Search

Search Results

• 8641. [Article] White sturgeon mitigation and restoration in the Columbia and snake rivers upstream from Bonneville dam Annual Progress Report, April 2005 to March 2006

  Abstract -- We report on our progress from April 2005 through March 2006 on determining the effects of mitigative measures on productivity of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: White sturgeon mitigation and restoration in the Columbia and snake rivers upstream from Bonneville dam Annual Progress Report, April 2005 to March 2006 Abstract -- We report on our progress from April 2005 through March 2006 on determining the effects of mitigative measures on productivity of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam, and on determining the status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia and Snake rivers upstream from McNary Dam. The study is a cooperative effort by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW; Report A), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW; Report B), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC; Report C), and Montana State University (MSU; Report D). This is a multi-year study with many objectives requiring more than one year to complete; therefore, findings from a given year may be part of more significant findings yet to be reported. Title: White sturgeon mitigation and restoration in the Columbia and snake rivers upstream from Bonneville dam Annual Progress Report, April 2005 to March 2006 Abstract -- We report on our progress from April 2005 through March 2006 on determining the effects of mitigative measures on productivity of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam, and on determining the status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia and Snake rivers upstream from McNary Dam. The study is a cooperative effort by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW; Report A), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW; Report B), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC; Report C), and Montana State University (MSU; Report D). This is a multi-year study with many objectives requiring more than one year to complete; therefore, findings from a given year may be part of more significant findings yet to be reported. Close

• 8642. [Article] Summary of Habitat and Fish Monitoring Data From East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks: 1988-2000

  Abstract -- Since 1988, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been monitoring the smolt production, adult returns, summer abundance of juvenile salmonids, and stream habitat in East Fork ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Summary of Habitat and Fish Monitoring Data From East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks: 1988-2000 Abstract -- Since 1988, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been monitoring the smolt production, adult returns, summer abundance of juvenile salmonids, and stream habitat in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks, in the Alsea watershed (Figure 1). The primary purpose of this monitoring is to study the affects that stream habitat modification has on the freshwater survival and abundance of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). This work has been partially funded by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Salem District Office since 1996. The purpose of this report is to provide BLM with an update of ODFW’s sampling in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creek during the 1999-00 sampling season and to put these data in context with past data collected by ODFW. Title: Summary of Habitat and Fish Monitoring Data From East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks: 1988-2000 Abstract -- Since 1988, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been monitoring the smolt production, adult returns, summer abundance of juvenile salmonids, and stream habitat in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks, in the Alsea watershed (Figure 1). The primary purpose of this monitoring is to study the affects that stream habitat modification has on the freshwater survival and abundance of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). This work has been partially funded by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Salem District Office since 1996. The purpose of this report is to provide BLM with an update of ODFW’s sampling in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creek during the 1999-00 sampling season and to put these data in context with past data collected by ODFW. Close

• 8643. [Article] Summary of Habitat and Fish Monitoring Data From East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks: 1988-2001

  Abstract -- Since 1988, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been monitoring the smolt production, adult returns, summer abundance of juvenile salmonids, and stream habitat in East Fork ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Summary of Habitat and Fish Monitoring Data From East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks: 1988-2001 Abstract -- Since 1988, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been monitoring the smolt production, adult returns, summer abundance of juvenile salmonids, and stream habitat in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks, in the Alsea watershed (Figure 1). The primary purpose of this monitoring is to study the affects that stream habitat modification has on the freshwater survival and abundance of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). This work has been partially funded by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Salem District Office since 1996. The purpose of this report is to provide BLM with an update of ODFW’s sampling in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creek during the 2000-01 sampling season and to put these data in context with past data collected by ODFW. Title: Summary of Habitat and Fish Monitoring Data From East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks: 1988-2001 Abstract -- Since 1988, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been monitoring the smolt production, adult returns, summer abundance of juvenile salmonids, and stream habitat in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks, in the Alsea watershed (Figure 1). The primary purpose of this monitoring is to study the affects that stream habitat modification has on the freshwater survival and abundance of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). This work has been partially funded by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Salem District Office since 1996. The purpose of this report is to provide BLM with an update of ODFW’s sampling in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creek during the 2000-01 sampling season and to put these data in context with past data collected by ODFW. Close

• 8644. [Article] Summary of Habitat and Fish Monitoring Data From East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks: 1988-2002

  Abstract -- Since 1988, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been monitoring the smolt production, adult returns, summer abundance of juvenile salmonids, and stream habitat in East Fork ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Summary of Habitat and Fish Monitoring Data From East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks: 1988-2002 Abstract -- Since 1988, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been monitoring the smolt production, adult returns, summer abundance of juvenile salmonids, and stream habitat in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks, in the Alsea watershed (Figure 1). The primary purpose of this monitoring is to study the affects that stream habitat modification has on the freshwater survival and abundance of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). This work has been partially funded by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Salem District Office since 1996. The purpose of this report is to provide BLM with an update of ODFW’s sampling in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creek during the 2001-02 sampling season and to put these data in context with past data collected by ODFW. Title: Summary of Habitat and Fish Monitoring Data From East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks: 1988-2002 Abstract -- Since 1988, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been monitoring the smolt production, adult returns, summer abundance of juvenile salmonids, and stream habitat in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creeks, in the Alsea watershed (Figure 1). The primary purpose of this monitoring is to study the affects that stream habitat modification has on the freshwater survival and abundance of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). This work has been partially funded by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Salem District Office since 1996. The purpose of this report is to provide BLM with an update of ODFW’s sampling in East Fork and Upper Mainstem Lobster Creek during the 2001-02 sampling season and to put these data in context with past data collected by ODFW. Close

