Search

Search Results

• 341. [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

• 342. [Image] Investigation into methods to control algae in the Klamath River basin

  	KLAMATH RIVER COMPACT COMMISSION INVESTIGATION INTO METHODS TO CONTROL ALGAE IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN JUNE 1962 hairman H N. PHILLIPS Representative ). Box 3418 nd 8, Oregon ' five Director E. KUIPER D. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Investigation into methods to control algae in the Klamath River basin Author: Klamath River Compact Commission Year: 1962, 2005 KLAMATH RIVER COMPACT COMMISSION INVESTIGATION INTO METHODS TO CONTROL ALGAE IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN JUNE 1962 hairman H N. PHILLIPS Representative ). Box 3418 nd 8, Oregon ' five Director E. KUIPER D. Box 388 lto 2, California KLAMATH RIVER COMPACT COMMISSION 216 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON Address all Communications to the Executive Director P. O. Box 388 SACRAMENTO 2, CALIFORNIA Members WILLIAM E. WARNE Director of Water Resources State of California CHRIS L. WHEELER State Engineer State of Oregon Honorable Joseph A. Beek Secretary of the Senate State Capitol Sacramento, California Honorable Arthur A, Ohniraus Chief Clerk of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California Honorable Harry D, Boivin President of the Senate State Capitol Salem, Oregon Honorable Robert Duncan Speaker of the House State Capitol Salem, Oregon Gentlemen: Pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution No. 6, 1961 Session, California State Legislature, there is hereby transmitted to you a report entitled " Investigation Into Methods to Control Algae in the Klamath River Basin." Excessive algal growth in the Klamath River Basin is a natural phenomenon that has been present for many years. The life cycle of algae is short. They have a tendency to grow rapidly during the daylight hours and die during the hours of darkness. During the period of growth algae give off oxygen to the water and as they die and start to decompose they consume oxygen from the water thereby depleting the oxygen content of the water. As a mass of dead algae decomposes, it produces obnoxious odors to the extent of creating a nuisance. Extensive studies in progress throughout the world seek methods of controlling this algal growth. Although the algae problem in the Klamath River Basin has been present for many years, recreational use of the streams in the Klamath River Basin makes the problem increasingly more evident. With the increased use of the streams in the Klamath River Basin and more particularly the main Klamath River, more people are becoming aware of the nuisance problem. Pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution No. 6, 1961 Session, California State Legislature, and requests from the Water Pollution Control Agencies in both the States of California and Oregon, the Klamath River Compact Commission has made a study of the problem to determine what action could be taken to expedite the development of some method of control. The report attached hereto is the result of this investigation and is submitted for your Infor-mation and consideration. Sincerely yours, A. E. Kuiper Executive Director Attachment INVESTIGATION INTO METHODS TO CONTROL ALGAE IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN Pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution # 6, relative to pollution of the Klamath River, California State Legislature, 1961 Session, which is quoted in part as follows: " Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, THAT the legislature of the State of California respectfully request the United States and the State of Oregon to Join with the State of California in conducting a cooperative study of the problem existing on the Klamath River;..." and letters from the State Water Pollution Control Board of California and the Oregon State Sanitary Authority of Oregon dated June 22, 1961, and June 28, 1961, respectively, the Klamath River Compact Commission has under-taken a cooperative study of the pollution problem in the Klamath River Basin. The pollution problem in the Klamath River Basin, resulting from extensive growth of blue- green algae, first came to the attention of the Klamath River Compact Commission during negotiation of the compact. At that time the two state commissions supported a study of the problem from July 1, 1955, through June 30, 1956. Subsequently, from July 1, 1956, through June 30, 1958, the study was supported jointly by the Klamath County Court, the City of Klamath Falls and the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce. The study period was extended through a fourth year to June 30, 1959, at a some-what reduced rate of support. The study was confined in a large part to Klamath Lake, although there is also an algae problem at times in Copco Lake and Klamath River, and to a lesser degree its influent waters. A brief study was also made of the reservoirs and natural lakes in the surrounding territory and the extent of the pollution in the Klamath River was determined. The principal points that were investigated vere biology of the algae bloom, distribution of the bloom in the Klamath Basin, chemistry of influent waters, effect of the algal population of the effluent waters, distribution of bloom organisms in the area, detrimental effect arising from the presence of the bloom population including the aesthetic problem and the oxygen relations and control of the bloom. During the investigation it was learned that the physical features of the lake are ideal for production of algae. The great area of