged in 1999 at shoreline spawning areas. Approximately half of these fish were recaptured at different areas than where they were tagged, indicating that some suckers are moving between spawning areas within the season ( Table 3). Discussion Our sampling indicated the spawning period for Lost River suckers lasted from mid- March through the beginning of June at shoreline spawning areas in 1999. The catch of Lost River suckers was dominated by males at all sites sampled, particularly at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs. Perkins et al., ( In preparation) reported skewed sex ratios at shoreline spawning locations following the fish kills that occurred in UKL from 1995- 1997. However, the ratios we observed were considerably higher than those reported by Perkins et al., ( In preparation). At this time we are unable to determine the reason for the sex ratios observed. It is possible that males remain longer at the spawning areas than females making them more vulnerable to capture. Perkins et al., ( In preparation) observed spawning acts and reported that males remained near the actual site where spawning occurs while females move onto the spawning site only when ready to spawn. We captured 23 Lost River suckers twice in 1999 and all but one of these fish were males. However, it is difficult to determine if this percentage is due to males remaining at these sites longer than females or a reflection of the existing sex ratios. Another possible explanation could be the large numbers of males in the catch are from the 1991- 1993 year classes and females from these year classes have yet to be recruited into the adult population. The majority of males captured ( 81%) were between 475 - 574 mm. Age and growth information from Lost River suckers collected during the 1996- 1997 fish kills indicate these fish would be between 5- 9 years old ( USGS, BRD, 10 unpublished data). Perkins et al., ( In preparation) reported that male Lost River suckers migrating up the Williamson River begin to be recruited into the adult population starting at age 4+, while females did not begin to mature until age 7+ . These data were based on examining length frequency distributions and noting when fish from the 1991 year class, which is presumed to be a strong year class, began showing up in trammel net catches. Fish from the 1991 year class would have been age 8+ in 1999. Buettner and Scoppetone ( 1990) examined opercles from Lost River suckers collected during the 1986 fish kill in UKL and reported that individuals matured between 6- 14 years of age with the peak being 9 years. It is possible that in the next few years more females from the 1991- 93 year classes will be recruited into the adult population spawning at shoreline areas. Our data provides additional evidence that distinct stocks of Lost River suckers may exist based on fidelity to spawning area. Of the 32 suckers we recaptured from previous years sampling efforts, all but two were originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations. The two fish that were not originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations were captured at Ball Point in July and were not presumed to be spawning in this location. Perkins et al. ( In preparation) reported that of 316 Lost River and 11 shortnose suckers recaptured at shoreline spawning areas all were originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations. Continuation of systematic sampling at both shoreline spawning areas and the Williamson and Sprague rivers will continue to provide information on potential separation of spawning populations. The majority of recaptured fish were tagged during the first half of our sampling efforts including 13 fish that were recaptured on 25 March while sampling with Larry Dunsmoor of the Klamath Tribes. Historically, the majority of sampling effort at 11 shoreline spawning locations occurred prior to 1 May, which may explain why most recaptures were collected during the early part of our sampling period. In fiiture years, we plan to continue systematic sampling through June to determine if temporal aspects of spawning remain consistent between years. The size offish captured at shoreline spawning areas decreased as the spawning season progressed, particularly near the end of our sampling period, although the decrease was not as dramatic as reported by Perkins et al., ( In preparation). It is possible that individual timing of Lost River sucker spawning is affected by size. Scoppettone et al., ( 1986) observed that smaller, younger cui- ui ( Chasmistes cujus) at Pyramid Lake spawned at the end of the spawning season. We believe further investigation is needed to determine if differences in spawning timing among individuals is due to size or related to stock differences. A limited number of shortnose suckers were captured in 1999. Sampling continued well into June and was sufficient to detect spawning concentrations of shortnose suckers at these sites. Based on previous sampling conducted at shoreline spawning areas, there appears to be a decreasing trend in the number of shortnose suckers captured at these sites ( Perkins, et al., In preparation). Our sampling efforts at shoreline spawning areas on the east side of UKL represents the first time these areas have been systematically sampled during the spawning season. Continuation of systematic sampling at these areas is important to provide information on species composition, timing and duration of spawning, fidelity to spawning areas, sex ratios, size distribution, and relative abundance. How these 12 population characteristics change over time will also provide important insights into the population stability of Lost River and shortnose suckers in UKL. 13 Literature Cited Buettner, M. And G. Scoppettone. 1990. Life history status of catostomids in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. U. S. F. W. S. Completion Report. 108 pp. Goldman, C. R. and A. J. Home. 1983. Limnology. McGraw Hill, New York. Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Perkins, D. L., G. G. Scoppettone, and M. Buettner. In preparation. Reproductive biology and demographics of endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Lost River ( Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose ( Chasmistes brevirostris) sucker recovery plan. Portland, Oregon. 108 pp. 14 Table 1. Summary of the shoreline locations sampled in Upper Klamath Lake and the number of Lost River ( LRS) and shortnose ( SNS) suckers captured in 1999. Sampling Dates Sampled Number of days Number of LRS Number of SNS Location ( range) Sampled Captured Captured Barkley Springs 4/ 5- 4/ 27 4 0 0 11 21 0 19 284 2 4 0 0 20 129 3 19 100 2 Sucker Springs 4/ 5- 6/ 17 20 274 13 Total 808 20 Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Modoc Point Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs 4/ 27- 4/ 6- 4/ 13- 4/ 6- 4/ 5- 6/ 17 6/ 17 4/ 21 6/ 17 6/ 17 15 Table 2. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured from previous years sampling efforts at shoreline spawning locations in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Site Originally Captured Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Ball Point Total Boulder Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Cinder Flats 0 1 0 0 4 2 7 Recaptured Ouxy Springs 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 in 1999 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Sucker Springs 0 0 1 2 19 0 22 16 Table 3. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured at shoreline locations in Upper Klamath Lake originally tagged in 1999. Site Originally Captured in 1999 Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Total Boulder Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Cinder Flats 0 3 1 3 1 8 Recaptured Ouxy Springs 0 1 0 0 3 4 in 1999 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 1 1 0 2 Sucker Springs 0 2 0 1 6 9 17 1. Sucker Springs 2. Silver Building Springs 3. Ouxy Springs 4. Cinder Flats 5. Boulder Springs Figure 1. Map of Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes showing major tributaries and shoreline spawning areas sampled in 1999. 18 o I 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BOULDER SPRINGS 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 D LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish Jtt * * * * * * OUXY SPRINGS D LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 CINDER FLATS D LRS Unknow n _ r i • LRS Male • i_ r\ o remaie ic No Fish EII1IJ n „ * * * * 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 > SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS • LRS Unknow n • LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish D n n p » * * * * * SUCKER SPRINGS ALL AREAS COMBINED • LRS Unknown D LRS Male • LRS Female • LRS Unknow n • LRS Male • LRS Female / / / / / / Figure 2. Summary of the number and sex of Lost River Suckers ( LRS) captured at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 sampling. LRS unknown refers to captured individuals in which sex could not be determined. 19 70% -, 60% 50% 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% 0% CINDER FLATS _ o_ n= 283 9.1 : 1 8C O in io in om CD o i n 70% -, 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% - 0% - BOULDER SPRINGS y n 11 7 6 2 n= 21 9.5: 1 • g si n 8 CD omr o in oo § 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% OUXY SPRINGS om CN oi n co o ini o in in SUCKER SPRINGS 70% -, 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% - 0% - n= 129 4.1 : 0 • _ o in CD omh omoo n= 273 3.5: 1 U • - - sC O oi n oi nm om o i n 00 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% - 10% 0% SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS 70% 60% - 50% - 40% 30% 20% 10% - 0% 8 CM ALL SITES 8 CO JL 8 8 i n n= 99 8.1 : 1 • H „ - in in in CD h- 00 n= 805 5.3: 1 _ D • Male • Female 8 C N O O O O O O O O O O O i n o m oin i nin oCDi nCDo i n o i nco Fork length Figure 3. Length frequency histogram of male and female Lost River suckers ( LRS) captured at shore-line spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. The total number of LRS captured in 1999 and ratio of males to females are presented in the upper right hand corner of each graph. 20 E QJ D 160 i 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 A) 1999 LR Length Frequency ( 3/ 18/ 99- 4/ 30/ 99) DMale • Female • male = 457 xM = 541.4 i siaev - jo. y female = 60 xF = 611.9 stdev = 77.2 (—| Qy O ^ D 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 # 4? B) o - I— # $ # C) # # $ # 1999 LR Length Frequency ( 5/ 1/ 99 - 6/ 8/ 99) DMale • Female male = 219 xM = 531.4 5> lUeV — H 1 , , — i remaie = bB xF = 582 8 stdev = 68.1 • y . _ _ # ^ # # # # # # # ^ 1999 SN Length Frequency ( 4/ 30/ 99 - 5/ 30/ 99) 1 U 14 - 12 - 10 s p. A 2 0 - , Dmale • female y y • l i y n male = 8 xM = 363 stdev - 29.7 fpryiolp — ft xF = 357.1 stdev = 35.5 Forklength ( mm) Figure 4. Length frequency for Lost River ( LRS) and shortnose ( SNS) suckers captured at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Graphs represent A) LRS caught from March 19- April 30, 1999, B) LRS caught from May 1- June 8, 1999, and C) SNS caught from April 30- May 30, 1999 ( all SNS sampling days were combined due to limited SNS numbers). Four LRS with unknown gender were not included in the graph, two were caught before May 1st, and two after May 1st. Three SNS with unknown gender were not included in the graph. 21 BOULDER SPRINGS 20 i 18 16 - I 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 O) O) O) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) in CM O) $ § I co o L? 5 LO O) O) O) g> g> g> o r^ •<*• n ^ CN CD CD CD 45 40 - 35 30 25 20 15 10 - 5 0 CINDER FLATS 0 ) 0 ) OO - f - r in in 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) C D C D C D 1 sw 20 18 16- 14- 12 - 10 8 6 4 OUXYSPRNGS Jl 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) OO 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) C N I O C D O) O) O) O) Q < o z: ? z in CD CD 20- 18 - 16 14 - 12 - 10 - 8 6 4 - 2 - 0 - SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS ii , II p l, « u u •———,—— O) O) O) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) in CN O) T- CM CM O) O) O) O) O) O) CO O h » - in O) O) O) ill CD CD CD SUCKER SPRINGS ALL SITES Figure 5. Summary of catch per unit effort ( CPUE) of Lost River suckers at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Note change in scale for the Cinder Flats and the All Sites graphs. 