Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Clear and Foster Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- A watershed assessment was completed in the Clear and Foster Creek watersheds to evaluate existing conditions and make recommendations to protect or enhance watershed natural resources. Clear ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Clear and Foster Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- A watershed assessment was completed in the Clear and Foster Creek watersheds to evaluate existing conditions and make recommendations to protect or enhance watershed natural resources. Clear and Foster Creek are tributaries to the Clackamas River below any major dams on the system; consequently these tributaries are positioned favorably to contribute to recovery of important anadromous fish populations. Anadromous fish species in the Clackamas basin include spring and fall chinook, coho salmon, winter steelhead, summer steelhead (non-native), migratory cutthroat trout and lamprey. Clear and Foster Creeks are utilized by fall chinook, winter steelhead and coho salmon. The assessment generally followed the framework described in the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board’s Watershed Assessment Manual (WPN, 1999). The assessment focused on the following components: Channel habitat classification and modification; hydrology and water use; riparian/wetlands; sediment sources; water quality; fisheries; and wildlife and upland vegetation. Generally the approach builds on existing information, and enhances this information with aerial photo interpretation and limited field checking. Additional fieldwork was used to verify channel habitat types and to characterize fish habitat condition. GIS was used as a critical assessment tool and method of displaying results. Title: Clear and Foster Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- A watershed assessment was completed in the Clear and Foster Creek watersheds to evaluate existing conditions and make recommendations to protect or enhance watershed natural resources. Clear and Foster Creek are tributaries to the Clackamas River below any major dams on the system; consequently these tributaries are positioned favorably to contribute to recovery of important anadromous fish populations. Anadromous fish species in the Clackamas basin include spring and fall chinook, coho salmon, winter steelhead, summer steelhead (non-native), migratory cutthroat trout and lamprey. Clear and Foster Creeks are utilized by fall chinook, winter steelhead and coho salmon. The assessment generally followed the framework described in the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board’s Watershed Assessment Manual (WPN, 1999). The assessment focused on the following components: Channel habitat classification and modification; hydrology and water use; riparian/wetlands; sediment sources; water quality; fisheries; and wildlife and upland vegetation. Generally the approach builds on existing information, and enhances this information with aerial photo interpretation and limited field checking. Additional fieldwork was used to verify channel habitat types and to characterize fish habitat condition. GIS was used as a critical assessment tool and method of displaying results. Close

• 2. [Article] Temperature Monitoring and Modeling of the Mary's River Watershed

  Abstract -- Stream temperatures were monitored at 42 sites in the summer of 1998 and at 26 sites in the summer of 1999 throughout the Mary's River watershed. Segments of streams were identified where reduced ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Temperature Monitoring and Modeling of the Mary's River Watershed Abstract -- Stream temperatures were monitored at 42 sites in the summer of 1998 and at 26 sites in the summer of 1999 throughout the Mary's River watershed. Segments of streams were identified where reduced temperatures would benefit native cutthroat trout. Computer modeling of riparian shade enhancement predicted temperature reductions. Title: Temperature Monitoring and Modeling of the Mary's River Watershed Abstract -- Stream temperatures were monitored at 42 sites in the summer of 1998 and at 26 sites in the summer of 1999 throughout the Mary's River watershed. Segments of streams were identified where reduced temperatures would benefit native cutthroat trout. Computer modeling of riparian shade enhancement predicted temperature reductions. Close

• 3. [Article] Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 1: Findings

  Abstract -- This assessment (part 1 of 2) includes watershed characterization, historical conditions, habitat types, hydrology, water use and quality, riparian areas, sediment sources, channel modifications, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 1: Findings Abstract -- This assessment (part 1 of 2) includes watershed characterization, historical conditions, habitat types, hydrology, water use and quality, riparian areas, sediment sources, channel modifications, fisheries, and fish habitat for Trout Creek in the Deschutes River basin. Discussion and recommendations are given for each chapter. Title: Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 1: Findings Abstract -- This assessment (part 1 of 2) includes watershed characterization, historical conditions, habitat types, hydrology, water use and quality, riparian areas, sediment sources, channel modifications, fisheries, and fish habitat for Trout Creek in the Deschutes River basin. Discussion and recommendations are given for each chapter. Close

• 4. [Article] Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 2: Condition Evaluation and Action Opportunities

  Abstract -- This document summarizes "Trout Creek Watershed Assessment: Findings" and evaluates opportunities for voluntary actions to improve watershed conditions. Information from the assessment is used ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 2: Condition Evaluation and Action Opportunities Abstract -- This document summarizes "Trout Creek Watershed Assessment: Findings" and evaluates opportunities for voluntary actions to improve watershed conditions. Information from the assessment is used to identify fish habitat and water quality issues for general areas of the watershed. Title: Trout Creek Watershed Assessment, Part 2: Condition Evaluation and Action Opportunities Abstract -- This document summarizes "Trout Creek Watershed Assessment: Findings" and evaluates opportunities for voluntary actions to improve watershed conditions. Information from the assessment is used to identify fish habitat and water quality issues for general areas of the watershed. Close

• 5. [Article] Lake Creek (Jefferson County) Restoration Project: Biological Assessment

  Abstract -- The species population addressed in this document is the Columbia River Bull Trout Distinct Population Segment (DPS), which is under the jurisdiction of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Chapter ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lake Creek (Jefferson County) Restoration Project: Biological Assessment Abstract -- The species population addressed in this document is the Columbia River Bull Trout Distinct Population Segment (DPS), which is under the jurisdiction of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Chapter headings include: introduction, evaluation methods, project description, avoidance minimization and conservation, natural history and species occurrence, environmental baseline conditions, analysis of effect of the action, interdependent and interrelated actions, finding of effect (take statement request), analysis of the effect of the action, and references. 37pp. Title: Lake Creek (Jefferson County) Restoration Project: Biological Assessment Abstract -- The species population addressed in this document is the Columbia River Bull Trout Distinct Population Segment (DPS), which is under the jurisdiction of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Chapter headings include: introduction, evaluation methods, project description, avoidance minimization and conservation, natural history and species occurrence, environmental baseline conditions, analysis of effect of the action, interdependent and interrelated actions, finding of effect (take statement request), analysis of the effect of the action, and references. 37pp. Close

• 6. [Article] Threemile Creek Bull Trout Protection Final Report 1998

  Abstract -- Brook Trout were removed from Threemile Creek by electrofishing and night-snorkel spear-fishing. Electrofishing removal was conducted on 11 reaches and a total of 45 passes were completed. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Threemile Creek Bull Trout Protection Final Report 1998 Abstract -- Brook Trout were removed from Threemile Creek by electrofishing and night-snorkel spear-fishing. Electrofishing removal was conducted on 11 reaches and a total of 45 passes were completed. Fifty brook trout were removed. Night-snorkeling was conducted in the five reach, intergrade zone where both bull and brook trout were found. Two comprehenzive passes were completed in the first three reaches, and three passes were completed in the last two reaches. A total of 10 brook trout and 8 brook/bull trout hybrids were removed. Additionally 39 brook trout were removed from a fire pond above Threemile Creek. Mollusk and amphibian surveys were also conducted; and temperature was collected in the Threemile Creek Project Area. Title: Threemile Creek Bull Trout Protection Final Report 1998 Abstract -- Brook Trout were removed from Threemile Creek by electrofishing and night-snorkel spear-fishing. Electrofishing removal was conducted on 11 reaches and a total of 45 passes were completed. Fifty brook trout were removed. Night-snorkeling was conducted in the five reach, intergrade zone where both bull and brook trout were found. Two comprehenzive passes were completed in the first three reaches, and three passes were completed in the last two reaches. A total of 10 brook trout and 8 brook/bull trout hybrids were removed. Additionally 39 brook trout were removed from a fire pond above Threemile Creek. Mollusk and amphibian surveys were also conducted; and temperature was collected in the Threemile Creek Project Area. Close

• 7. [Article] Threemile Creek Bull Trout Protection, 1997 Final Report (OWEB #97-112-007)

  Abstract -- Brook trout removal activities were conducted on Threemile Creek beginning in late June, and ending in late September 1997. Removal efforts consisted of electrofishing in the brook trout zone ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Threemile Creek Bull Trout Protection, 1997 Final Report (OWEB #97-112-007) Abstract -- Brook trout removal activities were conducted on Threemile Creek beginning in late June, and ending in late September 1997. Removal efforts consisted of electrofishing in the brook trout zone and night snorkel spearing in the bull trout intergrade zone (both brook trout and bull trout present). A total of 121 brook trout and one hybrid were removed by electrofishing. Of the 121 brook trout removed, 92 were greater than 90 mm in length. During night snorkel spearing 10 brook trout and 8 hybrids were removed and a total of 54 bull trout were observed. Macroinvertebrate and amphibian surveys were conducted in early September, and temparature was monitored throughout the project area. Experimental trapping was conducted, but no fish were collected during any trapping effort. Title: Threemile Creek Bull Trout Protection, 1997 Final Report (OWEB #97-112-007) Abstract -- Brook trout removal activities were conducted on Threemile Creek beginning in late June, and ending in late September 1997. Removal efforts consisted of electrofishing in the brook trout zone and night snorkel spearing in the bull trout intergrade zone (both brook trout and bull trout present). A total of 121 brook trout and one hybrid were removed by electrofishing. Of the 121 brook trout removed, 92 were greater than 90 mm in length. During night snorkel spearing 10 brook trout and 8 hybrids were removed and a total of 54 bull trout were observed. Macroinvertebrate and amphibian surveys were conducted in early September, and temparature was monitored throughout the project area. Experimental trapping was conducted, but no fish were collected during any trapping effort. Close

• 8. [Article] Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project Annual Monitoring Report

  Abstract -- This annual monitoring report covers activities under the Grande Ronde Model Watershed/Bonneville Power Administration contract No. 27255, entitled Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project Annual Monitoring Report Abstract -- This annual monitoring report covers activities under the Grande Ronde Model Watershed/Bonneville Power Administration contract No. 27255, entitled Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project. Prior to the completion of this project, the Mahogany culvert was undersized, had an outlet drop of two feet and was considered a barrier to all life history stages of all aquatic species. The primary project objective was to replace the culvert with a 15 feet wide open-bottom arch that allows passage of all life stages of all aquatic species. The stream channel was reconstructed through the newly installed culvert utilizing stream simulation techniques. This project re-opened 3.5 miles of spawning and rearing habitat for Snake River steelhead, and rearing habitat for Chinook and bull trout, upstream of the structure. This project continues to meet project objectives one year post-implementation. Title: Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project Annual Monitoring Report Abstract -- This annual monitoring report covers activities under the Grande Ronde Model Watershed/Bonneville Power Administration contract No. 27255, entitled Mahogany Creek Culvert Replacement Project. Prior to the completion of this project, the Mahogany culvert was undersized, had an outlet drop of two feet and was considered a barrier to all life history stages of all aquatic species. The primary project objective was to replace the culvert with a 15 feet wide open-bottom arch that allows passage of all life stages of all aquatic species. The stream channel was reconstructed through the newly installed culvert utilizing stream simulation techniques. This project re-opened 3.5 miles of spawning and rearing habitat for Snake River steelhead, and rearing habitat for Chinook and bull trout, upstream of the structure. This project continues to meet project objectives one year post-implementation. Close

• 9. [Article] Effectiveness Monitoring for LWD Placement in South Slough Tidal Wetlands (OWEB #205-111)