the lake provides an extensive trap for the conversion of radiant energy into plant material. The shallovness of the lake provides the possibility of nearly constant circulation of raw materials and organisms between top and bottom. This constant circulation and the uniform temperature from top to bottom of the lake combine to make nutrient released from the bottom by decomposition almost immediately available to the algal plants. It has been concluded that the limited funds that were available for this four- year study did not permit sufficient investigation to arrive at definite conclusions that could be submitted with respect to control of the algal growth in the Klamath River Basin. Senate Joint Resolution # 6 by the California State Legislature was considered and discussed by the Klamath River Compact Commission at their regular meeting on June 29, 1961. Representatives from public agencies and local interests were invited to attend and participate in the discussion of the algae problem. It was at this meeting that the California State Water Pollution Control Board and the Oregon State Sanitary Authority requested the Klamath River Compact Commission to coordinate any studies that might be developed with respect to SJR 6. The commission arranged for the convening of a meeting of interested agencies and technical people in the field of water quality to discuss the algae problem in the Klamath River Basin and to develop one or more approaches to carry out the Intent of Senate Joint Resolution # 6. Subsequent meetings with interested agencies and technical people in the field of water quality participating were held to discuss the algae problem in the Klamath River Basin and available published data with respect to blue- green algae were reviewed to obtain a better understanding of the problem. This was followed by a public meeting on October 10, 196l, for a thorough discussion of what action could be taken. Technical experts were also invited to this meeting to assist the commission in obtaining information and background. The meeting was held in Klamath Palls on October 10, 1961, and various ways of proceeding to investigate the Klamath River algae problem were discussed. It was finally concluded that with such a complex problem, the next step should be to arrange for the convening of a panel of experts to discuss the problem and submit recommendations to the commission on what action could be taken. The meeting was arranged and a panel of experts was assembled in Corvallis, Oregon, on February 19 and 20, 1962, consisting of: • Dr. W. T. Edmondson, Dept. of Zoology, Univ. of Washington, Seattle Dr. C. G. Golueke, Dept. of Sanitary Engineering, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley Dr. H. K. Phinney, Dept. of Botany, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Dr. C. E. Warren, Dept. of Fish and Game Management, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Mr. J. H. Wales, Dept. of Fish and Game Management, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Mr. J. N. Wilson, U. S. Public Health Service, Portland A report on the discussion by the panel was submitted by Professor Harry K. Phinney, dated March 12, 1962. A copy of this report is attached hereto as Attachment A for your Information. - 3- The purpose of the meeting was to develop one or more approaches to carry out the intent of Senate Joint Resolution # 6 approved by the 1961 session of the California State Legislature. The paragraphs that follow are submitted in consideration of this objective, and summarize the discussion by the panel of expert8 at Corvallis on February 19, 1962. The following points are called to your attention: 1. Chemical treatment to control algae in the Klamath River Basin would not be economically feasible and would be extremely dangerous. The risk of extensive damage to other resources within the basin would be very great. 2. Operations being carried on throughout the world by other agencies in an attempt to control blue- green algae are so extensive that any contribution that might be made by an investigation that could be financially supported by the commission would be relatively minute• 3. To take advantage of possible future discoveries in the field of chemical control agents, two types of information would be required: ( l) an economic study to establish the benefits to be derived from control and ( 2) a chemical and biological character-ization of the lake to determine whether future chemical discoveries permitting control of blue- green algae would be applicable to the problem In the Klamath Basin. 4. Control of algae by introduction of biological agents including daphnia is not feasible. 5. Harvesting of algae would require processing the total flow of the river if control was to be effective to any appreciable extent. Research has shown that an algae concentration equivalent to 200 or 300 parts per million of solid is required before harvesting is economically feasible. Klamath River waters have a much lower concentration than this. Also the blue- green algae in Klamath River has a potential toxic element that would be adverse to marketing the harvested product. 6. The vast area that is infested by algae in the Upper Klamath River Basin and the physiography of the area make it infeasible to control algae by elimination of the nutrient from the Klamath River Basin water. 