22 BOULDER SPRINGS 14 12 10 8 -| 6 4 2 0 n= 0 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) O) CD CN O) CD CO O T - C\| ^ ^ T- CNJ CO CO CO ^" ^" ^" OUXY SPRINGS 1 C D n= 2 14 1 8 4 2^ 0 oo S ^ ^ SUCKER SPRINGS ^ £ j CNJ in in to n= 22 - U-CD CO O j - CM CO 1 C D 14 12 -\ 10 8 -] 6 4 2 - 0 CINDER FLATS n= 7 LJl 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) T^ Cr^ N ^? ^ T- 14 12 10 - 8 6 4 - 2 0 SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS Tt x- 00 - CN CN in in in n= 1 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) O) CD CN O> CD CO ^ CJ ^ ^ ^ CN co co ^ j- "< t ALL SITES O) O) O) O) O) O) in in in n= 32 I 0 0) in in in Figure 6. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured at shoreline spawning areas, Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Recaptured fish were originally tagged betweeen 1988- 1998. 23 Appendix Table A. Summary of recapture data for Lost River Suckers in the Upper Klamath Lake Basin from 1985- 1999. Sampling was generally conducted from March- July of each year, although the emphasis in sampling was during the spawning period. Recapture data includes fish that were tagged with Floy and PIT tags. Site Last Recaptured Site Originally Captured Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Williamson River Sprague River Upper Lake Middle Lake Total Cinder Flats 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 7 Ouxy Springs 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 7 Sucker Springs 0 0 6 288 4 0 0 0 298 Williamson River 0 0 0 1 6 3 0 0 10 Sprague River 0 0 0 0 1 13 1 0 15 Upper Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle Lake 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Total 1 1 9 300 12 16 3 0 342 Appendix Table B. Summary of recapture data for shortnose suckers in the Upper Klamath Lake Basin from 1985- 1999. Sampling was generally conducted from March- July of each year, although the emphasis in sampling was during the spawning period. Recapture data includes fish that were tagged with Floy and PIT tags. Site Last Recaptured Site Originally Captured Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Williamson River Sprague River Lower Lake Middle Lake Total Ouxy Springs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sucker Springs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Williamson River 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Sprague River 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 Lower Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle Lake 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 8 Upper Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reeder Road Bridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 2 0 0 7 5 0 6 20 25 5 2iu5 Appendix Figure A. Summary of the size range of Lost River suckers captured at shoreline sampling areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999, by date sampled. Close

• 250. [Image] Biological assessment of Klamath Project's continuing operations on the endangered Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker

  	BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF KLAMATH PROJECT'S CONTINUING OPERATIONS ON THE ENDANGERED LOST RIVER SUCKER AND SHORTNOSE SUCKER U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Klamath Basin Area Office Klamath ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Biological assessment of Klamath Project's continuing operations on the endangered Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 2001, 2005 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF KLAMATH PROJECT'S CONTINUING OPERATIONS ON THE ENDANGERED LOST RIVER SUCKER AND SHORTNOSE SUCKER U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Klamath Basin Area Office Klamath Falls, Oregon February 13,2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION 3 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC OPERATIONS 6 4.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE KLAMATH PROJECT 16 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 60 6.0 EFFECTS OF KLAMATH PROJECT ON BALD EAGLES 60 7.0 EFFECTS OF KLAMATH PROJECT ENDANGERED SUCKERS 63 8.0 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED SUCKERS 82 9.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 84 10.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 89 11.0 LITERATURE CITED 90 12.0 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 100 13.0 APPENDIX 1 - ESA CONSULTATION REVIEW 101 Title: Biological assessment of Klamath Project's continuing operations on the endangered Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 2001, 2005 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF KLAMATH PROJECT'S CONTINUING OPERATIONS ON THE ENDANGERED LOST RIVER SUCKER AND SHORTNOSE SUCKER U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Klamath Basin Area Office Klamath Falls, Oregon February 13,2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION 3 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC OPERATIONS 6 4.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE KLAMATH PROJECT 16 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 60 6.0 EFFECTS OF KLAMATH PROJECT ON BALD EAGLES 60 7.0 EFFECTS OF KLAMATH PROJECT ENDANGERED SUCKERS 63 8.0 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED SUCKERS 82 9.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 84 10.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 89 11.0 LITERATURE CITED 90 12.0 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 100 13.0 APPENDIX 1 - ESA CONSULTATION REVIEW 101 Close