  Abstract -- Effectiveness monitoring of LWD placed in South Slough’s upper estuary wasdesigned to accomplish the following: - Determine presence/absence and behavior of juvenile salmonids (i.e., cohoand ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Effectiveness Monitoring for LWD Placement in South Slough Tidal Wetlands (OWEB #205-111) Abstract -- Effectiveness monitoring of LWD placed in South Slough’s upper estuary wasdesigned to accomplish the following: - Determine presence/absence and behavior of juvenile salmonids (i.e., cohoand cutthroat trout) in and around LWD using underwater videographyand acoustic tagging methods (a late addition to the project); - Monitor abundance and species composition of juvenile salmonids in tidal creeks with (and without) LWD using fyke nets; - Monitor fish use of other subtidal habitats with beach seines; - Track changes in invertebrate abundance and composition; - Detect wood movement with sub-meter GPS tracking; - Record changes in channel profile around LWD with detailed elevationsurveys; and, - Track water temperature and flow in locations near and away from LWD. Large woody debris was placed in 29 locations in South Slough’s upper estuary. The effectiveness monitoring project focused on 12 sites, six pairs based on configuration and location Title: Effectiveness Monitoring for LWD Placement in South Slough Tidal Wetlands (OWEB #205-111) Abstract -- Effectiveness monitoring of LWD placed in South Slough’s upper estuary wasdesigned to accomplish the following: - Determine presence/absence and behavior of juvenile salmonids (i.e., cohoand cutthroat trout) in and around LWD using underwater videographyand acoustic tagging methods (a late addition to the project); - Monitor abundance and species composition of juvenile salmonids in tidal creeks with (and without) LWD using fyke nets; - Monitor fish use of other subtidal habitats with beach seines; - Track changes in invertebrate abundance and composition; - Detect wood movement with sub-meter GPS tracking; - Record changes in channel profile around LWD with detailed elevationsurveys; and, - Track water temperature and flow in locations near and away from LWD. Large woody debris was placed in 29 locations in South Slough’s upper estuary. The effectiveness monitoring project focused on 12 sites, six pairs based on configuration and location Close

• 10. [Article] Silver Lake Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- Ch. 1: Introduction; Ch. 2: Charaterization, Issues, and Key Questions; Ch. 3: Uplands; Ch. 4: Riparian Vegetation and Stream Channels; Ch. 5: Habitat for Aquatic Species; Ch. 6: Viability ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Silver Lake Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Ch. 1: Introduction; Ch. 2: Charaterization, Issues, and Key Questions; Ch. 3: Uplands; Ch. 4: Riparian Vegetation and Stream Channels; Ch. 5: Habitat for Aquatic Species; Ch. 6: Viability of Native Aquatic Species (Redband Trout); Ch. 7: Recommendations Title: Silver Lake Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Ch. 1: Introduction; Ch. 2: Charaterization, Issues, and Key Questions; Ch. 3: Uplands; Ch. 4: Riparian Vegetation and Stream Channels; Ch. 5: Habitat for Aquatic Species; Ch. 6: Viability of Native Aquatic Species (Redband Trout); Ch. 7: Recommendations Close

• 11. [Article] Little Deschutes Subbasin Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- Many of the impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the Little Deschutes River Subbasin are concentrated in the areas of housing, roads, and other human development. Most ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Little Deschutes Subbasin Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Many of the impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the Little Deschutes River Subbasin are concentrated in the areas of housing, roads, and other human development. Most of the human population in the subbasin is concentrated around the community centers of La Pine, Gilchrist, Crescent, and Crescent Lake. There is significant dispersed development along the lower reaches of the Little Deschutes River between the communities of Sunriver and La Pine -an area characterized by gentle topography and depressions with forested wetlands, marshes and shallow lakes. Streams in this area, as illustrated by the Little Deschutes River , are low gradient and originate in the high elevation areas in the southwest portion of the watershed where there is higher precipitation. This ownership pattern has significant implications for natural resource management, as lower gradient floodplain areas tend to provide important wetland, fish, and wildlife habitat. Key Findings Fuel Loading: Having homes safe from wildfires is a concern for many residents. Fire suppression has increased the amount of dry wood in the area, creating a ready source for major wildfires. Riparian Areas and Wetlands: Loss of wetland and riparian areas , especially in the lower areas along the Little Deschutes River , has affected a number of resources. Water quality has been affected by the reduced wetlands that act as filters of nitrogen; the loss of streamside trees and other vegetation reduces shade that helps to cool water temperatures. Finally, loss ofwetlands and riparian vegetation has reduced important fish and wildlife habitats. Wildlife: The growth and development have altered wildlife habitats. Loss of wetlands, streamside vegetation, and other changes in the watershed have reduced important wildlife habitat. Roads and development have impacted migrating mule deer, increasing collisions between deer and cars and altering their migration pathways. Fish: There has been a significant loss of native trout and an increase in introduced brook and brown trout in the Little Deschutes River and tributaries. Loss of native trout is from competition with introduced species and changes in aquatic habitat and water temperatures. Water Quality: A major concern about the water in the river is unusually high temperatures in the summer and the abnormal growth of algae. Other studies indicated that there are problems with groundwater loading ofnitrogen. The high water table (with associated wetlands), and porous pumice soils contributes to increased nitrates, a by-product of septic systems and an indicator of human pathogens. Title: Little Deschutes Subbasin Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Many of the impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the Little Deschutes River Subbasin are concentrated in the areas of housing, roads, and other human development. Most of the human population in the subbasin is concentrated around the community centers of La Pine, Gilchrist, Crescent, and Crescent Lake. There is significant dispersed development along the lower reaches of the Little Deschutes River between the communities of Sunriver and La Pine -an area characterized by gentle topography and depressions with forested wetlands, marshes and shallow lakes. Streams in this area, as illustrated by the Little Deschutes River , are low gradient and originate in the high elevation areas in the southwest portion of the watershed where there is higher precipitation. This ownership pattern has significant implications for natural resource management, as lower gradient floodplain areas tend to provide important wetland, fish, and wildlife habitat. Key Findings Fuel Loading: Having homes safe from wildfires is a concern for many residents. Fire suppression has increased the amount of dry wood in the area, creating a ready source for major wildfires. Riparian Areas and Wetlands: Loss of wetland and riparian areas , especially in the lower areas along the Little Deschutes River , has affected a number of resources. Water quality has been affected by the reduced wetlands that act as filters of nitrogen; the loss of streamside trees and other vegetation reduces shade that helps to cool water temperatures. Finally, loss ofwetlands and riparian vegetation has reduced important fish and wildlife habitats. Wildlife: The growth and development have altered wildlife habitats. Loss of wetlands, streamside vegetation, and other changes in the watershed have reduced important wildlife habitat. Roads and development have impacted migrating mule deer, increasing collisions between deer and cars and altering their migration pathways. Fish: There has been a significant loss of native trout and an increase in introduced brook and brown trout in the Little Deschutes River and tributaries. Loss of native trout is from competition with introduced species and changes in aquatic habitat and water temperatures. Water Quality: A major concern about the water in the river is unusually high temperatures in the summer and the abnormal growth of algae. Other studies indicated that there are problems with groundwater loading ofnitrogen. The high water table (with associated wetlands), and porous pumice soils contributes to increased nitrates, a by-product of septic systems and an indicator of human pathogens. Close

• 12. [Article] Upper Chewaucan Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- Several assessment elements have good overall ratings and include the following: riparian vegetation/bank stability, Rosgen stream types, and pool numbers. However, the remaining elements need ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Upper Chewaucan Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Several assessment elements have good overall ratings and include the following: riparian vegetation/bank stability, Rosgen stream types, and pool numbers. However, the remaining elements need significant improvement to reach desired levels of high canopy coverage in forested sites, dense juniper woodlands, moderate road densities, lack of LWD, moderate to high stream temperatures, moderate to high spawning gravel fines, and culvert barriers. The less than desired conditions of these elements inhibit the Upper Chewaucan River Watershed from functioning appropriately as a redband trout reserve. As a result, this assessment element is functioning appropriately but-at-risk. Title: Upper Chewaucan Watershed Assessment Abstract -- Several assessment elements have good overall ratings and include the following: riparian vegetation/bank stability, Rosgen stream types, and pool numbers. However, the remaining elements need significant improvement to reach desired levels of high canopy coverage in forested sites, dense juniper woodlands, moderate road densities, lack of LWD, moderate to high stream temperatures, moderate to high spawning gravel fines, and culvert barriers. The less than desired conditions of these elements inhibit the Upper Chewaucan River Watershed from functioning appropriately as a redband trout reserve. As a result, this assessment element is functioning appropriately but-at-risk. Close

• 13. [Article] Project Completion Report McKenzie and Middle Fork Willamette Bull Trout Monitoring Grant, Grant Number: 209-3069

  Abstract -- This Bull Trout Monitoring Report summarizes and highlights monitoring, accomplishments in 2009 and 2010. It is our goal to be a proactive partner to a variety of interested parties; state, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Project Completion Report McKenzie and Middle Fork Willamette Bull Trout Monitoring Grant, Grant Number: 209-3069 Abstract -- This Bull Trout Monitoring Report summarizes and highlights monitoring, accomplishments in 2009 and 2010. It is our goal to be a proactive partner to a variety of interested parties; state, federal and private interests, whose goals and missions are aligned with ours to restore and strengthen not only our native fish populations, but the habitat they are found in and depend on. The fisheries department believes strongly in restoration, habitat improvement and success for our streams, rivers, watershed, and forest; dedicating ourselves daily to the strategic planning and goals of the bull trout monitoring program summarized in this report. Title: Project Completion Report McKenzie and Middle Fork Willamette Bull Trout Monitoring Grant, Grant Number: 209-3069 Abstract -- This Bull Trout Monitoring Report summarizes and highlights monitoring, accomplishments in 2009 and 2010. It is our goal to be a proactive partner to a variety of interested parties; state, federal and private interests, whose goals and missions are aligned with ours to restore and strengthen not only our native fish populations, but the habitat they are found in and depend on. The fisheries department believes strongly in restoration, habitat improvement and success for our streams, rivers, watershed, and forest; dedicating ourselves daily to the strategic planning and goals of the bull trout monitoring program summarized in this report. Close

• 14. [Article] Odell Lake trap net information

  Abstract -- Odell Lake is a glacial lake located near the eastern summit of Willamette pass. The lake 3,582 feet and has an average depth of 134 feet. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), rainbow trout ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Odell Lake trap net information Abstract -- Odell Lake is a glacial lake located near the eastern summit of Willamette pass. The lake 3,582 feet and has an average depth of 134 feet. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) are the only fish native to the lake. However, the lake now has lake trout, kokanee, and tui chub. The Department samples the lake annually to assess species composition, fish size, and fish health. The results of these efforts are included. Title: Odell Lake trap net information Abstract -- Odell Lake is a glacial lake located near the eastern summit of Willamette pass. The lake 3,582 feet and has an average depth of 134 feet. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) are the only fish native to the lake. However, the lake now has lake trout, kokanee, and tui chub. The Department samples the lake annually to assess species composition, fish size, and fish health. The results of these efforts are included. Close