• 8645. [Article] Abundance, distribution, and migratory behavior of coastal cutthroat trout in two lower Columbia River tributaries

  Abstract -- Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) exhibit multiple life history types characterized by diverse migratory strategies, including anadromous, potomodromous, and freshwater resident ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Abundance, distribution, and migratory behavior of coastal cutthroat trout in two lower Columbia River tributaries Abstract -- Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) exhibit multiple life history types characterized by diverse migratory strategies, including anadromous, potomodromous, and freshwater resident forms. The factors contributing to life history variation within populations are not well understood, but probably are not strictly genetic (e.g. Johnson et al, in review). Variation in migration tendency within cutthroat populations may result from phenotype plasticity, influenced by density, frequency, or condition dependent processes (Hendry et al. 2004). For example, an individual cutthroat’s choice to migrate at a given time or age may be a response to environmental conditions mediated by a genetically determined reaction norm (Hutchings 2004). This report summarizes a study undertaken to describe the expression of migratory behavior within coastal cutthroat trout populations, the relationship among migratory and non-migratory individuals, and the implications of life history diversity for management of cutthroat trout in tributaries of the lower Columbia River. The relationship between resident and migratory populations (or resident and migratory individuals within populations) is of central importance for management of coastal cutthroat trout. In the lower Columbia River and southwest Washington State a proposed rule to list anadromous cutthroat as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was withdrawn after the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decided during its review process to include resident and anadromous forms in the same Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Debate over proposed ESA listing highlighted a general lack of knowledge about coastal cutthroat trout life history, relationships between resident and migratory forms, and estuarine habitat use in the lower Columbia River. In 2009, the decision not to list the DPS as threatened was remanded to the USFWS on the grounds that the Service had not adequately considered whether marine and estuarine habitats formed a significant portion of the range of the DPS (USFWS 2009). We evaluated the distribution and abundance of coastal cutthroat trout in Big Creek and Bear Creek, two tributaries that join the Columbia River estuary from the south (Oregon) side roughly 30 kilometers from the ocean, and monitored the migratory behavior of cutthroat that emigrated from these streams and entered the Columbia River estuary. Big Creek is an interesting system because a fish weir and diversion dam at an ODFW hatchery, established in 1941 and refurbished in 1957, prevent cutthroat trout from passing upstream, isolating the cutthroat spawning population above the hatchery. Despite this barrier to upstream migration, offspring of resident cutthroat in the upper watershed continue to “smolt” and migrate downstream past the barrier. We were interested in the fate of these fish and their contribution to the adult population. Bear Creek, on the other hand, has always had full access for anadromous cutthroat through much of its drainage. These two systems permit a comparison of life history characteristics, migration, and survival of coastal cutthroat rearing in streams above and below migration barriers, and provide study sites in Oregon to compliment research by USFWS of coastal cutthroat migration behavior in tributaries entering the estuary from the north side of the Columbia River (USFWS 2008; and see Hudson et al. 2008; Johnson 2008; Zydlewski et al. 2008). A major objective of our work in Big Creek and Bear Creek was to increase understanding of coastal cutthroat trout biology and the relationship between resident and migratory cutthroat in lower Columbia tributaries. Additionally, we sought to document habitat use in the Columbia River estuary by migrant cutthroat. Our specific objectives were to: • Estimate abundance of coastal cutthroat trout in Big Creek (above hatchery barrier) and Bear Creek (above and below a large dam) • Quantify the proportions of the cutthroat populations that are migratory, identify which individuals migrate and describe the timing of migration • Describe habitats used by anadromous migrants and characterize migration behavior within the Columbia River estuary • Measure estuarine/marine survival of anadromous individuals and document return to natal streams Title: Abundance, distribution, and migratory behavior of coastal cutthroat trout in two lower Columbia River tributaries Abstract -- Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) exhibit multiple life history types characterized by diverse migratory strategies, including anadromous, potomodromous, and freshwater resident forms. The factors contributing to life history variation within populations are not well understood, but probably are not strictly genetic (e.g. Johnson et al, in review). Variation in migration tendency within cutthroat populations may result from phenotype plasticity, influenced by density, frequency, or condition dependent processes (Hendry et al. 2004). For example, an individual cutthroat’s choice to migrate at a given time or age may be a response to environmental conditions mediated by a genetically determined reaction norm (Hutchings 2004). This report summarizes a study undertaken to describe the expression of migratory behavior within coastal cutthroat trout populations, the relationship among migratory and non-migratory individuals, and the implications of life history diversity for management of cutthroat trout in tributaries of the lower Columbia River. The relationship between resident and migratory populations (or resident and migratory individuals within populations) is of central importance for management of coastal cutthroat trout. In the lower Columbia River and southwest Washington State a proposed rule to list anadromous cutthroat as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was withdrawn after the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decided during its review process to include resident and anadromous forms in the same Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Debate over proposed ESA listing highlighted a general lack of knowledge about coastal cutthroat trout life history, relationships between resident and migratory forms, and estuarine habitat use in the lower Columbia River. In 2009, the decision not to list the DPS as threatened was remanded to the USFWS on the grounds that the Service had not adequately considered whether marine and estuarine habitats formed a significant portion of the range of the DPS (USFWS 2009). We evaluated the distribution and abundance of coastal cutthroat trout in Big Creek and Bear Creek, two tributaries that join the Columbia River estuary from the south (Oregon) side roughly 30 kilometers from the ocean, and monitored the migratory behavior of cutthroat that emigrated from these streams and entered the Columbia River estuary. Big Creek is an interesting system because a fish weir and diversion dam at an ODFW hatchery, established in 1941 and refurbished in 1957, prevent cutthroat trout from passing upstream, isolating the cutthroat spawning population above the hatchery. Despite this barrier to upstream migration, offspring of resident cutthroat in the upper watershed continue to “smolt” and migrate downstream past the barrier. We were interested in the fate of these fish and their contribution to the adult population. Bear Creek, on the other hand, has always had full access for anadromous cutthroat through much of its drainage. These two systems permit a comparison of life history characteristics, migration, and survival of coastal cutthroat rearing in streams above and below migration barriers, and provide study sites in Oregon to compliment research by USFWS of coastal cutthroat migration behavior in tributaries entering the estuary from the north side of the Columbia River (USFWS 2008; and see Hudson et al. 2008; Johnson 2008; Zydlewski et al. 2008). A major objective of our work in Big Creek and Bear Creek was to increase understanding of coastal cutthroat trout biology and the relationship between resident and migratory cutthroat in lower Columbia tributaries. Additionally, we sought to document habitat use in the Columbia River estuary by migrant cutthroat. Our specific objectives were to: • Estimate abundance of coastal cutthroat trout in Big Creek (above hatchery barrier) and Bear Creek (above and below a large dam) • Quantify the proportions of the cutthroat populations that are migratory, identify which individuals migrate and describe the timing of migration • Describe habitats used by anadromous migrants and characterize migration behavior within the Columbia River estuary • Measure estuarine/marine survival of anadromous individuals and document return to natal streams Close