7. The control of algal production by artificially reducing the light penetration in the Klamath Lake region was considered. It was concluded that in addition to the danger of the adverse effects such as increase in water temperature, the cost of an operation of this type would exceed those of control with chemicals. After a thorough discussion of the above seven items, during which other methods of control were touched on briefly and dismissed as being impractical, the discussion turned to what could be done at the present time with respect to algae in the Klamath River Basin that would be constructive. The panel considered that there were two types of information that were needed. One was an economic study to determine the value that would be obtained by controlling algae growth and the other was a study of the algae condition to learn enough about it so that when control measures are discovered by other research programs that are being carried on, it could be readily determined whether the control could be applied in the Klamath River Basin. The Kiamath River Compact Commission concluded that in general they concurred in the findings of the panel of experts. However, they felt that to make an economic study of the benefits that could be derived tram controlling algae In the Klamath River Basin at this tine would be premature. This type of study would be more practical when more Information is available on the physical effects and extent of control of the algae. A general llmnologlcal study to characterize the Klamath River drainage basin both chemically and biologically would be beneficial. It was noted that the Executive Board of the Water Resources Research Institute at Oregon State University has such a program under consideration at the present time. It was also indicated by the panel that to operate effectively such a study should be supported by a national Institute of Health or a National Science Foundation grant. It was concluded by the commission that the appropriate action to be taken at this time would be to support the proposal of the Executive Board of the Water Resources Research Institute at Oregon State University to establish a cooperative study to examine the fundamental limnology of the entire Klamath drainage system. It was further concluded that if and when a method of control of algae is developed, the Klamath River Compact Commission again consider the possibility of an economic study to determine the benefits to be derived from such control of algae in the Klamath River Basin. Attachment OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY Corvallis, Oregon School of Science March 12, 1962 Klamath River Compact Comaisslon A. E. Kuiper, Executive Director P. 0. Box 388 Sacramento 2, California Gentlemen: Pursuant to the request of the Compact Commission, a panel of experienced aquatic biologists was convened at Corvallis on February 19th. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss possible future action that might be taken by the Commission with respect to the problem of over- abundant production of blue- green algae in the waters of the Klamath River drainage basin. Present at the meeting on February 19th were: Dr. W. T. Edmondson, Dept. of Zoology, Univ. of Washington, Seattle Dr. C. G. Golueke, Dept. of Sanitary Engineering, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley Dr. H. K. Phinney, Dept. of Botany, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Mr. J. H. Wales, Dept. of Fish and Game Management, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Dr. C. E. Warren, Dept. of Fish and Game Management, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Mr. J. N. Wilson, U. S. Public Health Service, Portland Representing the Commission were: Mr. 0. L. Abbott Mr. A. E. Kuiper Mr. Lewis Stanley Mr. C. L. Wheeler The major portion of the discussion was completed on the 19th; however, further consideration of the extent and form of these recommendations occurred at a meeting of the panel of consultants on the 20th. Below in brief form, omitting the detailed discussion, is the consensus of the panel. I. Chemical control of the production of algae. A. Chemical treatment of Upper Klamath Lake and of the marshes draining into the Lake with any of the known chemical materials would appear to be not only uneconomic, but in the present stage of knowledge of the chemistry and biology of the basin, extremely dangerous. The probability of extensive damage to the resource arising from injury to desirable organisms living in, on, or about the Lake, or to organisms receiving water through the irrigation system, is very great. B. It was concluded that the contribution that night be made by the Commission by supporting intensive investigations designed to discover a suitable chemical control agent is extremely problematical and would moreover be dwarfed by the extensive parallel operations already sponsored by a number of other agencies. C. It was further concluded that it will be necessazy to have two types of information in order to take Immediate advantage of possible future discoveries in the rapidly developing field of chemical control agents. An economic study is needed to establish the economic necessity for, and the benefits that would be derived from, any type of control problem. In addition a chemical and biological characterization of the Lake is needed to allow intelligent selection of agents that might be available. II. Control of algal production by the introduction of biological agents. A. The algal problem has existed in Upper Klamath Lake for a considerable number of years without any evidence that any biological agent can make a significant reduction in the numbers of nuisance organisms. B. The suggestion that Daphnla, introduced in large numbers, might effect a reduction in the population of Aphanizomenon is definitely contra-indicated by three observations. 