• 15. [Article] 2012 Metolius Basin bull trout redd counts

  Abstract -- Bull trout are indigenous to the Metolius River basin; however, they were managed as a nuisance species due to their interactions with anadromous sportfish for several decades. In 1960, nuisance ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2012 Metolius Basin bull trout redd counts Abstract -- Bull trout are indigenous to the Metolius River basin; however, they were managed as a nuisance species due to their interactions with anadromous sportfish for several decades. In 1960, nuisance management of bull trout ended and protection of bull trout began in 1983 with mandatory catch and release regulations throughout the Metolius River basin. In 1986, the Department initiated annual redd counts for bull trout throughout the basin to document the species status. Redd surveys showed low spawning numbers, and the Department responded by closing all tributaries downstream of Lake Creek to fishing in 1994. A Threatened listing of Columbia River bull trout under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 followed the fishery closure (Fies et al. 1996 and Lohr et al. ####). Bull trout redd counts continue in the basin in accordance with the goals of the Native Fish Conservation Policy. Title: 2012 Metolius Basin bull trout redd counts Abstract -- Bull trout are indigenous to the Metolius River basin; however, they were managed as a nuisance species due to their interactions with anadromous sportfish for several decades. In 1960, nuisance management of bull trout ended and protection of bull trout began in 1983 with mandatory catch and release regulations throughout the Metolius River basin. In 1986, the Department initiated annual redd counts for bull trout throughout the basin to document the species status. Redd surveys showed low spawning numbers, and the Department responded by closing all tributaries downstream of Lake Creek to fishing in 1994. A Threatened listing of Columbia River bull trout under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 followed the fishery closure (Fies et al. 1996 and Lohr et al. ####). Bull trout redd counts continue in the basin in accordance with the goals of the Native Fish Conservation Policy. Close

• 16. [Article] 2011 Metolius River subbasin bull trout redd counts

  Abstract -- Bull trout are indigenous to the Metolius River basin; however, they were managed as a nuisance species due to their interactions with anadromous sportfish for several decades. In 1960, nuisance ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2011 Metolius River subbasin bull trout redd counts Abstract -- Bull trout are indigenous to the Metolius River basin; however, they were managed as a nuisance species due to their interactions with anadromous sportfish for several decades. In 1960, nuisance management of bull trout ended and protection of bull trout began in 1983 with mandatory catch and release regulations throughout the Metolius River basin. In 1986, the Department initiated annual redd counts for bull trout throughout the basin to document the species status. Redd surveys showed low spawning numbers, and the Department responded by closing all tributaries downstream of Lake Creek to fishing in 1994. A Threatened listing of Columbia River bull trout under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 followed the fishery closure (Fies et al. 1996 and Lohr et al. ####). Bull trout redd counts continue in the basin in accordance with the goals of the Native Fish Conservation Policy. Title: 2011 Metolius River subbasin bull trout redd counts Abstract -- Bull trout are indigenous to the Metolius River basin; however, they were managed as a nuisance species due to their interactions with anadromous sportfish for several decades. In 1960, nuisance management of bull trout ended and protection of bull trout began in 1983 with mandatory catch and release regulations throughout the Metolius River basin. In 1986, the Department initiated annual redd counts for bull trout throughout the basin to document the species status. Redd surveys showed low spawning numbers, and the Department responded by closing all tributaries downstream of Lake Creek to fishing in 1994. A Threatened listing of Columbia River bull trout under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 followed the fishery closure (Fies et al. 1996 and Lohr et al. ####). Bull trout redd counts continue in the basin in accordance with the goals of the Native Fish Conservation Policy. Close

• 17. [Article] 2010 Metolius Basin bull trout redds

  Abstract -- Bull trout are indigenous to the Metolius River basin; however, they were managed as a nuisance species due to their interactions with anadromous sportfish for several decades. In 1960, nuisance ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2010 Metolius Basin bull trout redds Abstract -- Bull trout are indigenous to the Metolius River basin; however, they were managed as a nuisance species due to their interactions with anadromous sportfish for several decades. In 1960, nuisance management of bull trout ended and protection of bull trout began in 1983 with mandatory catch and release regulations throughout the Metolius River basin. In 1986, the Department initiated annual redd counts for bull trout throughout the basin to document the species status. Redd surveys showed low spawning numbers, and the Department responded by closing all tributaries downstream of Lake Creek to fishing in 1994. A Threatened listing of Columbia River bull trout under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 followed the fishery closure (Fies et al. 1996 and Lohr et al. ####). Bull trout redd counts continue in the basin in accordance with the goals of the Native Fish Conservation Policy. Title: 2010 Metolius Basin bull trout redds Abstract -- Bull trout are indigenous to the Metolius River basin; however, they were managed as a nuisance species due to their interactions with anadromous sportfish for several decades. In 1960, nuisance management of bull trout ended and protection of bull trout began in 1983 with mandatory catch and release regulations throughout the Metolius River basin. In 1986, the Department initiated annual redd counts for bull trout throughout the basin to document the species status. Redd surveys showed low spawning numbers, and the Department responded by closing all tributaries downstream of Lake Creek to fishing in 1994. A Threatened listing of Columbia River bull trout under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 followed the fishery closure (Fies et al. 1996 and Lohr et al. ####). Bull trout redd counts continue in the basin in accordance with the goals of the Native Fish Conservation Policy. Close

• 18. [Article] 2001-2012 Crane Prairie population assessment

  Abstract -- Crane Prairie is a large shallow reservoir fed by the Deschutes River, Quinn River, Cultus River, and Cultus Creek. When the reservoir was built in 1922 it engulfed a large meadow and forest ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2001-2012 Crane Prairie population assessment Abstract -- Crane Prairie is a large shallow reservoir fed by the Deschutes River, Quinn River, Cultus River, and Cultus Creek. When the reservoir was built in 1922 it engulfed a large meadow and forest area, leaving behind large areas of snags and fallen timber providing habitat for fish and insects. Bull trout, mountain whitefish, and redband trout were native to the reservoir when it was created, but bull trout were extirpated by 1955 due to stocking of non-native fish, loss of spawning habitat and fish passage, and selective management. The reservoir was soon well known for large numbers of large rainbows and was one of the state’s most popular fisheries through the 1970’s, however the Crane Prairie food web was increasing in complexity. The Department introduced coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), kokanee, and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as sport fish after 1950. Largemouth bass were then illegally introduced to the reservoir in the early 1980's. Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), brown bullhead (Ameirus,nebulosus), stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), and tui chub (Gila bicolor) were illegally introduced after the bass. All of the introduced species other than coho continue to reproduce naturally in the reservoir. The Department sets gill nets on annual basis to monitor managed fish populations. Our current goal is to determine fishery performance and growth differences between two diploid stocks and a triploid stock of rainbow trout. Title: 2001-2012 Crane Prairie population assessment Abstract -- Crane Prairie is a large shallow reservoir fed by the Deschutes River, Quinn River, Cultus River, and Cultus Creek. When the reservoir was built in 1922 it engulfed a large meadow and forest area, leaving behind large areas of snags and fallen timber providing habitat for fish and insects. Bull trout, mountain whitefish, and redband trout were native to the reservoir when it was created, but bull trout were extirpated by 1955 due to stocking of non-native fish, loss of spawning habitat and fish passage, and selective management. The reservoir was soon well known for large numbers of large rainbows and was one of the state’s most popular fisheries through the 1970’s, however the Crane Prairie food web was increasing in complexity. The Department introduced coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), kokanee, and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as sport fish after 1950. Largemouth bass were then illegally introduced to the reservoir in the early 1980's. Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), brown bullhead (Ameirus,nebulosus), stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), and tui chub (Gila bicolor) were illegally introduced after the bass. All of the introduced species other than coho continue to reproduce naturally in the reservoir. The Department sets gill nets on annual basis to monitor managed fish populations. Our current goal is to determine fishery performance and growth differences between two diploid stocks and a triploid stock of rainbow trout. Close

• 19. [Article] 2012 Trapper Creek Redd surveys

  Abstract -- Odell Lake was once directly connected to the upper Deschutes River basin, but recent geologic activity severed this connection with the creation of Davis Lake. Despite a lack of connection ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2012 Trapper Creek Redd surveys Abstract -- Odell Lake was once directly connected to the upper Deschutes River basin, but recent geologic activity severed this connection with the creation of Davis Lake. Despite a lack of connection to the Deschutes River, indigenous bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) subsist in Odell Lake. The Odell Lake bull trout are now the only natural adfluvial bull trout population in Oregon. Despite their persistence; angling mortality, habitat degradation, hybridization, and competition with introduced species limit bull trout populations. Bull trout were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 (Office of the Federal Register 63 [June 10, 1998]: 31647). ODFW has monitored this population closely by conducting weekly redd counts on an annual basis and mapping redd locations to identify areas of optimal spawning habitat in Trapper Creek. Title: 2012 Trapper Creek Redd surveys Abstract -- Odell Lake was once directly connected to the upper Deschutes River basin, but recent geologic activity severed this connection with the creation of Davis Lake. Despite a lack of connection to the Deschutes River, indigenous bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) subsist in Odell Lake. The Odell Lake bull trout are now the only natural adfluvial bull trout population in Oregon. Despite their persistence; angling mortality, habitat degradation, hybridization, and competition with introduced species limit bull trout populations. Bull trout were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 (Office of the Federal Register 63 [June 10, 1998]: 31647). ODFW has monitored this population closely by conducting weekly redd counts on an annual basis and mapping redd locations to identify areas of optimal spawning habitat in Trapper Creek. Close

• 20. [Article] LCMP - Fish Habitat Restoration in Tenmile Creek

  Abstract -- The Tenmile Watershed Restoration Study was initiated in 1991 to examine the effects of watershed restoration activities in Tenmile Creek (including the addition of large wood into the stream ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: LCMP - Fish Habitat Restoration in Tenmile Creek Abstract -- The Tenmile Watershed Restoration Study was initiated in 1991 to examine the effects of watershed restoration activities in Tenmile Creek (including the addition of large wood into the stream channel) on the production of downstream migrant salmonids, particularly steelhead and cutthroat trout. This study combines a treatment(Tenmile Creek) and control (Cummins Creek) stream approach with a pre- and postproject evaluation. Tenmile Creek and Cummins Creek are both ocean tributary streams on the central Oregon coast. Pre treatment sampling of fish populations and habitat in Tenmile and Cummins creeks began in 1991. Most of the restoration activities in the Tenmile Creek study took place in 1996, and the post-restoration sampling of fish populations and habitat is ongoing in Tenmile Creek and the control stream, Cummins Creek. Title: LCMP - Fish Habitat Restoration in Tenmile Creek Abstract -- The Tenmile Watershed Restoration Study was initiated in 1991 to examine the effects of watershed restoration activities in Tenmile Creek (including the addition of large wood into the stream channel) on the production of downstream migrant salmonids, particularly steelhead and cutthroat trout. This study combines a treatment(Tenmile Creek) and control (Cummins Creek) stream approach with a pre- and postproject evaluation. Tenmile Creek and Cummins Creek are both ocean tributary streams on the central Oregon coast. Pre treatment sampling of fish populations and habitat in Tenmile and Cummins creeks began in 1991. Most of the restoration activities in the Tenmile Creek study took place in 1996, and the post-restoration sampling of fish populations and habitat is ongoing in Tenmile Creek and the control stream, Cummins Creek. Close

• 21. [Article] NF - Movement of Juvenile Redband Trout from Spencer Creek, Klamath River in 2004: Preliminary Findings - Annual Report