• 8646. [Article] Warner Sucker Investigations (2009)

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

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

• 8647. [Article] Amphibian Distribution in Wadeable Streams and Ponds in Western and Southeast Oregon, 2009-2010 Progress Reports 2011

  Abstract -- The ODFW Oregon Conservation Strategy identified monitoring needs for 17 amphibian species native to the state of Oregon that are designated as “Strategy Species”, or “Species of Greatest Conservation ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Amphibian Distribution in Wadeable Streams and Ponds in Western and Southeast Oregon, 2009-2010 Progress Reports 2011 Abstract -- The ODFW Oregon Conservation Strategy identified monitoring needs for 17 amphibian species native to the state of Oregon that are designated as “Strategy Species”, or “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” (per USFWS requirements for State Wildlife Action Plans). The distribution of many species of amphibians in western Oregon is sparsely documented (Oregon Conservation Strategy, page 27). Although a broad-scale survey for amphibian presence would provide important baseline information about amphibian species composition and distribution, most studies have focused on limited areas. The majority of Oregon’s amphibians rely on aquatic habitats at some point of their life, either for breeding and juvenile development or to inhabit as adults. Most aquatic amphibians breed from late winter to early summer, and adults frequently remain in or near their breeding sites into the summer. Most tadpoles and juvenile amphibians are also active in and occupy aquatic habitats during the summer. Ongoing aquatic habitat and fish surveys are opportunities to observe species and life stages (breeding adults, tadpoles and juveniles) that occupy aquatic or riparian habitats during the summer. One cost-effective approach is to combine amphibian surveys with existing aquatic habitat and fish surveys such as those conducted as part of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OCSRI 1997). The Oregon Plan has been in place since 1997 and the monitoring component provides a survey framework for streams in the lower Columbia River and Oregon coast drainages. The sampling framework is also compatible with implementation of the aquatic components of the Conservation Strategy, as demonstrated by this study. This study describes the presence of amphibians in and along wadeable streams in coast and lower Columbia River drainages of Oregon, ponds and sloughs in the Willamette Valley, and selected streams in the Great Basin of southeast and central Oregon. As a component of monitoring under the Oregon Plan, the Aquatic Inventories Project (AIP) conducts aquatic habitat surveys at randomly selected and spatially balanced sites across all 1st through 4th order streams in coastal and lower Columbia River drainages. The purpose of the habitat surveys is to describe stream morphology, instream physical habitat, and riparian vegetation. Because the surveyors were already observing features within and alongside the stream channel, they were able to record observations of amphibians. The advantage of coupling an amphibian component with the OR Plan aquatic surveys was that it not only was an efficient use of resources, but more importantly, provided information using a statistically rigorous survey design across a broad geographic area. The Native Fish Investigations Project began a six year study in 2007 to document the distribution and abundance of redband trout in the Great Basin region of Eastern Oregon. The site selection procedure is comparable to the statistical standards as the Oregon Plan survey design. Amphibian data are also collected during three other survey projects, and although the site selection procedure does not conform to the same statistical standards as the Oregon Plan survey design, the projects offer a number of opportunities to collect amphibian occurrence information over a wide variety of habitats. The amphibian observations from these three projects are also included in this report. The three projects are as follows: AIP conducts aquatic habitat surveys on selected streams throughout the state. AIP conducts aquatic habitat surveys at stream habitat restoration projects in Western Oregon. Native Fish Project conducts surveys of pond and slough sites for Oregon chub in the Willamette Valley. Due to the success of the 2007 and 2008 field studies, we continued our research during the summer of 2009 and 2010 to improve our knowledge of distribution and community structure of amphibians. The summer 2009 and 2010 surveys took place in 9 of Oregon’s 10 ecoregions (Figure 1) (Thorson et al. 2003). Ecoregions provide a framework for discussing amphibian distribution across the state because they are relatively large areas defined by distinctive geographic and ecological (flora and fauna) characteristics. The goals of our 2009-2010 work were to: Increase the consistency, efficiency and ability of habitat crews in identifying amphibians through improved training. Increase knowledge of distribution, community structure, and habitat associations of amphibians in streams in: Western Oregon coastal and lower Columbia drainages. Ponds, sloughs and other off-channel aquatic habitats in the Willamette Valley. Great Basin of eastern Oregon and selected streams in central Oregon. Combine the 2009-2010 observations with the 2007-2008 results. Title: Amphibian Distribution in Wadeable Streams and Ponds in Western and Southeast Oregon, 2009-2010 Progress Reports 2011 Abstract -- The ODFW Oregon Conservation Strategy identified monitoring needs for 17 amphibian species native to the state of Oregon that are designated as “Strategy Species”, or “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” (per USFWS requirements for State Wildlife Action Plans). The distribution of many species of amphibians in western Oregon is sparsely documented (Oregon Conservation Strategy, page 27). Although a broad-scale survey for amphibian presence would provide important baseline information about amphibian species composition and distribution, most studies have focused on limited areas. The majority of Oregon’s amphibians rely on aquatic habitats at some point of their life, either for breeding and juvenile development or to inhabit as adults. Most aquatic amphibians breed from late winter to early summer, and adults frequently remain in or near their breeding sites into the summer. Most tadpoles and juvenile amphibians are also active in and occupy aquatic habitats during the summer. Ongoing aquatic habitat and fish surveys are opportunities to observe species and life stages (breeding adults, tadpoles and juveniles) that occupy aquatic or riparian habitats during the summer. One cost-effective approach is to combine amphibian surveys with existing aquatic habitat and fish surveys such as those conducted as part of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OCSRI 1997). The Oregon Plan has been in place since 1997 and the monitoring component provides a survey framework for streams in the lower Columbia River and Oregon coast drainages. The sampling framework is also compatible with implementation of the aquatic components of the Conservation Strategy, as demonstrated by this study. This study describes the presence of amphibians in and along wadeable streams in coast and lower Columbia River drainages of Oregon, ponds and sloughs in the Willamette Valley, and selected streams in the Great Basin of southeast and central Oregon. As a component of monitoring under the Oregon Plan, the Aquatic Inventories Project (AIP) conducts aquatic habitat surveys at randomly selected and spatially balanced sites across all 1st through 4th order streams in coastal and lower Columbia River drainages. The purpose of the habitat surveys is to describe stream morphology, instream physical habitat, and riparian vegetation. Because the surveyors were already observing features within and alongside the stream channel, they were able to record observations of amphibians. The advantage of coupling an amphibian component with the OR Plan aquatic surveys was that it not only was an efficient use of resources, but more importantly, provided information using a statistically rigorous survey design across a broad geographic area. The Native Fish Investigations Project began a six year study in 2007 to document the distribution and abundance of redband trout in the Great Basin region of Eastern Oregon. The site selection procedure is comparable to the statistical standards as the Oregon Plan survey design. Amphibian data are also collected during three other survey projects, and although the site selection procedure does not conform to the same statistical standards as the Oregon Plan survey design, the projects offer a number of opportunities to collect amphibian occurrence information over a wide variety of habitats. The amphibian observations from these three projects are also included in this report. The three projects are as follows: AIP conducts aquatic habitat surveys on selected streams throughout the state. AIP conducts aquatic habitat surveys at stream habitat restoration projects in Western Oregon. Native Fish Project conducts surveys of pond and slough sites for Oregon chub in the Willamette Valley. Due to the success of the 2007 and 2008 field studies, we continued our research during the summer of 2009 and 2010 to improve our knowledge of distribution and community structure of amphibians. The summer 2009 and 2010 surveys took place in 9 of Oregon’s 10 ecoregions (Figure 1) (Thorson et al. 2003). Ecoregions provide a framework for discussing amphibian distribution across the state because they are relatively large areas defined by distinctive geographic and ecological (flora and fauna) characteristics. The goals of our 2009-2010 work were to: Increase the consistency, efficiency and ability of habitat crews in identifying amphibians through improved training. Increase knowledge of distribution, community structure, and habitat associations of amphibians in streams in: Western Oregon coastal and lower Columbia drainages. Ponds, sloughs and other off-channel aquatic habitats in the Willamette Valley. Great Basin of eastern Oregon and selected streams in central Oregon. Combine the 2009-2010 observations with the 2007-2008 results. Close

• 8648. [Article] 2006 Borax Lake Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006