1. Daphnia has long been present in the Lake and there is no evidence that they presently exert a control on the numbers of nuisance organisms. 2. Research elsewhere has shown that Daphnia is unable to ingest the filaments of Aphanizomenon effectively. 3. If there were an aquatic organism living in this kind of water anywhere in the world, successfully utilizing these blue- green algae for food, it is to be expected that they would be known and put into use by now. III. Removal of the algae by harvesting. A. It must be pointed out that harvesting the algae from the lake water would make but a very minor reduction In the quantity of algae in the Lake and in the River, and only if the total outflow were processed would the problem be alleviated to any extent in the River. B. Research has proven that the cost of equipment and power dictate that to harvest algae for an animal feed supplement the algae must be present at a concentration equivalent to 200- 300 parts per million of solids to allow their separation by centrifugation. As this concentration exceeds the maximum occurring in Klamath Lake by several times, and since the organisms in the Lake possess a demonstrable toxic element, the product would be of necessity cost more to harvest and would not have the market value to make harvesting economic at the present time. IV. Control of algal productivity by elimination of nutrient. The opinion of the panel was that the diffuse nature of the nutrient sources militates against the successful application of this approach. In the cases where this method has been successfully applied the sources of enrich-ment have been man made, easily defined and easily intercepted. In fact, they were detected because the normal ecology of the lakes in question was being disturbed. In Klamath Lake this approach, even if otherwise feasible, promises to interfere with the natural high productivity of the basin and could result in severe economic repercussions. V. Control of algal production by artificially reducing light penetration. A discussion of the possibility of reducing light penetration by l) introduction of dye materials, 2) introduction of inert suspended solids, and 3) stirring the bottom sediments, led to the conclusion that in addition to the danger of such side effects as increase in water temperature to be expected from such operations, there is a very great probability that the costs would even exceed those of control with chemicals. The consensus was against recommending a study of this type of control. The discussions of the panel made it clear that if the Compact Commission feels compelled to embark on a program to investigate the Lake and/ or the feasibility of methods of algal control it should be understood that in the present state of knowledge the studies would have to be supported for a period of a good many years at a level of approximately $ 50,000 a year without any real promise that control would be forthcoming. Following the discussion of these proposals the attention of the panel turned to consideration of recommendations for positive action that could be placed before the Compact Commission. I. An economic study of the water resources of the Klamath drainage. Repeatedly during the discussions of the panel the desirability of an economic study was emphasized. There is a necessity of placing in proper perspective the present and projected valuations that can be assigned to the resource in its various applications. The knowledge to be obtained from such a study would be of great value ( l) in the deliberations of the Compact Commission and other government agencies concerned with the desirability of, or economic necessity for, support of studies of methods of control; ( 2) in determining the economic feasibility of any control program that might become available in the future; ( 3) in establishing the changes in the value of the resource that would result from the institution of new plans for developing the resource. It is the opinion of the panel that the Compact Commission could obtain this information from a study of a year or two in duration. The probable cost of the study was estimated to be $ 50,000. II. A general limnological study to characterize the Lake and associated drainage system. As conceived by the panel, this study would consist of an examination of the fundamental limnology of the entire drainage system. It would not channel effort into looking for methods of control. In order to operate effectively this project should be free of all political pressure and there-fore should be supported under an N. I. H. or H. S. F. grant. It was recognized that the magnitude of the problem would require expenditure of approximately $ 50,000 a year for an indefinite period to allow satisfactory investigation of all facets of the problem. One item is included here which, although not a matter discussed by the panel, was a direct outcome of the panel's discussions. The Executive Board of the Water Resources Research Institute at Oregon State University met a day or two later and recommended the Institute support a move to establish a cooperative project that would have as its objective the above- mentioned limnological study. A meeting of a group of potential cooperators was held on the 28th of February at which a tentative plan of action was outlined. There is every reason to believe that this group will actively prosecute the plans outlined with the result that the study outline under II above will be supported. Respectfully submitted, / s/ Harry K. Phinney Harry K. Phinney Associate Professor of Botany Title: Investigation into methods to control algae in the Klamath River basin Author: Klamath River Compact Commission Year: 1962, 2005 KLAMATH RIVER