  Abstract -- Spencer Creek is a major spawning area and recruitment source of redband trout in the upper Klamath River. The confluence of Spencer Creek and the Klamath River is 1.5 km upstream of J.C. Boyle ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: NF - Movement of Juvenile Redband Trout from Spencer Creek, Klamath River in 2004: Preliminary Findings - Annual Report Abstract -- Spencer Creek is a major spawning area and recruitment source of redband trout in the upper Klamath River. The confluence of Spencer Creek and the Klamath River is 1.5 km upstream of J.C. Boyle dam, which was built in 1959. Past studies provide evidence of a dramatic decline in adult upstream passage since the dam was built and relatively little juvenile downstream passage. However, sampling efforts to quantify the magnitude and extent of movements by juveniles to locations downstream of the dam were limited in scope. Operation of J.C. Boyle Dam may reduce the likelihood that juvenile redband trout from Spencer Creek can move downstream past the dam safely and efficiently and may reduce adult upstream passage to Spencer Creek. In order to understand better juvenile and adult redband trout life history and evaluate fish passage over J.C. Boyle dam, Native Fish Investigations Project plans to monitor redband trout movement in Spencer Creek and the upper Klamath River during 2004 and 2005. We plan to capture juvenile trout (>90 mm) as they emigrate from Spencer Creek and tag them with inter-peritoneal radio transmitters (NanoTags, Lotek Wireless). Adults, upstream and downstream of the dam, will also be radio tagged. Movements of radio-tagged fish will be monitored using fixed-station receivers at locations associated with hydropower facilities and mobile receivers in free-flowing reaches. In addition, we plan to mark several hundred outmigrating juvenile trout (>70mm) in Spencer Creek, and 50 adult trout in the Klamath River, with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags and install PIT-tag receiver stations at the mouth of Spencer Creek and downstream of J.C. Boyle Dam. Title: NF - Movement of Juvenile Redband Trout from Spencer Creek, Klamath River in 2004: Preliminary Findings - Annual Report Abstract -- Spencer Creek is a major spawning area and recruitment source of redband trout in the upper Klamath River. The confluence of Spencer Creek and the Klamath River is 1.5 km upstream of J.C. Boyle dam, which was built in 1959. Past studies provide evidence of a dramatic decline in adult upstream passage since the dam was built and relatively little juvenile downstream passage. However, sampling efforts to quantify the magnitude and extent of movements by juveniles to locations downstream of the dam were limited in scope. Operation of J.C. Boyle Dam may reduce the likelihood that juvenile redband trout from Spencer Creek can move downstream past the dam safely and efficiently and may reduce adult upstream passage to Spencer Creek. In order to understand better juvenile and adult redband trout life history and evaluate fish passage over J.C. Boyle dam, Native Fish Investigations Project plans to monitor redband trout movement in Spencer Creek and the upper Klamath River during 2004 and 2005. We plan to capture juvenile trout (>90 mm) as they emigrate from Spencer Creek and tag them with inter-peritoneal radio transmitters (NanoTags, Lotek Wireless). Adults, upstream and downstream of the dam, will also be radio tagged. Movements of radio-tagged fish will be monitored using fixed-station receivers at locations associated with hydropower facilities and mobile receivers in free-flowing reaches. In addition, we plan to mark several hundred outmigrating juvenile trout (>70mm) in Spencer Creek, and 50 adult trout in the Klamath River, with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags and install PIT-tag receiver stations at the mouth of Spencer Creek and downstream of J.C. Boyle Dam. Close

• 22. [Article] MWBTRP - Middle Fork Willamette Basin Bull Trout Rehabilitation and Monitoring Project, Annual Progress Report 2005

  Abstract -- Bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette Basin once moved uninhibited back and forth from spawning and rearing habitats near Diamond Peak to foraging and overwintering habitats lower in the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: MWBTRP - Middle Fork Willamette Basin Bull Trout Rehabilitation and Monitoring Project, Annual Progress Report 2005 Abstract -- Bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette Basin once moved uninhibited back and forth from spawning and rearing habitats near Diamond Peak to foraging and overwintering habitats lower in the basin. Construction of Dexter, Lookout Point and Hills Creek dams in the 1950s and 1960s without fish passage fragmented the habitat and limited the range of the population to above Hills Creek Dam. This population declined and the last confirmed bull trout sighting above Hills Creek dam was a photograph taken by an angler in 1990. Buchanan et al. (1997) described bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette River as “probably extinct” after extensive surveys from 1993 through 1997 failed to observe any bull trout. In 1997 the US Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife began a program to reestablish bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette. More than 10,000 bull trout fry have been transferred from the relatively healthy McKenzie population to the Middle Fork Willamette River. Adult bull trout are once again present in the Middle Fork Willamette, although natural reproduction has not been documented. Title: MWBTRP - Middle Fork Willamette Basin Bull Trout Rehabilitation and Monitoring Project, Annual Progress Report 2005 Abstract -- Bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette Basin once moved uninhibited back and forth from spawning and rearing habitats near Diamond Peak to foraging and overwintering habitats lower in the basin. Construction of Dexter, Lookout Point and Hills Creek dams in the 1950s and 1960s without fish passage fragmented the habitat and limited the range of the population to above Hills Creek Dam. This population declined and the last confirmed bull trout sighting above Hills Creek dam was a photograph taken by an angler in 1990. Buchanan et al. (1997) described bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette River as “probably extinct” after extensive surveys from 1993 through 1997 failed to observe any bull trout. In 1997 the US Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife began a program to reestablish bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette. More than 10,000 bull trout fry have been transferred from the relatively healthy McKenzie population to the Middle Fork Willamette River. Adult bull trout are once again present in the Middle Fork Willamette, although natural reproduction has not been documented. Close

• 23. [Article] CRTCP - Minimizing Risks and Mitigation of impacts to Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) from Construction of Temperature Control Facilities at Cougar Reservoir, Oregon 2003

  Abstract -- Because drafting the reservoir may adversely affect bull trout, the Corps funded this study to minimize impacts of construction on bull trout. To protect this population, we need to more fully ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: CRTCP - Minimizing Risks and Mitigation of impacts to Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) from Construction of Temperature Control Facilities at Cougar Reservoir, Oregon 2003 Abstract -- Because drafting the reservoir may adversely affect bull trout, the Corps funded this study to minimize impacts of construction on bull trout. To protect this population, we need to more fully understand the movement and habitat use of bull trout in the South Fork McKenzie watershed, and to develop an emergency action plan should environmental conditions become detrimental to the overall health of the population. Recommendations from this project will be made to the Environmental Coordination Committee in the event that actions to protect bull trout become necessary. Title: CRTCP - Minimizing Risks and Mitigation of impacts to Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) from Construction of Temperature Control Facilities at Cougar Reservoir, Oregon 2003 Abstract -- Because drafting the reservoir may adversely affect bull trout, the Corps funded this study to minimize impacts of construction on bull trout. To protect this population, we need to more fully understand the movement and habitat use of bull trout in the South Fork McKenzie watershed, and to develop an emergency action plan should environmental conditions become detrimental to the overall health of the population. Recommendations from this project will be made to the Environmental Coordination Committee in the event that actions to protect bull trout become necessary. Close

• 24. [Article] CRTCP - Monitoring of Downstream Fish Passage at Cougar Dam in the South Fork McKenzie River, Oregon 1998-00

  Abstract -- In 1993, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) began placing adult chinook salmon that were excess to hatchery operations at McKenzie and Willamette Hatchery above Cougar Dam in an ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: CRTCP - Monitoring of Downstream Fish Passage at Cougar Dam in the South Fork McKenzie River, Oregon 1998-00 Abstract -- In 1993, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) began placing adult chinook salmon that were excess to hatchery operations at McKenzie and Willamette Hatchery above Cougar Dam in an attempt to restore some of the biological contributions salmon made to the ecology of the South Fork McKenzie River prior to Cougar Dam construction (Table 1). Contributions included increased nutrient input to the ecosystem and an additional food source for predators, including bull trout. In addition, the progeny of these adult salmon provided a landlocked chinook fishery in the reservoir and ODFW was able to discontinue annual releases of juvenile salmon reared in ODFW hatcheries (1996). ODFW assumed most of the salmon attempting to leave the reservoir would be killed by various means upon passage through the turbines or regulating outlet. Between 1994-97, ODFW field observations provided circumstantial evidence that some juvenile chinook were surviving passage through the dam. In 1998, we began monitoring juvenile chinook migration out of the reservoir to determine the number, size, age, and mortality rate of fish passing through the turbines and regulating outlet of Cougar Dam. Title: CRTCP - Monitoring of Downstream Fish Passage at Cougar Dam in the South Fork McKenzie River, Oregon 1998-00 Abstract -- In 1993, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) began placing adult chinook salmon that were excess to hatchery operations at McKenzie and Willamette Hatchery above Cougar Dam in an attempt to restore some of the biological contributions salmon made to the ecology of the South Fork McKenzie River prior to Cougar Dam construction (Table 1). Contributions included increased nutrient input to the ecosystem and an additional food source for predators, including bull trout. In addition, the progeny of these adult salmon provided a landlocked chinook fishery in the reservoir and ODFW was able to discontinue annual releases of juvenile salmon reared in ODFW hatcheries (1996). ODFW assumed most of the salmon attempting to leave the reservoir would be killed by various means upon passage through the turbines or regulating outlet. Between 1994-97, ODFW field observations provided circumstantial evidence that some juvenile chinook were surviving passage through the dam. In 1998, we began monitoring juvenile chinook migration out of the reservoir to determine the number, size, age, and mortality rate of fish passing through the turbines and regulating outlet of Cougar Dam. Close

• 25. [Article] The Distribution and Abundance of Great Basin Redband Trout: An Application of Variable Probability Sampling in a 1999 Status Review

  Abstract -- Using a variable probability sampling design, streams throughout the entire range of Great Basin redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.) were randomly sampled use the EMAP sampling protocol, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Distribution and Abundance of Great Basin Redband Trout: An Application of Variable Probability Sampling in a 1999 Status Review Abstract -- Using a variable probability sampling design, streams throughout the entire range of Great Basin redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.) were randomly sampled use the EMAP sampling protocol, such that 35 sample sites were apportioned to each of six subbasins (Silver Lake, Lake Abert, Goose Lake, Warner Valley, Catlow Valley, and Malheur Lakes). A total of 185 sites (out of a target of 210) were visited by three-person crews that conducted habitat surveys and population estimates in sample reaches whose length were nearly 20 times their channel width. A minimal sampling intensity was based on previously encountered levels of between site variance in abundance estimates for the species. The population estimate for age 1+ redband trout was 948,852 fish (+/– 21%), with confidence limits ranging from 26% to 43% of individual subbasin estimates. Age 1+ fish abundance in terms of density (fish m-2) showed no significant differences between any subbasin, while there were significant differences in biomass (g m-2), where one subbasin had significantly higher (Catlow Valley) biomasses, and one significantly lower (Goose Lake). These comparisons were supported by like differences in mean weight (g fish-2). Analysis of stream habitat characteristics and fish abundance revealed no relationship, or model, that was generally consistent throughout the Great Basin, though interpretable patterns were evident within some stream systems where sampling intensity happened to be sufficiently high. Thus while a landscape level sampling design was well suited to address a regional estimate of abundance, useful interpretation of fish and habitat relationships appeared to be embedded within the stream level of organization, and could not be addressed by the variable probability sampling design set for a minimal sampling intensity. Title: The Distribution and Abundance of Great Basin Redband Trout: An Application of Variable Probability Sampling in a 1999 Status Review Abstract -- Using a variable probability sampling design, streams throughout the entire range of Great Basin redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.) were randomly sampled use the EMAP sampling protocol, such that 35 sample sites were apportioned to each of six subbasins (Silver Lake, Lake Abert, Goose Lake, Warner Valley, Catlow Valley, and Malheur Lakes). A total of 185 sites (out of a target of 210) were visited by three-person crews that conducted habitat surveys and population estimates in sample reaches whose length were nearly 20 times their channel width. A minimal sampling intensity was based on previously encountered levels of between site variance in abundance estimates for the species. The population estimate for age 1+ redband trout was 948,852 fish (+/– 21%), with confidence limits ranging from 26% to 43% of individual subbasin estimates. Age 1+ fish abundance in terms of density (fish m-2) showed no significant differences between any subbasin, while there were significant differences in biomass (g m-2), where one subbasin had significantly higher (Catlow Valley) biomasses, and one significantly lower (Goose Lake). These comparisons were supported by like differences in mean weight (g fish-2). Analysis of stream habitat characteristics and fish abundance revealed no relationship, or model, that was generally consistent throughout the Great Basin, though interpretable patterns were evident within some stream systems where sampling intensity happened to be sufficiently high. Thus while a landscape level sampling design was well suited to address a regional estimate of abundance, useful interpretation of fish and habitat relationships appeared to be embedded within the stream level of organization, and could not be addressed by the variable probability sampling design set for a minimal sampling intensity. Close