  Abstract -- Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is represented by a single population that inhabits a 4.1 hectare geothermally-heated alkaline lake in Harney County, Oregon. The Borax Lake chub is a small ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2006 Borax Lake Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006 Abstract -- Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is represented by a single population that inhabits a 4.1 hectare geothermally-heated alkaline lake in Harney County, Oregon. The Borax Lake chub is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in Oregon’s Alvord Basin (Williams and Bond 1980). Borax Lake is a natural lake, perched 10 meters above the desert floor on sinter deposits, which is fed almost exclusively by thermal groundwater. The Borax Lake chub was listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act in 1982 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Population abundance estimates obtained in 1991-1996 indicated a fluctuating population ranging from a low of 8,144 fish to a high of 34,634 fish (Salzer 1997). The basis for the Borax Lake chub’s listed status was not population size, but the security of a very limited, unique, isolated, and vulnerable habitat. Because Borax Lake is situated above salt deposits on the desert floor, alteration of the salt crust shoreline could reduce lake levels and the habitat quantity and quality available to Borax Lake chub. At the time of the listing, Borax Lake was threatened by habitat alteration caused by geothermal energy development and alteration of the lake shore crust to provide irrigation to surrounding pasture lands. The Borax Lake chub federal recovery plan, completed in 1987, advocated protection of the lake ecosystem through the acquisition of key private lands, protection of groundwater and surface waters, controls on access, and the removal of livestock grazing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). Numerous recovery measures implemented since listing have improved the conservation status of Borax Lake chub and protection of its habitat (Williams and Macdonald 2003). When the species was listed, critical habitat was designated on 259 hectares of land surrounding the lake, including 129 hectares of public lands and two 65- hectare parcels of private land. In 1983, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management designated the public land as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The Nature Conservancy began leasing the private lands in 1983 and purchased them in 1993, bringing the entire critical habitat into public or conservation ownership. The Nature Conservancy ended water diversion from the lake for irrigation and livestock grazing within the critical habitat. Passage of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 removed the public BLM lands from mineral and geothermal development within a majority of the basin. These actions, combined with detailed studies of the chub and their habitat have added substantially to our knowledge of the Borax Lake ecosystem (Scoppettone et al. 1995, Salzer 1992, Perkins et al. 1996). However, three primary threats remain. These include the threat to the fragile lake shoreline, wetlands, and soils from a recent increase in recreational use around the lake (particularly off-road vehicle usage), the threat of introduction of nonnative species, and potential negative impacts to the aquifer from geothermal groundwater withdrawal if groundwater pumping were to occur on private lands outside the protected areas (Williams and Macdonald 2003). Although an increase in abundance is not a goal in the successful recovery of this species, monitoring trends in abundance over time is an important management tool to assess species status. From 1998-2004, data describing the abundance of the Borax Lake chub population are not available. Abundance estimates were obtained from 1986- 1997 by The Nature Conservancy (Salzer 1997) (Figure 1). Abundance estimates for 1986-1990 are not comparable with those obtained in 1991-1997. Prior to 1991, estimates were obtained only from traps set around the perimeter of the lake. In 1991, estimates were obtained from traps set on a regularly spaced grid throughout the lake. A study comparing the methods suggests that prior to 1991 abundance was under estimated, perhaps by as much as 50 percent (Salzer 1992). A recent review of the conservation status of the Borax Lake chub by Williams and Macdonald (2003) cited the lack of recent and ongoing population and ecosystem monitoring as one argument against downlisting or delisting the species at this time. The chub population has experienced substantial fluctuations in abundance over the time period (1986-1997) when abundance data are available (Figure 1). At the time of the review, the most recent abundance estimates that were obtained in 1996 and 1997 were some of the lowest estimates since 1991. Borax Lake chub population abundance estimates from 1986 to 1997 and 2005 to 2006. Horizontal bars represent 95% confidence limits. In 1986-1990 (solid symbols), only the perimeter of the lake was trapped. After 1990 (open symbols) the entire lake was trapped. Estimates are not directly comparable across these time periods. There are limited data on population age structure that offer valuable insight into the productivity of Borax Lake chub. Williams and Bond (1983) examined lengthfrequency data and concluded that the population consisted primarily of age 1 fish, with few age 2 and age 3 fish present. Limited opercle bone aging of chub collected in 1992- 1993 also indicated that most Borax Lake were less than one year of age (67-79%), yet a few individuals were aged at 10+ years (Scoppettone 1995). Because Borax Lake chub are only found in one location and the population is apparently dominated by a single year-class of adults, the species has a high inherent risk of extinction. 