COMPACT COMMISSION INVESTIGATION INTO METHODS TO CONTROL ALGAE IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN JUNE 1962 hairman H N. PHILLIPS Representative ). Box 3418 nd 8, Oregon ' five Director E. KUIPER D. Box 388 lto 2, California KLAMATH RIVER COMPACT COMMISSION 216 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON Address all Communications to the Executive Director P. O. Box 388 SACRAMENTO 2, CALIFORNIA Members WILLIAM E. WARNE Director of Water Resources State of California CHRIS L. WHEELER State Engineer State of Oregon Honorable Joseph A. Beek Secretary of the Senate State Capitol Sacramento, California Honorable Arthur A, Ohniraus Chief Clerk of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California Honorable Harry D, Boivin President of the Senate State Capitol Salem, Oregon Honorable Robert Duncan Speaker of the House State Capitol Salem, Oregon Gentlemen: Pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution No. 6, 1961 Session, California State Legislature, there is hereby transmitted to you a report entitled " Investigation Into Methods to Control Algae in the Klamath River Basin." Excessive algal growth in the Klamath River Basin is a natural phenomenon that has been present for many years. The life cycle of algae is short. They have a tendency to grow rapidly during the daylight hours and die during the hours of darkness. During the period of growth algae give off oxygen to the water and as they die and start to decompose they consume oxygen from the water thereby depleting the oxygen content of the water. As a mass of dead algae decomposes, it produces obnoxious odors to the extent of creating a nuisance. Extensive studies in progress throughout the world seek methods of controlling this algal growth. Although the algae problem in the Klamath River Basin has been present for many years, recreational use of the streams in the Klamath River Basin makes the problem increasingly more evident. With the increased use of the streams in the Klamath River Basin and more particularly the main Klamath River, more people are becoming aware of the nuisance problem. Pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution No. 6, 1961 Session, California State Legislature, and requests from the Water Pollution Control Agencies in both the States of California and Oregon, the Klamath River Compact Commission has made a study of the problem to determine what action could be taken to expedite the development of some method of control. The report attached hereto is the result of this investigation and is submitted for your Infor-mation and consideration. Sincerely yours, A. E. Kuiper Executive Director Attachment INVESTIGATION INTO METHODS TO CONTROL ALGAE IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN Pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution # 6, relative to pollution of the Klamath River, California State Legislature, 1961 Session, which is quoted in part as follows: " Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, THAT the legislature of the State of California respectfully request the United States and the State of Oregon to Join with the State of California in conducting a cooperative study of the problem existing on the Klamath River;..." and letters from the State Water Pollution Control Board of California and the Oregon State Sanitary Authority of Oregon dated June 22, 1961, and June 28, 1961, respectively, the Klamath River Compact Commission has under-taken a cooperative study of the pollution problem in the Klamath River Basin. The pollution problem in the Klamath River Basin, resulting from extensive growth of blue- green algae, first came to the attention of the Klamath River Compact Commission during negotiation of the compact. At that time the two state commissions supported a study of the problem from July 1, 1955, through June 30, 1956. Subsequently, from July 1, 1956, through June 30, 1958, the study was supported jointly by the Klamath County Court, the City of Klamath Falls and the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce. The study period was extended through a fourth year to June 30, 1959, at a some-what reduced rate of support. The study was confined in a large part to Klamath Lake, although there is also an algae problem at times in Copco Lake and Klamath River, and to a lesser degree its influent waters. A brief study was also made of the reservoirs and natural lakes in the surrounding territory and the extent of the pollution in the Klamath River was determined. The principal points that were investigated vere biology of the algae bloom, distribution of the bloom in the Klamath Basin, chemistry of influent waters, effect of the algal population of the effluent waters, distribution of bloom organisms in the area, detrimental effect arising from the presence of the bloom population including the aesthetic problem and the oxygen relations and control of the bloom. During the investigation it was learned that the physical features of the lake are ideal for production of algae. The great area of the lake provides an extensive trap for the conversion of radiant energy into plant material. The shallovness of the lake provides the possibility of nearly constant circulation of raw materials and organisms between top and bottom. This constant circulation and the uniform temperature from top to bottom of the lake combine to make nutrient released from the bottom by decomposition almost immediately available to the algal plants. It has been concluded that the limited funds that were available for this four- year study did not permit sufficient investigation to arrive at definite conclusions that could