• 26. [Article] AI - Year 2000 Stream Habitat Conditions in Western Oregon

  Abstract -- The goals of the habitat monitoring portion of the Oregon Plan program are to develop baseline statistics, describe current conditions and track trends in habitat condition over time. This ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: AI - Year 2000 Stream Habitat Conditions in Western Oregon Abstract -- The goals of the habitat monitoring portion of the Oregon Plan program are to develop baseline statistics, describe current conditions and track trends in habitat condition over time. This program functions as the landscape link in the overall Oregon Plan monitoring program. Field work for the habitat monitoring program began in 1998 with coordinated site visitations conducted with the two other Oregon Plan monitoring programs; juvenile rearing survey and adult salmon spawning survey programs. The Oregon Plan Habitat Survey program is nested within the Aquatic Inventories Project (AIP). The AIP was begun by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in 1990 and has expanded to include a wide variety of inventory, modeling and monitoring efforts. The central purpose of these diverse projects is the inventory of physical aspects of the environment that are important for aquatic life and the habitat needs of salmonids and other fishes during the freshwater stages of their life history. Some of the significant ongoing or recently completed projects that are part of the AIP are: Basinwide cesus surveys, Oregon plan Habitat surveys, Restoration Project Monitoring, Salmonid Habitat and Diversity Watersheds Project, Fish Inventories, Great Basin Redband Trout, Oregon Chub Status and Recovery Project, Salmon River Estuary, and Columbia River Estuary Project. Title: AI - Year 2000 Stream Habitat Conditions in Western Oregon Abstract -- The goals of the habitat monitoring portion of the Oregon Plan program are to develop baseline statistics, describe current conditions and track trends in habitat condition over time. This program functions as the landscape link in the overall Oregon Plan monitoring program. Field work for the habitat monitoring program began in 1998 with coordinated site visitations conducted with the two other Oregon Plan monitoring programs; juvenile rearing survey and adult salmon spawning survey programs. The Oregon Plan Habitat Survey program is nested within the Aquatic Inventories Project (AIP). The AIP was begun by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in 1990 and has expanded to include a wide variety of inventory, modeling and monitoring efforts. The central purpose of these diverse projects is the inventory of physical aspects of the environment that are important for aquatic life and the habitat needs of salmonids and other fishes during the freshwater stages of their life history. Some of the significant ongoing or recently completed projects that are part of the AIP are: Basinwide cesus surveys, Oregon plan Habitat surveys, Restoration Project Monitoring, Salmonid Habitat and Diversity Watersheds Project, Fish Inventories, Great Basin Redband Trout, Oregon Chub Status and Recovery Project, Salmon River Estuary, and Columbia River Estuary Project. Close

• 27. [Image] Memorandum: John E. Doerr writing to Crater Lake National Park Superintendent, 1938

  	Memorandum to Superintendent Leavitt dated May 16, 1938 also mentions, Fish and Fishing in Crater Lake, (Mr. Madsen's letter of May 9, 1938); "John E Doerr, Jr., Park-Naturalist."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Memorandum: John E. Doerr writing to Crater Lake National Park Superintendent, 1938 Author: Doerr, John E., Jr. Year: 1938, 2010 Memorandum to Superintendent Leavitt dated May 16, 1938 also mentions, Fish and Fishing in Crater Lake, (Mr. Madsen's letter of May 9, 1938); "John E Doerr, Jr., Park-Naturalist." Title: Memorandum: John E. Doerr writing to Crater Lake National Park Superintendent, 1938 Author: Doerr, John E., Jr. Year: 1938, 2010 Memorandum to Superintendent Leavitt dated May 16, 1938 also mentions, Fish and Fishing in Crater Lake, (Mr. Madsen's letter of May 9, 1938); "John E Doerr, Jr., Park-Naturalist." Close

• 28. [Image] The growth of trout and salmon in Crater Lake, Oregon and its bearing on fish management

  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The growth of trout and salmon in Crater Lake, Oregon and its bearing on fish management Author: United States. National Park Service Year: 1938, 2010 Title: The growth of trout and salmon in Crater Lake, Oregon and its bearing on fish management Author: United States. National Park Service Year: 1938, 2010 Close

• 29. [Image] Report on fish stomach contents analyzed during the summer of 1956

  	"Dick S. Baird, Seasonal Ranger Naturalist."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Report on fish stomach contents analyzed during the summer of 1956 Author: Baird, Dick S. Year: 1956, 2010 "Dick S. Baird, Seasonal Ranger Naturalist." Title: Report on fish stomach contents analyzed during the summer of 1956 Author: Baird, Dick S. Year: 1956, 2010 "Dick S. Baird, Seasonal Ranger Naturalist." Close

• 30. [Image] A report on Crater Lake water quality: Crater Lake National Park, Oregon, 1988-1989

  	1982-2002; ill, maps; Report title; CA 9000-3-0003 Subagreement 8; Includes appendices: Crater Lake Liminological Studies 1988 and 1989; "Submitted by Robert E. Benton, Superintendent Crater Lake National ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A report on Crater Lake water quality: Crater Lake National Park, Oregon, 1988-1989 Author: National Park Service, Crater Lake National Park Year: 1988, 2009 1982-2002; ill, maps; Report title; CA 9000-3-0003 Subagreement 8; Includes appendices: Crater Lake Liminological Studies 1988 and 1989; "Submitted by Robert E. Benton, Superintendent Crater Lake National Park." - T.p.; Includes bibliographical references; Issues lack volume numbering Title: A report on Crater Lake water quality: Crater Lake National Park, Oregon, 1988-1989 Author: National Park Service, Crater Lake National Park Year: 1988, 2009 1982-2002; ill, maps; Report title; CA 9000-3-0003 Subagreement 8; Includes appendices: Crater Lake Liminological Studies 1988 and 1989; "Submitted by Robert E. Benton, Superintendent Crater Lake National Park." - T.p.; Includes bibliographical references; Issues lack volume numbering Close

• 31. [Image] Crater Lake limnological studies: final report

  	ill., maps; July 1993."; "Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forestry, Oregon State University."; Includes bibliographical references.; This title is a culmination of the first 10-years of the Crater ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Crater Lake limnological studies: final report Author: Gary L. Larson; McIntire, David C.; Jacobs, Ruth W; Year: 1993, 2009 ill., maps; July 1993."; "Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forestry, Oregon State University."; Includes bibliographical references.; This title is a culmination of the first 10-years of the Crater Lake limnological studies and a long-term monitoring proposal to investigate new hypotheses. Title: Crater Lake limnological studies: final report Author: Gary L. Larson; McIntire, David C.; Jacobs, Ruth W; Year: 1993, 2009 ill., maps; July 1993."; "Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forestry, Oregon State University."; Includes bibliographical references.; This title is a culmination of the first 10-years of the Crater Lake limnological studies and a long-term monitoring proposal to investigate new hypotheses. Close

• 32. [Image] Ecology of kokanee salmon and rainbow trout in Crater Lake, a deep ultraoligotrophic caldera lake (Oregon)

  	ill.; Thesis (M.S.)-Oregon State University, 1988; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 74-80)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Ecology of kokanee salmon and rainbow trout in Crater Lake, a deep ultraoligotrophic caldera lake (Oregon) Author: Buktenica, M. W., (Mark W.) Year: 1988, 2009 ill.; Thesis (M.S.)-Oregon State University, 1988; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 74-80) Title: Ecology of kokanee salmon and rainbow trout in Crater Lake, a deep ultraoligotrophic caldera lake (Oregon) Author: Buktenica, M. W., (Mark W.) Year: 1988, 2009 ill.; Thesis (M.S.)-Oregon State University, 1988; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 74-80) Close

• 33. [Image] The pine beetle situation-Klamath Indian Reservation Emergency Conservation Work report

  	ill.; "Harold Weaver (1903?-1983) was an American forester best known for his work on prescribed burning." - Forest History Society website;
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The pine beetle situation-Klamath Indian Reservation Emergency Conservation Work report Author: Weaver, Harold; 1903?-1983 Year: 1934, 2010 ill.; "Harold Weaver (1903?-1983) was an American forester best known for his work on prescribed burning." - Forest History Society website; Title: The pine beetle situation-Klamath Indian Reservation Emergency Conservation Work report Author: Weaver, Harold; 1903?-1983 Year: 1934, 2010 ill.; "Harold Weaver (1903?-1983) was an American forester best known for his work on prescribed burning." - Forest History Society website; Close

• 34. [Image] Memorandum on fishing, 1941

  	Date of memorandum: September 3, 1941; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Memorandum on fishing, 1941 Author: Farner, Donald Sankey, 1915- Year: 1941, 2010 Date of memorandum: September 3, 1941; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist." Title: Memorandum on fishing, 1941 Author: Farner, Donald Sankey, 1915- Year: 1941, 2010 Date of memorandum: September 3, 1941; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist." Close

• 35. [Image] Memorandum on fishing [August 1948]

  	Date of memorandum: August 4, 1948; Includes: "Creel Census Report for July, 1948."; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Memorandum on fishing [August 1948] Author: Farner, Donald Sankey, 1915- Year: 1948, 2010 Date of memorandum: August 4, 1948; Includes: "Creel Census Report for July, 1948."; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist." Title: Memorandum on fishing [August 1948] Author: Farner, Donald Sankey, 1915- Year: 1948, 2010 Date of memorandum: August 4, 1948; Includes: "Creel Census Report for July, 1948."; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist." Close

• 36. [Image] Memorandum on fish stocking policy for Crater Lake

  	Date of memorandum: July 27, 1940; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Memorandum on fish stocking policy for Crater Lake Author: Farner, Donald Sankey, 1915- Year: 1940, 2010 Date of memorandum: July 27, 1940; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist." Title: Memorandum on fish stocking policy for Crater Lake Author: Farner, Donald Sankey, 1915- Year: 1940, 2010 Date of memorandum: July 27, 1940; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist." Close

• 37. [Image] Memorandum on fishing, 1950

  	Date of memorandum: September 15, 1950; "R.S. Robinson, Ranger-Naturalist."; Includes: "Creel Census Report for July and August, 1950."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Memorandum on fishing, 1950 Author: Robinson, R.S. Year: 1950, 2010 Date of memorandum: September 15, 1950; "R.S. Robinson, Ranger-Naturalist."; Includes: "Creel Census Report for July and August, 1950." Title: Memorandum on fishing, 1950 Author: Robinson, R.S. Year: 1950, 2010 Date of memorandum: September 15, 1950; "R.S. Robinson, Ranger-Naturalist."; Includes: "Creel Census Report for July and August, 1950." Close