3 The objectives of this study were to: 1) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate of Borax Lake chub, and 2) to evaluate ways to reduce handling of Borax Lake chub when monitoring population abundance both by modifying previous mark-recapture protocols and by developing snorkeling survey protocols to use as an alternative to mark-recapture estimates. In addition, we collected data regarding lake temperatures, chub size (age) structure, and the condition of the fragile lake shoreline and outflows. Title: 2006 Borax Lake Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006 Abstract -- Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is represented by a single population that inhabits a 4.1 hectare geothermally-heated alkaline lake in Harney County, Oregon. The Borax Lake chub is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in Oregon’s Alvord Basin (Williams and Bond 1980). Borax Lake is a natural lake, perched 10 meters above the desert floor on sinter deposits, which is fed almost exclusively by thermal groundwater. The Borax Lake chub was listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act in 1982 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Population abundance estimates obtained in 1991-1996 indicated a fluctuating population ranging from a low of 8,144 fish to a high of 34,634 fish (Salzer 1997). The basis for the Borax Lake chub’s listed status was not population size, but the security of a very limited, unique, isolated, and vulnerable habitat. Because Borax Lake is situated above salt deposits on the desert floor, alteration of the salt crust shoreline could reduce lake levels and the habitat quantity and quality available to Borax Lake chub. At the time of the listing, Borax Lake was threatened by habitat alteration caused by geothermal energy development and alteration of the lake shore crust to provide irrigation to surrounding pasture lands. The Borax Lake chub federal recovery plan, completed in 1987, advocated protection of the lake ecosystem through the acquisition of key private lands, protection of groundwater and surface waters, controls on access, and the removal of livestock grazing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). Numerous recovery measures implemented since listing have improved the conservation status of Borax Lake chub and protection of its habitat (Williams and Macdonald 2003). When the species was listed, critical habitat was designated on 259 hectares of land surrounding the lake, including 129 hectares of public lands and two 65- hectare parcels of private land. In 1983, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management designated the public land as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The Nature Conservancy began leasing the private lands in 1983 and purchased them in 1993, bringing the entire critical habitat into public or conservation ownership. The Nature Conservancy ended water diversion from the lake for irrigation and livestock grazing within the critical habitat. Passage of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 removed the public BLM lands from mineral and geothermal development within a majority of the basin. These actions, combined with detailed studies of the chub and their habitat have added substantially to our knowledge of the Borax Lake ecosystem (Scoppettone et al. 1995, Salzer 1992, Perkins et al. 1996). However, three primary threats remain. These include the threat to the fragile lake shoreline, wetlands, and soils from a recent increase in recreational use around the lake (particularly off-road vehicle usage), the threat of introduction of nonnative species, and potential negative impacts to the aquifer from geothermal groundwater withdrawal if groundwater pumping were to occur on private lands outside the protected areas (Williams and Macdonald 2003). Although an increase in abundance is not a goal in the successful recovery of this species, monitoring trends in abundance over time is an important management tool to assess species status. From 1998-2004, data describing the abundance of the Borax Lake chub population are not available. Abundance estimates were obtained from 1986- 1997 by The Nature Conservancy (Salzer 1997) (Figure 1). Abundance estimates for 1986-1990 are not comparable with those obtained in 1991-1997. Prior to 1991, estimates were obtained only from traps set around the perimeter of the lake. In 1991, estimates were obtained from traps set on a regularly spaced grid throughout the lake. A study comparing the methods suggests that prior to 1991 abundance was under estimated, perhaps by as much as 50 percent (Salzer 1992). A recent review of the conservation status of the Borax Lake chub by Williams and Macdonald (2003) cited the lack of recent and ongoing population and ecosystem monitoring as one argument against downlisting or delisting the species at this time. The chub population has experienced substantial fluctuations in abundance over the time period (1986-1997) when abundance data are available (Figure 1). At the time of the review, the most recent abundance estimates that were obtained in 1996 and 1997 were some of the lowest estimates since 1991. Borax Lake chub population abundance estimates from 1986 to 1997 and 2005 to 2006. Horizontal bars represent 95% confidence limits. In 1986-1990 (solid symbols), only the perimeter of the lake was trapped. After 1990 (open symbols) the entire lake was trapped. Estimates are not directly comparable across these time periods. There are limited data on population age structure that offer valuable insight into the productivity of Borax Lake chub. Williams and Bond (1983) examined lengthfrequency data and concluded that the population consisted primarily of age 1 fish, with few age 2 and age 3 fish present. Limited opercle bone aging of chub collected in 1992- 1993 also indicated that most Borax Lake were less than one year of age (67-79%), yet a few individuals were aged at 10+ years (Scoppettone 1995). Because Borax Lake chub are only found in one location and the population is apparently dominated by a single year-class of adults, the species has a high inherent risk of extinction. 3 The objectives of this study were to: 1) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate of Borax Lake chub, and 2) to evaluate ways to reduce handling of Borax Lake chub when monitoring population abundance both by modifying previous mark-recapture protocols and by developing snorkeling survey protocols to use as an alternative to mark-recapture estimates. In addition, we collected data regarding lake temperatures, chub size (age) structure, and the condition of the fragile lake shoreline and outflows. Close