be submitted with respect to control of the algal growth in the Klamath River Basin. Senate Joint Resolution # 6 by the California State Legislature was considered and discussed by the Klamath River Compact Commission at their regular meeting on June 29, 1961. Representatives from public agencies and local interests were invited to attend and participate in the discussion of the algae problem. It was at this meeting that the California State Water Pollution Control Board and the Oregon State Sanitary Authority requested the Klamath River Compact Commission to coordinate any studies that might be developed with respect to SJR 6. The commission arranged for the convening of a meeting of interested agencies and technical people in the field of water quality to discuss the algae problem in the Klamath River Basin and to develop one or more approaches to carry out the Intent of Senate Joint Resolution # 6. Subsequent meetings with interested agencies and technical people in the field of water quality participating were held to discuss the algae problem in the Klamath River Basin and available published data with respect to blue- green algae were reviewed to obtain a better understanding of the problem. This was followed by a public meeting on October 10, 196l, for a thorough discussion of what action could be taken. Technical experts were also invited to this meeting to assist the commission in obtaining information and background. The meeting was held in Klamath Palls on October 10, 1961, and various ways of proceeding to investigate the Klamath River algae problem were discussed. It was finally concluded that with such a complex problem, the next step should be to arrange for the convening of a panel of experts to discuss the problem and submit recommendations to the commission on what action could be taken. The meeting was arranged and a panel of experts was assembled in Corvallis, Oregon, on February 19 and 20, 1962, consisting of: • Dr. W. T. Edmondson, Dept. of Zoology, Univ. of Washington, Seattle Dr. C. G. Golueke, Dept. of Sanitary Engineering, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley Dr. H. K. Phinney, Dept. of Botany, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Dr. C. E. Warren, Dept. of Fish and Game Management, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Mr. J. H. Wales, Dept. of Fish and Game Management, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Mr. J. N. Wilson, U. S. Public Health Service, Portland A report on the discussion by the panel was submitted by Professor Harry K. Phinney, dated March 12, 1962. A copy of this report is attached hereto as Attachment A for your Information. - 3- The purpose of the meeting was to develop one or more approaches to carry out the intent of Senate Joint Resolution # 6 approved by the 1961 session of the California State Legislature. The paragraphs that follow are submitted in consideration of this objective, and summarize the discussion by the panel of expert8 at Corvallis on February 19, 1962. The following points are called to your attention: 1. Chemical treatment to control algae in the Klamath River Basin would not be economically feasible and would be extremely dangerous. The risk of extensive damage to other resources within the basin would be very great. 2. Operations being carried on throughout the world by other agencies in an attempt to control blue- green algae are so extensive that any contribution that might be made by an investigation that could be financially supported by the commission would be relatively minute• 3. To take advantage of possible future discoveries in the field of chemical control agents, two types of information would be required: ( l) an economic study to establish the benefits to be derived from control and ( 2) a chemical and biological character-ization of the lake to determine whether future chemical discoveries permitting control of blue- green algae would be applicable to the problem In the Klamath Basin. 4. Control of algae by introduction of biological agents including daphnia is not feasible. 5. Harvesting of algae would require processing the total flow of the river if control was to be effective to any appreciable extent. Research has shown that an algae concentration equivalent to 200 or 300 parts per million of solid is required before harvesting is economically feasible. Klamath River waters have a much lower concentration than this. Also the blue- green algae in Klamath River has a potential toxic element that would be adverse to marketing the harvested product. 6. The vast area that is infested by algae in the Upper Klamath River Basin and the physiography of the area make it infeasible to control algae by elimination of the nutrient from the Klamath River Basin water. 7. The control of algal production by artificially reducing the light penetration in the Klamath Lake region was considered. It was concluded that in addition to the danger of the adverse effects such as increase in water temperature, the cost of an operation of this type would exceed those of control with chemicals. After a thorough discussion of the above seven items, during which other methods of control were touched on briefly and dismissed as being impractical, the discussion turned to what could be done at the present time with respect to algae in the Klamath River Basin that would be constructive. The panel considered that there were two types of information that were needed. One was an economic study to determine the value that would be obtained by controlling algae growth and the other was a study of the algae condition to learn enough about it so that when control measures are