• 38. [Image] Fish liberations in Crater Lake, Crater Lake National Park

  	Fish liberations are in Crater Lake and the following streams of Crater Lake National Park: Annie, Bybee, Copeland, Castle, National, Sun, Redblanket, Munson, Lost, Bear, Sand and Crater Creeks.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish liberations in Crater Lake, Crater Lake National Park Author: United States. National Park Service Year: 1940, 2010 Fish liberations are in Crater Lake and the following streams of Crater Lake National Park: Annie, Bybee, Copeland, Castle, National, Sun, Redblanket, Munson, Lost, Bear, Sand and Crater Creeks. Title: Fish liberations in Crater Lake, Crater Lake National Park Author: United States. National Park Service Year: 1940, 2010 Fish liberations are in Crater Lake and the following streams of Crater Lake National Park: Annie, Bybee, Copeland, Castle, National, Sun, Redblanket, Munson, Lost, Bear, Sand and Crater Creeks. Close

• 39. [Image] Fish planted in Crater Lake

  	Stocking dates include 1888, 1910, 1914, 1922-1939
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish planted in Crater Lake Author: United States. National Park Service Year: 1939, 2010 Stocking dates include 1888, 1910, 1914, 1922-1939 Title: Fish planted in Crater Lake Author: United States. National Park Service Year: 1939, 2010 Stocking dates include 1888, 1910, 1914, 1922-1939 Close

• 40. [Image] Fish liberations in Crater Lake

  	"No fish have been planted in the lake since 1941. (1967)"; Stocking dates include 1910, 1914, 1922-1941
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish liberations in Crater Lake Author: United States. National Park Service. Year: 1967, 2010 "No fish have been planted in the lake since 1941. (1967)"; Stocking dates include 1910, 1914, 1922-1941 Title: Fish liberations in Crater Lake Author: United States. National Park Service. Year: 1967, 2010 "No fish have been planted in the lake since 1941. (1967)"; Stocking dates include 1910, 1914, 1922-1941 Close

• 41. [Image] Memorandum on fishing for the season of 1952

  	"C. Warren Fairbanks, Ranger Naturalist."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Memorandum on fishing for the season of 1952 Author: Fairbanks, C. Warren Year: 1952, 2010 "C. Warren Fairbanks, Ranger Naturalist." Title: Memorandum on fishing for the season of 1952 Author: Fairbanks, C. Warren Year: 1952, 2010 "C. Warren Fairbanks, Ranger Naturalist." Close

• 42. [Image] Distribution and habitat use of bull trout following the removal of nonnative brook trout

  	ill.; Printout; Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State University, 2006; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 55-61)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Distribution and habitat use of bull trout following the removal of nonnative brook trout Author: Renner, Dirk Year: 2005, 2009 ill.; Printout; Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State University, 2006; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 55-61) Title: Distribution and habitat use of bull trout following the removal of nonnative brook trout Author: Renner, Dirk Year: 2005, 2009 ill.; Printout; Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State University, 2006; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 55-61) Close

• 43. [Image] Crater Lake National Park bull trout restoration program: status review and study plan

  	ill.; Report title; "Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls, Oregon." - T.p.; Includes bibliographic references
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Crater Lake National Park bull trout restoration program: status review and study plan Author: Buktenica, Mark Year: 2000, 2010 ill.; Report title; "Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls, Oregon." - T.p.; Includes bibliographic references Title: Crater Lake National Park bull trout restoration program: status review and study plan Author: Buktenica, Mark Year: 2000, 2010 ill.; Report title; "Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls, Oregon." - T.p.; Includes bibliographic references Close

• 44. [Image] The Bull trout (salvelinus confluentus) population within Crater Lake National Park: summarized information relating to its conservation and perpetuation

  	ill.,; Report title; "On October 7 and 8, 1991 an advisory panel\recovery team met at Crater Lake National Park to review the status of the park's only native fish population, and to develop recommendations ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Bull trout (salvelinus confluentus) population within Crater Lake National Park: summarized information relating to its conservation and perpetuation Author: Pister, Edwin P. Year: 1992, 2010 ill.,; Report title; "On October 7 and 8, 1991 an advisory panel\recovery team met at Crater Lake National Park to review the status of the park's only native fish population, and to develop recommendations for a recovery program to restore the Sun Creek Bull Trout population to historic range and abundance within Crater Lake National Park." - P. [ii].; Title: The Bull trout (salvelinus confluentus) population within Crater Lake National Park: summarized information relating to its conservation and perpetuation Author: Pister, Edwin P. Year: 1992, 2010 ill.,; Report title; "On October 7 and 8, 1991 an advisory panel\recovery team met at Crater Lake National Park to review the status of the park's only native fish population, and to develop recommendations for a recovery program to restore the Sun Creek Bull Trout population to historic range and abundance within Crater Lake National Park." - P. [ii].; Close

• 45. [Image] Bull trout recovery program for Sun Creek Crater Lake National Park, Oregon

  	ill.; Report title; "Crater Lake National Park RMP Number: CRLA N-016.101." - P. 1.; Includes bibliographic references
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bull trout recovery program for Sun Creek Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Buktenica, Mark Year: 2010 ill.; Report title; "Crater Lake National Park RMP Number: CRLA N-016.101." - P. 1.; Includes bibliographic references Title: Bull trout recovery program for Sun Creek Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Buktenica, Mark Year: 2010 ill.; Report title; "Crater Lake National Park RMP Number: CRLA N-016.101." - P. 1.; Includes bibliographic references Close

• 46. [Image] Trout Farming in Montana

  	Due to the abundant supply of clean fresh water, many areas of Montana are natural locations for trout farming. Many trout ponds are planted and maintained privately for the sole use of the owner; however, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Trout Farming in Montana Author: Quarve, P.L. Year: 1973 Due to the abundant supply of clean fresh water, many areas of Montana are natural locations for trout farming. Many trout ponds are planted and maintained privately for the sole use of the owner; however, the opportunity exists for commercial trout farming in Montana. Some commercial trout farming is currently being done, but this is only a small fraction of what could be developed Title: Trout Farming in Montana Author: Quarve, P.L. Year: 1973 Due to the abundant supply of clean fresh water, many areas of Montana are natural locations for trout farming. Many trout ponds are planted and maintained privately for the sole use of the owner; however, the opportunity exists for commercial trout farming in Montana. Some commercial trout farming is currently being done, but this is only a small fraction of what could be developed Close

• 47. [Image] Trout studies and a stream survey of Crater Lake National Park, Oregon

  	Ill., map; Typescript; Map of Crater Lake National Park and vicinity, issued by the U.S. Geological Survey, edition of 1946; Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State College, 1948; Includes bibliographical references ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Trout studies and a stream survey of Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Wallis, O. L. Year: 1948, 2008 Ill., map; Typescript; Map of Crater Lake National Park and vicinity, issued by the U.S. Geological Survey, edition of 1946; Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State College, 1948; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-120) Title: Trout studies and a stream survey of Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Wallis, O. L. Year: 1948, 2008 Ill., map; Typescript; Map of Crater Lake National Park and vicinity, issued by the U.S. Geological Survey, edition of 1946; Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State College, 1948; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-120) Close

• 48. [Image] Memorandum on fishing

  	ill.; Date of memorandum: September 3, 1947; "Orthello L. Wallis, Ranger-Naturalist."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Memorandum on fishing Author: Wallis, Orthello L. Year: 1947, 2008 ill.; Date of memorandum: September 3, 1947; "Orthello L. Wallis, Ranger-Naturalist." Title: Memorandum on fishing Author: Wallis, Orthello L. Year: 1947, 2008 ill.; Date of memorandum: September 3, 1947; "Orthello L. Wallis, Ranger-Naturalist." Close

• 49. [Image] Occurrence of sockeye salmon in Crater Lake, Oregon

  	ill.; Report title
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Occurrence of sockeye salmon in Crater Lake, Oregon Author: Wallis, Orthello L. Year: 1948, 2008 ill.; Report title Title: Occurrence of sockeye salmon in Crater Lake, Oregon Author: Wallis, Orthello L. Year: 1948, 2008 ill.; Report title Close

• 50. [Image] Fish study - 1958

  	ill.; "Norman D. Wild, Ranger-Naturalist"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish study - 1958 Author: Wild, Norman D. Year: 1958, 2008 ill.; "Norman D. Wild, Ranger-Naturalist" Title: Fish study - 1958 Author: Wild, Norman D. Year: 1958, 2008 ill.; "Norman D. Wild, Ranger-Naturalist" Close

• 51. [Image] Fish study - 1957

  	ill.; "Norman D. Wild, Ranger-Naturalist."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish study - 1957 Author: Wild, Norman D. Year: 1957, 2008 ill.; "Norman D. Wild, Ranger-Naturalist." Title: Fish study - 1957 Author: Wild, Norman D. Year: 1957, 2008 ill.; "Norman D. Wild, Ranger-Naturalist." Close

• 52. [Image] A study in fish ecology in Crater Lake, Oregon

  	Includes bibliographical refereneces
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A study in fish ecology in Crater Lake, Oregon Author: Kirby, Harold V. Year: 1966, 2008 Includes bibliographical refereneces Title: A study in fish ecology in Crater Lake, Oregon Author: Kirby, Harold V. Year: 1966, 2008 Includes bibliographical refereneces Close

• 53. [Image] Breeding data upon Crater Lake fish

  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Breeding data upon Crater Lake fish Year: 1933, 2008 Title: Breeding data upon Crater Lake fish Year: 1933, 2008 Close

• 54. [Image] Fish planted in streams in Crater Lake National Park

  	Dates covered: 1931-1940
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish planted in streams in Crater Lake National Park Year: 1940, 2008 Dates covered: 1931-1940 Title: Fish planted in streams in Crater Lake National Park Year: 1940, 2008 Dates covered: 1931-1940 Close

• 55. [Image] Fish planting in the small lakes of Wizard Island

  	ill., 1 map; Report title; Dates mentioned within the text: 1936 - 1939
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fish planting in the small lakes of Wizard Island Author: Kartchner, Wayne E. Year: 2008 ill., 1 map; Report title; Dates mentioned within the text: 1936 - 1939 Title: Fish planting in the small lakes of Wizard Island Author: Kartchner, Wayne E. Year: 2008 ill., 1 map; Report title; Dates mentioned within the text: 1936 - 1939 Close

• 56. [Image] The rate of growth and planting policies of trout in Crater Lake

  	Memorandum to Mr. Doerr dated July 2, 1937; Arthur D. Hasler served as a Ranger-Naturalist at Crater Lake National Park
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The rate of growth and planting policies of trout in Crater Lake Author: Hasler, Arthur D. Year: 1937, 2008 Memorandum to Mr. Doerr dated July 2, 1937; Arthur D. Hasler served as a Ranger-Naturalist at Crater Lake National Park Title: The rate of growth and planting policies of trout in Crater Lake Author: Hasler, Arthur D. Year: 1937, 2008 Memorandum to Mr. Doerr dated July 2, 1937; Arthur D. Hasler served as a Ranger-Naturalist at Crater Lake National Park Close

• 57. [Image] Fishery management reconnaissance report: Crater Lake, Oregon (1-GF)

  	ill.; 1 map (sketched); Includes bibliographic references
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fishery management reconnaissance report: Crater Lake, Oregon (1-GF) Author: Morton, William M. Year: 1957, 2008, 2009 ill.; 1 map (sketched); Includes bibliographic references Title: Fishery management reconnaissance report: Crater Lake, Oregon (1-GF) Author: Morton, William M. Year: 1957, 2008, 2009 ill.; 1 map (sketched); Includes bibliographic references Close