• 8649. [Article] 2009 Borax Lake Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2009

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

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2009 Borax Lake Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2009 Abstract -- The Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in the Alvord Basin in Harney County, Oregon (Williams and Bond 1980). Borax Lake chub are represented by a single population that inhabits a 4.1 hectare geothermally-heated alkaline lake. Borax Lake is a natural lake perched 10 meters above the desert floor on sinter deposits, which is fed almost exclusively by thermal groundwater. The Borax Lake chub was listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act in 1982 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Population abundance estimates obtained since 1991 indicate a fluctuating population ranging between approximately 4,000 and 34,000 fish (Salzer 1997; Scheerer and Jacobs 2008). The basis for the Borax Lake chub’s listed status was not population size, but the security of a very limited, unique, isolated, and vulnerable habitat. Because Borax Lake is situated above salt deposits on the desert floor, alteration of the salt crust shoreline could reduce lake levels and the habitat quantity and quality available to Borax Lake chub. At the time of the listing, Borax Lake was threatened by habitat alteration caused by geothermal energy development and alteration of the lake shore crust to provide irrigation to surrounding pasture lands. The Borax Lake chub federal recovery plan, completed in 1987, advocated protection of the lake ecosystem through the acquisition of key private lands, protection of groundwater and surface waters, controls on access, and the removal of livestock grazing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). Recovery measures implemented since listing have improved the conservation status of Borax Lake chub and protection of its habitat (Williams and Macdonald 2003). When the species was listed, critical habitat was designated on 259 hectares of land surrounding the lake, including 129 hectares of public lands and two 65-hectare parcels of private land. In 1983, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management designated the public land as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The Nature Conservancy began leasing the private lands in 1983 and purchased them in 1993, bringing the entire critical habitat into public or conservation ownership. The Nature Conservancy ended water diversion from the lake for irrigation and livestock grazing within the critical habitat. Passage of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 removed the public BLM lands from mineral and geothermal development within a majority of the basin. These actions, combined with detailed studies of the chub and their habitat, have added substantially to our knowledge of the Borax Lake ecosystem (Scoppettone et al. 1995, Salzer 1992, Perkins et al. 1996). However, three primary threats remain. These include the threat to the fragile lake shoreline, wetlands, and soils from a recent increase in recreational use around the lake (particularly off-road vehicle usage), the threat of introduction of nonnative species, and potential negative impacts to the aquifer from geothermal groundwater withdrawal if groundwater pumping were to occur on private lands outside the protected areas (Williams and Macdonald 2003). A review of the conservation status of the Borax Lake chub by Williams and Macdonald (2003) cited the lack of recent and ongoing population and ecosystem monitoring as one argument against downlisting or delisting the species at that time. Although an increase in abundance is not a goal in the successful recovery of this species, monitoring trends in abundance over time is an important management tool to assess species status. The objectives of this study were to: 1) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate of Borax Lake chub and 2) to evaluate habitat conditions at Borax Lake, including the condition of the fragile lake shoreline and outflows. This report describes results from monitoring conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Native Fish Investigations Project in 2009. Title: 2009 Borax Lake Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2009 Abstract -- The Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in the Alvord Basin in Harney County, Oregon (Williams and Bond 1980). Borax Lake chub are represented by a single population that inhabits a 4.1 hectare geothermally-heated alkaline lake. Borax Lake is a natural lake perched 10 meters above the desert floor on sinter deposits, which is fed almost exclusively by thermal groundwater. The Borax Lake chub was listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act in 1982 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Population abundance estimates obtained since 1991 indicate a fluctuating population ranging between approximately 4,000 and 34,000 fish (Salzer 1997; Scheerer and Jacobs 2008). The basis for the Borax Lake chub’s listed status was not population size, but the security of a very limited, unique, isolated, and vulnerable habitat. Because Borax Lake is situated above salt deposits on the desert floor, alteration of the salt crust shoreline could reduce lake levels and the habitat quantity and quality available to Borax Lake chub. At the time of the listing, Borax Lake was threatened by habitat alteration caused by geothermal energy development and alteration of the lake shore crust to provide irrigation to surrounding pasture lands. The Borax Lake chub federal recovery plan, completed in 1987, advocated protection of the lake ecosystem through the acquisition of key private lands, protection of groundwater and surface waters, controls on access, and the removal of livestock grazing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). Recovery measures implemented since listing have improved the conservation status of Borax Lake chub and protection of its habitat (Williams and Macdonald 2003). When the species was listed, critical habitat was designated on 259 hectares of land surrounding the lake, including 129 hectares of public lands and two 65-hectare parcels of private land. In 1983, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management designated the public land as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The Nature Conservancy began leasing the private lands in 1983 and purchased them in 1993, bringing the entire critical habitat into public or conservation ownership. The Nature Conservancy ended water diversion from the lake for irrigation and livestock grazing within the critical habitat. Passage of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 removed the public BLM lands from mineral and geothermal development within a majority of the basin. These actions, combined with detailed studies of the chub and their habitat, have added substantially to our knowledge of the Borax Lake ecosystem (Scoppettone et al. 1995, Salzer 1992, Perkins et al. 1996). However, three primary threats remain. These include the threat to the fragile lake shoreline, wetlands, and soils from a recent increase in recreational use around the lake (particularly off-road vehicle usage), the threat of introduction of nonnative species, and potential negative impacts to the aquifer from geothermal groundwater withdrawal if groundwater pumping were to occur on private lands outside the protected areas (Williams and Macdonald 2003). A review of the conservation status of the Borax Lake chub by Williams and Macdonald (2003) cited the lack of recent and ongoing population and ecosystem monitoring as one argument against downlisting or delisting the species at that time. Although an increase in abundance is not a goal in the successful recovery of this species, monitoring trends in abundance over time is an important management tool to assess species status. The objectives of this study were to: 1) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate of Borax Lake chub and 2) to evaluate habitat conditions at Borax Lake, including the condition of the fragile lake shoreline and outflows. This report describes results from monitoring conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Native Fish Investigations Project in 2009. Close