• 58. [Image] Progress report: review of activity at Crater Lake in 1957

  	ill.; Includes bibliographic references
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Progress report: review of activity at Crater Lake in 1957 Author: Morton, William M. Year: 1957, 2008, 2009 ill.; Includes bibliographic references Title: Progress report: review of activity at Crater Lake in 1957 Author: Morton, William M. Year: 1957, 2008, 2009 ill.; Includes bibliographic references Close

• 59. [Image] Memorandum on fishing

  	Date of memorandum: September 2, 1946; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Memorandum on fishing Author: Farner, Donald S. Year: 1946, 2009 Date of memorandum: September 2, 1946; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist." Title: Memorandum on fishing Author: Farner, Donald S. Year: 1946, 2009 Date of memorandum: September 2, 1946; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist." Close

• 60. [Image] Memorandum to park naturalist Ruhle : summary of project work for 1941

  	Date of memorandum: September 3, 1941; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."; Includes the following sections: Memorandum on Fishing, 1941; Creel Census; Recommendations for Fish and Limnological studies ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Memorandum to park naturalist Ruhle : summary of project work for 1941 Author: Farner, Donald S. Year: 1941, 2008, 2009 Date of memorandum: September 3, 1941; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."; Includes the following sections: Memorandum on Fishing, 1941; Creel Census; Recommendations for Fish and Limnological studies in Crater Lake; and Net for Collecting Fish for Scientific Investigations. Title: Memorandum to park naturalist Ruhle : summary of project work for 1941 Author: Farner, Donald S. Year: 1941, 2008, 2009 Date of memorandum: September 3, 1941; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."; Includes the following sections: Memorandum on Fishing, 1941; Creel Census; Recommendations for Fish and Limnological studies in Crater Lake; and Net for Collecting Fish for Scientific Investigations. Close

• 61. [Image] Memorandum on fishing for the season of 1948

  	Date of memorandum: September 12, 1948; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Memorandum on fishing for the season of 1948 Author: Farner, Donald S. Year: 1948, 2008, 2009 Date of memorandum: September 12, 1948; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist." Title: Memorandum on fishing for the season of 1948 Author: Farner, Donald S. Year: 1948, 2008, 2009 Date of memorandum: September 12, 1948; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist." Close

• 62. [Image] Fishing report 1954 season

  	"C. Warren Fairbanks, Assistant Park Naturalist."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fishing report 1954 season Author: Fairbanks, C. Warren Year: 1954, 2008, 2009 "C. Warren Fairbanks, Assistant Park Naturalist." Title: Fishing report 1954 season Author: Fairbanks, C. Warren Year: 1954, 2008, 2009 "C. Warren Fairbanks, Assistant Park Naturalist." Close

• 63. [Image] Temperatures in Crater Lake during the summer of 1937

  	ill.; Draft report title; Alternate title was scratched through on this draft copy
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Temperatures in Crater Lake during the summer of 1937 Author: Hassler, Arthur D. Year: 1937, 2008, 2009 ill.; Draft report title; Alternate title was scratched through on this draft copy Title: Temperatures in Crater Lake during the summer of 1937 Author: Hassler, Arthur D. Year: 1937, 2008, 2009 ill.; Draft report title; Alternate title was scratched through on this draft copy Close

• 64. [Image] Bull trout restoration and brook trout eradication at Crater Lake National Park, Oregon

  	ill., 1 map (sketched) ; Report title; "Drought conditions are continuing in 1994, at the writing of this report in March of 1994, Crater Lake National Park had received approximately 50% of the annual ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bull trout restoration and brook trout eradication at Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Buktenica, Mark. Year: 1994, 2008, 2009 ill., 1 map (sketched) ; Report title; "Drought conditions are continuing in 1994, at the writing of this report in March of 1994, Crater Lake National Park had received approximately 50% of the annual average accumulated precipatation to date." - P. 17.; Title: Bull trout restoration and brook trout eradication at Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Buktenica, Mark. Year: 1994, 2008, 2009 ill., 1 map (sketched) ; Report title; "Drought conditions are continuing in 1994, at the writing of this report in March of 1994, Crater Lake National Park had received approximately 50% of the annual average accumulated precipatation to date." - P. 17.; Close

• 65. [Image] Oregon, Crater Lake National Park and vicinity: 25 minute series

  	1 map:col.; Wallis provides a color key for Rogue, Klamath, Umqua, and Lake drainage; Relief shown by contours, spot heights and shading; Datum is mean sea level; Contour interval 50 feet; "N4242-W12155/25;" ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon, Crater Lake National Park and vicinity: 25 minute series Author: Geological Survey (U.S.) Year: 1946, 2008, 2009 1 map:col.; Wallis provides a color key for Rogue, Klamath, Umqua, and Lake drainage; Relief shown by contours, spot heights and shading; Datum is mean sea level; Contour interval 50 feet; "N4242-W12155/25;" Includes bibliographic references (leaves 118- 120) Title: Oregon, Crater Lake National Park and vicinity: 25 minute series Author: Geological Survey (U.S.) Year: 1946, 2008, 2009 1 map:col.; Wallis provides a color key for Rogue, Klamath, Umqua, and Lake drainage; Relief shown by contours, spot heights and shading; Datum is mean sea level; Contour interval 50 feet; "N4242-W12155/25;" Includes bibliographic references (leaves 118- 120) Close

• 66. [Image] Managing bull trout : the role of electrofishing injury in streams of Crater Lake National Park

  	ill., map; Thesis (M.M.A.)--University of Washington, 1997; Vita; Includes bibliographical references (leaves [35]-38)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Managing bull trout : the role of electrofishing injury in streams of Crater Lake National Park Author: Mahoney, Brian D. Year: 1997, 2009 ill., map; Thesis (M.M.A.)--University of Washington, 1997; Vita; Includes bibliographical references (leaves [35]-38) Title: Managing bull trout : the role of electrofishing injury in streams of Crater Lake National Park Author: Mahoney, Brian D. Year: 1997, 2009 ill., map; Thesis (M.M.A.)--University of Washington, 1997; Vita; Includes bibliographical references (leaves [35]-38) Close

• 67. [Image] Fact and fancy about Crater Lake fish

  	ill.; Report title; Fishing period between July 24, 1933 and September 4, 1933.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fact and fancy about Crater Lake fish Author: Hubbard, C. Andresen Year: 1933, 2009 ill.; Report title; Fishing period between July 24, 1933 and September 4, 1933. Title: Fact and fancy about Crater Lake fish Author: Hubbard, C. Andresen Year: 1933, 2009 ill.; Report title; Fishing period between July 24, 1933 and September 4, 1933. Close

• 68. [Image] State of the Art Waste Heat Utilization for Agriculture and Aquaculture

  	A state-of-the-art assessment of research, demonstration, and commercial projects that involve the use of power plant condenser cooling water for agricultural and aquacultural purposes was conducted. Information ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: State of the Art Waste Heat Utilization for Agriculture and Aquaculture Author: Hubert, W.A. A state-of-the-art assessment of research, demonstration, and commercial projects that involve the use of power plant condenser cooling water for agricultural and aquacultural purposes was conducted. Information was obtained from published literature, site visits, and communications with knowledgeable individuals. Thermal effluent uses were discussed for controlled environment greenhouses, biological recycling of nutrients from livestock manures, soil heating and irrigation, environmental control for livestock housing, grain drying, food processing, as well as the culture of numerous aquatic organisms. A large number of research and feasibility studies have been conducted, but few commercial enterprises are utilizing thermal effluent. Interfacing problems, environmental and legal restrictions, along with insufficient technology, have not allowed widespread commercial application. Specific research needs were discussed Title: State of the Art Waste Heat Utilization for Agriculture and Aquaculture Author: Hubert, W.A. A state-of-the-art assessment of research, demonstration, and commercial projects that involve the use of power plant condenser cooling water for agricultural and aquacultural purposes was conducted. Information was obtained from published literature, site visits, and communications with knowledgeable individuals. Thermal effluent uses were discussed for controlled environment greenhouses, biological recycling of nutrients from livestock manures, soil heating and irrigation, environmental control for livestock housing, grain drying, food processing, as well as the culture of numerous aquatic organisms. A large number of research and feasibility studies have been conducted, but few commercial enterprises are utilizing thermal effluent. Interfacing problems, environmental and legal restrictions, along with insufficient technology, have not allowed widespread commercial application. Specific research needs were discussed Close

• 69. [Article] Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis and Restoration Plan

  Abstract -- The Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis (Rapid Bio-Assessment) assessed stream conditions for native salmonids and prioritized projects of benefit to spring Chinook, cutthroat trout, rainbow ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis and Restoration Plan Abstract -- The Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis (Rapid Bio-Assessment) assessed stream conditions for native salmonids and prioritized projects of benefit to spring Chinook, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and Pacific lamprey in this high-priority, free-flowing stream in the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed. To gain access to private properties adjacent to the 75 miles of surveyed streams, the applicant conducted landowner outreach and coordinated two years of continuous temperature data collection by volunteers. The contractor conducted a modified limiting factors analysis and a snorkel survey in the Mosby Creek main stem and tributaries up to 6 percent gradient. The resulting study results include a prioritized restoration plan that has been shared with local landowners and restoration partners and used for restoration planning. Title: Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis and Restoration Plan Abstract -- The Mosby Creek Limiting Factors Analysis (Rapid Bio-Assessment) assessed stream conditions for native salmonids and prioritized projects of benefit to spring Chinook, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and Pacific lamprey in this high-priority, free-flowing stream in the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed. To gain access to private properties adjacent to the 75 miles of surveyed streams, the applicant conducted landowner outreach and coordinated two years of continuous temperature data collection by volunteers. The contractor conducted a modified limiting factors analysis and a snorkel survey in the Mosby Creek main stem and tributaries up to 6 percent gradient. The resulting study results include a prioritized restoration plan that has been shared with local landowners and restoration partners and used for restoration planning. Close

• 70. [Article] Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution - Redband Trout

  Abstract -- These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently and historically by redband trout populations. Columbia River redband trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri, a subspecies ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution - Redband Trout Abstract -- These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently and historically by redband trout populations. Columbia River redband trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri, a subspecies of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, is native to the Fraser and Columbia River drainages, east of the Cascade Mountains to barrier falls on the Pend Oreille, Spokane, Snake and Kootenai rivers (Allendorf et al. 1980; Behnke 1992). Northern Great Basin redband trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss newberrii, are found in the closed basins of south-central Oregon as well as the Upper Klamath Lake basin. While Upper Klamath Lake now drains to the ocean, redband trout in the basin had ancestors that came from interior connections to the Great Basin and not from connections to the ocean (Behnke 1992). Redband trout, for the purposes of habitat distribution mapping, are generally defined as stream-resident O. mykiss gairdneri; migration is confined within their natal stream or watershed while steelhead, or the anadromous life form of O.mykiss gairdneri, migrate from their natal stream to the ocean and back. It is recognized, that while redband and steelhead habitat distribution datasets are published separately, overlapping areas represent the same subspecies. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. 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 now 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 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 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 2011. Title: Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution - Redband Trout Abstract -- These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently and historically by redband trout populations. Columbia River redband trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri, a subspecies of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, is native to the Fraser and Columbia River drainages, east of the Cascade Mountains to barrier falls on the Pend Oreille, Spokane, Snake and Kootenai rivers (Allendorf et al. 1980; Behnke 1992). Northern Great Basin redband trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss newberrii, are found in the closed basins of south-central Oregon as well as the Upper Klamath Lake basin. While Upper Klamath Lake now drains to the ocean, redband trout in the basin had ancestors that came from interior connections to the Great Basin and not from connections to the ocean (Behnke 1992). Redband trout, for the purposes of habitat distribution mapping, are generally defined as stream-resident O. mykiss gairdneri; migration is confined within their natal stream or watershed while steelhead, or the anadromous life form of O.mykiss gairdneri, migrate from their natal stream to the ocean and back. It is recognized, that while redband and steelhead habitat distribution datasets are published separately, overlapping areas represent the same subspecies. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. 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 now 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 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 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 2011. Close

• 71. [Article] Pine Hollow - Jackknife Creek Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The assessment area is located in north-central Oregon within the semi-arid Columbia Plateau and the Lower John Day River Basin. The assessment area occupies the southeastern portion of Sherman ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Pine Hollow - Jackknife Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The assessment area is located in north-central Oregon within the semi-arid Columbia Plateau and the Lower John Day River Basin. The assessment area occupies the southeastern portion of Sherman County and part of the northeastern portion of Wasco County, beginning southeast of the town of Grass Valley and including the towns of Kent and Shaniko. The watershed assessment area is sparsely populated, with an average population density of less than one person per square mile in Sherman County and two per square mile in Wasco County (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). All of the streams within the Pine Hollow – Jackknife Creek watershed assessment area drain into the Lower John Day River, and the river is the eastern border of the assessment area. The 8,000 square mile John Day Basin is the fourth largest basin in the state. The main stem of the John Day River originates in the Blue Mountains southeast of Prairie City, Oregon, and flows generally westward then northward for approximately 284 miles before discharging into the Columbia River at River Mile (RM) 218, just east of the town of Rufus, Oregon. Title: Pine Hollow - Jackknife Creek Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The assessment area is located in north-central Oregon within the semi-arid Columbia Plateau and the Lower John Day River Basin. The assessment area occupies the southeastern portion of Sherman County and part of the northeastern portion of Wasco County, beginning southeast of the town of Grass Valley and including the towns of Kent and Shaniko. The watershed assessment area is sparsely populated, with an average population density of less than one person per square mile in Sherman County and two per square mile in Wasco County (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). All of the streams within the Pine Hollow – Jackknife Creek watershed assessment area drain into the Lower John Day River, and the river is the eastern border of the assessment area. The 8,000 square mile John Day Basin is the fourth largest basin in the state. The main stem of the John Day River originates in the Blue Mountains southeast of Prairie City, Oregon, and flows generally westward then northward for approximately 284 miles before discharging into the Columbia River at River Mile (RM) 218, just east of the town of Rufus, Oregon. Close

• 72. [Article] Scappoose Bay Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- The Scappoose Bay Watershed Assessment focuses on habitat conditions for salmonids (salmon, steelhead and trout) in the watershed. The report follows the guidelines of the Oregon Watershed ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Scappoose Bay Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Scappoose Bay Watershed Assessment focuses on habitat conditions for salmonids (salmon, steelhead and trout) in the watershed. The report follows the guidelines of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Manual (WPN 1999). The Scappoose Bay Watershed Assessment presents the existing baseline information on watershed conditions (based on available reports and data) and oral history interviews. A Geographic Information System (GIS) was built to display, analyze and store much of the data. Habitat factors for the decline of salmonids are compared, and major protection and restoration opportunities are identified and prioritized. This Phase I assessment does not generally provide the detailed field reconnaissance and comprehensive field studies that are necessary for proceeding with specific protection and restoration projects. Rather, this assessment lays out the groundwork for a second phase of assessment that bridges the gap between identifying major areas for action and conducting specific projects. Topics included are preliminary analysis of existing data, GIS base map and baseline information, historical habitat conditions, channel habitat typing, fisheries resource and habitat assessment, channel modifications, sediment sources, riparian and wetland conditions, water quality, water use and hydrology, refugia, watershed condition, data gaps, significant legal and public issues, prioritized preservation and restoration, opportunities, and GIS metadata. Title: Scappoose Bay Watershed Assessment Abstract -- The Scappoose Bay Watershed Assessment focuses on habitat conditions for salmonids (salmon, steelhead and trout) in the watershed. The report follows the guidelines of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Manual (WPN 1999). The Scappoose Bay Watershed Assessment presents the existing baseline information on watershed conditions (based on available reports and data) and oral history interviews. A Geographic Information System (GIS) was built to display, analyze and store much of the data. Habitat factors for the decline of salmonids are compared, and major protection and restoration opportunities are identified and prioritized. This Phase I assessment does not generally provide the detailed field reconnaissance and comprehensive field studies that are necessary for proceeding with specific protection and restoration projects. Rather, this assessment lays out the groundwork for a second phase of assessment that bridges the gap between identifying major areas for action and conducting specific projects. Topics included are preliminary analysis of existing data, GIS base map and baseline information, historical habitat conditions, channel habitat typing, fisheries resource and habitat assessment, channel modifications, sediment sources, riparian and wetland conditions, water quality, water use and hydrology, refugia, watershed condition, data gaps, significant legal and public issues, prioritized preservation and restoration, opportunities, and GIS metadata. Close

• 73. [Article] NF - Effect of Bull Trout and Brook Trout Interactions on Foraging Habitat, Feeding Behavior, and Growth

  Abstract -- Observations of free-ranging sympatric bull trout Salvelinus confluentus and nonnative brook trout S. fontinalis in two eastern Oregon headwater streams provided little evidence of habitat ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: NF - Effect of Bull Trout and Brook Trout Interactions on Foraging Habitat, Feeding Behavior, and Growth Abstract -- Observations of free-ranging sympatric bull trout Salvelinus confluentus and nonnative brook trout S. fontinalis in two eastern Oregon headwater streams provided little evidence of habitat partitioning. Both species held focal feeding points in similar microhabitats and fed primarily from the water column rather than from the surface or benthos. In an instream experiment, 20 enclosures were assigned one of three treatments: two bull trout, four bull trout, or a mix of two bull trout and two brook trout. In the enclosures, macroinvertebrate drift was restricted and trout densities were elevated, creating an environment of reduced food and habitat resources. Under these conditions, there was no indication of a niche shift by bull trout; feeding behavior and habitat use by bull trout did not differ depending on the presence or absence of brook trout. Brook trout in the mixed-species treatment were the most aggressive, maintained dominance in 75% of the enclosures, and exhibited significantly higher growth than sympatric bull trout. However, the effects of intra-and interspecific interactions on bull trout growth were equivalent. Given the absence of resource partitioning and a niche shift by bull trout in the presence of brook trout (despite obvious interference interactions), we suggest that the displacement of bull trout by brook trout is likely when resources are scarce. Title: NF - Effect of Bull Trout and Brook Trout Interactions on Foraging Habitat, Feeding Behavior, and Growth Abstract -- Observations of free-ranging sympatric bull trout Salvelinus confluentus and nonnative brook trout S. fontinalis in two eastern Oregon headwater streams provided little evidence of habitat partitioning. Both species held focal feeding points in similar microhabitats and fed primarily from the water column rather than from the surface or benthos. In an instream experiment, 20 enclosures were assigned one of three treatments: two bull trout, four bull trout, or a mix of two bull trout and two brook trout. In the enclosures, macroinvertebrate drift was restricted and trout densities were elevated, creating an environment of reduced food and habitat resources. Under these conditions, there was no indication of a niche shift by bull trout; feeding behavior and habitat use by bull trout did not differ depending on the presence or absence of brook trout. Brook trout in the mixed-species treatment were the most aggressive, maintained dominance in 75% of the enclosures, and exhibited significantly higher growth than sympatric bull trout. However, the effects of intra-and interspecific interactions on bull trout growth were equivalent. Given the absence of resource partitioning and a niche shift by bull trout in the presence of brook trout (despite obvious interference interactions), we suggest that the displacement of bull trout by brook trout is likely when resources are scarce. Close

• 74. [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

• 75. [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

• 76. [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

• 77. [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

• 78. [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

• 79. [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

• 80. [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

• 81. [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

• 82. [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

• 83. [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

• 84. [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

• 85. [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

• 86. [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

• 87. [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

• 88. [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

• 89. [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

• 90. [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

• 91. [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

• 92. [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

• 93. [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

• 94. [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

• 95. [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

• 96. [Image] Water rights in Oregon : an introduction to Oregon's water laws and water rights system

  	CONTENTS THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT 1c "To serve the public by practicing and promoting wise long-term water management. " 1.¨REGON WATER LAWS 22 water management in Oregon 2.°ATER PROTECTIONS ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water rights in Oregon : an introduction to Oregon's water laws and water rights system Author: Oregon. Water Resources Dept. Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT 1c "To serve the public by practicing and promoting wise long-term water management. " 1.¨REGON WATER LAWS 22 water management in Oregon 2.°ATER PROTECTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 262011 managing water appropriations 3.¨BTAINING NEW WATER RIGHTS 185 gaining authorization to use water 4.¨THER WATER RIGHTS 197 authorization for water use 5.­RANSFERRING WATER RIGHTS 1c1 existing rights for new uses 6.SANCELLING WATER RIGHTS 1c5 loss of water rights through non-use 7.SONSERVATION 1c8 encouraging efficient water use 8.xINDING WATER RIGHTS 1d1 determining if you have a water right 9.°ATER DISTRIBUTION AND ENFORCEMENT 1d2 watermasters and field staff protecting rights and resources 10.«EGION OFFICES AND WATERMASTER DISTRICTS 1d4 11.xEES 1d6 APPENDIX A 1d7 other development permits WATER RIGHTS IN OREGON Title: Water rights in Oregon : an introduction to Oregon's water laws and water rights system Author: Oregon. Water Resources Dept. Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT 1c "To serve the public by practicing and promoting wise long-term water management. " 1.¨REGON WATER LAWS 22 water management in Oregon 2.°ATER PROTECTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 262011 managing water appropriations 3.¨BTAINING NEW WATER RIGHTS 185 gaining authorization to use water 4.¨THER WATER RIGHTS 197 authorization for water use 5.­RANSFERRING WATER RIGHTS 1c1 existing rights for new uses 6.SANCELLING WATER RIGHTS 1c5 loss of water rights through non-use 7.SONSERVATION 1c8 encouraging efficient water use 8.xINDING WATER RIGHTS 1d1 determining if you have a water right 9.°ATER DISTRIBUTION AND ENFORCEMENT 1d2 watermasters and field staff protecting rights and resources 10.«EGION OFFICES AND WATERMASTER DISTRICTS 1d4 11.xEES 1d6 APPENDIX A 1d7 other development permits WATER RIGHTS IN OREGON Close

• 97. [Image] Klamath

  	An article summarizing the abundant natural resources of the Klamath region and the plans for irrigation and further settlement of the area
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Author: White, Frank Ira Year: 1906, 2004 An article summarizing the abundant natural resources of the Klamath region and the plans for irrigation and further settlement of the area Title: Klamath Author: White, Frank Ira Year: 1906, 2004 An article summarizing the abundant natural resources of the Klamath region and the plans for irrigation and further settlement of the area Close

• 98. [Image] The South Portal Project : creating a sense of arrival

  	"Holistic planning for Lake Ewauna & the south entry to the City of Klamath Falls"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The South Portal Project : creating a sense of arrival Author: Carpenter Design, Inc. Year: 2005 "Holistic planning for Lake Ewauna & the south entry to the City of Klamath Falls" Title: The South Portal Project : creating a sense of arrival Author: Carpenter Design, Inc. Year: 2005 "Holistic planning for Lake Ewauna & the south entry to the City of Klamath Falls" Close

• 99. [Image] Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 2

  	Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 2 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005, 2004 Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 2 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005, 2004 Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area Close

• 100. [Image] Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 1

  	Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 1 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005, 2004 Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 1 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005, 2004 Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area Close