• 8650. [Article] 2006 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006

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

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2006 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006 Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette Valley, were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Factors implicated in the decline of this species include changes in flow regimes and habitat characteristics resulting from the construction of flood control dams, revetments, channelization, diking, and the drainage of wetlands. The Oregon chub is further threatened by predation and competition by non-native species such as largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We continued surveys initiated in 1991 in the Willamette River drainage to quantify the abundance of known Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations as part of the implementation of the Oregon Chub Recovery Plan. We sampled a total of 103 sites in 2006. No new populations of Oregon chub were discovered. Thirty-five of the 103 sites were new locations that were sampled for the first time in 2006. Sixty-eight sites, sampled on at least one occasion between 1991-2005, were revisited. We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 33 locations. These included 23 naturally occurring and 10 introduced populations. Locations of naturally occurring populations were: Santiam drainage (Geren Island, Santiam I-5 Side Channels, Santiam Conservation Easement, Stayton Public Works Pond, Green’s Bridge Backwater, Pioneer Park, Santiam Conservation Easement, and Gray Slough), Mid-Willamette drainage (Finley Gray Creek Swamp), McKenzie drainage (Shetzline Pond and Big Island), Coast Fork Willamette drainage (Coast Fork Side Channels and Lynx Hollow), and the Middle Fork Willamette drainage (two Dexter Reservoir alcoves, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Buckhead Creek, two Elijah Bristow State Park sloughs and an island pond, Barnhard Slough, and Hospital Pond). Introduced populations were located in the Middle Fork Willamette (Wicopee Pond and Fall Creek Spillway Ponds), Santiam (Foster Pullout Pond), McKenzie (Russell Pond), Coast Fork Willamette (Herman Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Dunn Wetland, Finley Display Pond, Finley Cheadle Pond, Ankeny Willow Marsh, and Jampolsky Wetlands). We did not find Oregon chub at 14 locations where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-2005 (Jasper Park Slough, Wallace Slough, East Ferrin Pond, Dexter East Alcove, Hospital Impoundment Pond, Rattlesnake Creek, Elijah Bristow Large Gravel Pit, Elijah Bristow Small Gravel Pit, Little Muddy Creek tributary, Bull Run Creek, Camas Swale, Barnhard Slough, Camous Creek, and Dry Muddy Creek). Nonnative fish were collected at most of these locations. We obtained abundance estimates of naturally occurring populations of Oregon chub at 18 locations in the Middle Fork Willamette (East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Elijah Bristow State Park Sloughs and Island Pond, Hospital Pond, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Haws Pond, and Buckhead Creek), Santiam (Geren Island, Gray Slough, Stayton Public Works Pond, Pioneer Park Pond, and Santiam I-5 Side Channels), McKenzie (Big Island and Shetzline Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Finley Gray Creek) (Table 1). We obtained abundance estimates for 10 introduced populations of Oregon chub, located in Fall Creek Spillway Ponds, Wicopee Pond, Dunn Wetland Ponds, Finley Display Pond, Finley Cheadle Pond, Ankeny Willow Marsh, Jampolsky Wetlands, Foster Pullout Pond, Herman Pond, and Russell Pond. The three largest populations in 2006 were introduced populations. In addition, we evaluated eleven potential Oregon chub introduction sites in the Willamette River drainage. We introduced Oregon chub into the South Stayton Pond, a recently restored site located on ODFW property in the Santiam drainage, from Stayton Public Works Pond and Pioneer Park Pond. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set recovery criteria for downlisting the species to “threatened” and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species are: 1) establish and manage 10 populations of at least 500 adult fish, 2) all of these populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years, and 3) at least three populations meeting criterion 1 and 2 must be located in each of the three recovery areas (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, and Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2006, there were 18 populations totaling 500 or more individuals (Table 1). Thirteen of these populations also met the second criteria. Of the 13 populations meeting criteria 1 and 2, eight were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage, three were located in the Mid-Willamette drainage, and two were located in the Santiam drainage. With the addition of one more stable population in the Santiam drainage, the downlisting criteria will be met. Findings to date indicate that Oregon chub remain at risk due to the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, accelerated sedimentation, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications. Their status has improved in recent years, resulting primarily from successful introductions and the discovery of previously undocumented populations. Title: 2006 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006 Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette Valley, were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Factors implicated in the decline of this species include changes in flow regimes and habitat characteristics resulting from the construction of flood control dams, revetments, channelization, diking, and the drainage of wetlands. The Oregon chub is further threatened by predation and competition by non-native species such as largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We continued surveys initiated in 1991 in the Willamette River drainage to quantify the abundance of known Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations as part of the implementation of the Oregon Chub Recovery Plan. We sampled a total of 103 sites in 2006. No new populations of Oregon chub were discovered. Thirty-five of the 103 sites were new locations that were sampled for the first time in 2006. Sixty-eight sites, sampled on at least one occasion between 1991-2005, were revisited. We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 33 locations. These included 23 naturally occurring and 10 introduced populations. Locations of naturally occurring populations were: Santiam drainage (Geren Island, Santiam I-5 Side Channels, Santiam Conservation Easement, Stayton Public Works Pond, Green’s Bridge Backwater, Pioneer Park, Santiam Conservation Easement, and Gray Slough), Mid-Willamette drainage (Finley Gray Creek Swamp), McKenzie drainage (Shetzline Pond and Big Island), Coast Fork Willamette drainage (Coast Fork Side Channels and Lynx Hollow), and the Middle Fork Willamette drainage (two Dexter Reservoir alcoves, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Buckhead Creek, two Elijah Bristow State Park sloughs and an island pond, Barnhard Slough, and Hospital Pond). Introduced populations were located in the Middle Fork Willamette (Wicopee Pond and Fall Creek Spillway Ponds), Santiam (Foster Pullout Pond), McKenzie (Russell Pond), Coast Fork Willamette (Herman Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Dunn Wetland, Finley Display Pond, Finley Cheadle Pond, Ankeny Willow Marsh, and Jampolsky Wetlands). We did not find Oregon chub at 14 locations where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-2005 (Jasper Park Slough, Wallace Slough, East Ferrin Pond, Dexter East Alcove, Hospital Impoundment Pond, Rattlesnake Creek, Elijah Bristow Large Gravel Pit, Elijah Bristow Small Gravel Pit, Little Muddy Creek tributary, Bull Run Creek, Camas Swale, Barnhard Slough, Camous Creek, and Dry Muddy Creek). Nonnative fish were collected at most of these locations. We obtained abundance estimates of naturally occurring populations of Oregon chub at 18 locations in the Middle Fork Willamette (East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Elijah Bristow State Park Sloughs and Island Pond, Hospital Pond, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Haws Pond, and Buckhead Creek), Santiam (Geren Island, Gray Slough, Stayton Public Works Pond, Pioneer Park Pond, and Santiam I-5 Side Channels), McKenzie (Big Island and Shetzline Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Finley Gray Creek) (Table 1). We obtained abundance estimates for 10 introduced populations of Oregon chub, located in Fall Creek Spillway Ponds, Wicopee Pond, Dunn Wetland Ponds, Finley Display Pond, Finley Cheadle Pond, Ankeny Willow Marsh, Jampolsky Wetlands, Foster Pullout Pond, Herman Pond, and Russell Pond. The three largest populations in 2006 were introduced populations. In addition, we evaluated eleven potential Oregon chub introduction sites in the Willamette River drainage. We introduced Oregon chub into the South Stayton Pond, a recently restored site located on ODFW property in the Santiam drainage, from Stayton Public Works Pond and Pioneer Park Pond. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set recovery criteria for downlisting the species to “threatened” and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species are: 1) establish and manage 10 populations of at least 500 adult fish, 2) all of these populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years, and 3) at least three populations meeting criterion 1 and 2 must be located in each of the three recovery areas (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, and Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2006, there were 18 populations totaling 500 or more individuals (Table 1). Thirteen of these populations also met the second criteria. Of the 13 populations meeting criteria 1 and 2, eight were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage, three were located in the Mid-Willamette drainage, and two were located in the Santiam drainage. With the addition of one more stable population in the Santiam drainage, the downlisting criteria will be met. Findings to date indicate that Oregon chub remain at risk due to the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, accelerated sedimentation, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications. Their status has improved in recent years, resulting primarily from successful introductions and the discovery of previously undocumented populations. Close