discovered by other research programs that are being carried on, it could be readily determined whether the control could be applied in the Klamath River Basin. The Kiamath River Compact Commission concluded that in general they concurred in the findings of the panel of experts. However, they felt that to make an economic study of the benefits that could be derived tram controlling algae In the Klamath River Basin at this tine would be premature. This type of study would be more practical when more Information is available on the physical effects and extent of control of the algae. A general llmnologlcal study to characterize the Klamath River drainage basin both chemically and biologically would be beneficial. It was noted that the Executive Board of the Water Resources Research Institute at Oregon State University has such a program under consideration at the present time. It was also indicated by the panel that to operate effectively such a study should be supported by a national Institute of Health or a National Science Foundation grant. It was concluded by the commission that the appropriate action to be taken at this time would be to support the proposal of the Executive Board of the Water Resources Research Institute at Oregon State University to establish a cooperative study to examine the fundamental limnology of the entire Klamath drainage system. It was further concluded that if and when a method of control of algae is developed, the Klamath River Compact Commission again consider the possibility of an economic study to determine the benefits to be derived from such control of algae in the Klamath River Basin. Attachment OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY Corvallis, Oregon School of Science March 12, 1962 Klamath River Compact Comaisslon A. E. Kuiper, Executive Director P. 0. Box 388 Sacramento 2, California Gentlemen: Pursuant to the request of the Compact Commission, a panel of experienced aquatic biologists was convened at Corvallis on February 19th. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss possible future action that might be taken by the Commission with respect to the problem of over- abundant production of blue- green algae in the waters of the Klamath River drainage basin. Present at the meeting on February 19th were: Dr. W. T. Edmondson, Dept. of Zoology, Univ. of Washington, Seattle Dr. C. G. Golueke, Dept. of Sanitary Engineering, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley Dr. H. K. Phinney, Dept. of Botany, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Mr. J. H. Wales, Dept. of Fish and Game Management, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Dr. C. E. Warren, Dept. of Fish and Game Management, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Mr. J. N. Wilson, U. S. Public Health Service, Portland Representing the Commission were: Mr. 0. L. Abbott Mr. A. E. Kuiper Mr. Lewis Stanley Mr. C. L. Wheeler The major portion of the discussion was completed on the 19th; however, further consideration of the extent and form of these recommendations occurred at a meeting of the panel of consultants on the 20th. Below in brief form, omitting the detailed discussion, is the consensus of the panel. I. Chemical control of the production of algae. A. Chemical treatment of Upper Klamath Lake and of the marshes draining into the Lake with any of the known chemical materials would appear to be not only uneconomic, but in the present stage of knowledge of the chemistry and biology of the basin, extremely dangerous. The probability of extensive damage to the resource arising from injury to desirable organisms living in, on, or about the Lake, or to organisms receiving water through the irrigation system, is very great. B. It was concluded that the contribution that night be made by the Commission by supporting intensive investigations designed to discover a suitable chemical control agent is extremely problematical and would moreover be dwarfed by the extensive parallel operations already sponsored by a number of other agencies. C. It was further concluded that it will be necessazy to have two types of information in order to take Immediate advantage of possible future discoveries in the rapidly developing field of chemical control agents. An economic study is needed to establish the economic necessity for, and the benefits that would be derived from, any type of control problem. In addition a chemical and biological characterization of the Lake is needed to allow intelligent selection of agents that might be available. II. Control of algal production by the introduction of biological agents. A. The algal problem has existed in Upper Klamath Lake for a considerable number of years without any evidence that any biological agent can make a significant reduction in the numbers of nuisance organisms. B. The suggestion that Daphnla, introduced in large numbers, might effect a reduction in the population of Aphanizomenon is definitely contra-indicated by three observations. 1. Daphnia has long been present in the Lake and there is no evidence that they presently exert a control on the numbers of nuisance organisms. 2. Research elsewhere has shown that Daphnia is unable to ingest the filaments of Aphanizomenon effectively. 3. If there were an aquatic organism living in this kind of water anywhere in the world, successfully utilizing these blue- green algae for food, it is to be expected that they would be known and put into use by now. III. Removal of the algae by harvesting. A. It must be pointed out that harvesting the algae from the lake water would make but a very minor reduction In the quantity of algae in the Lake and in the River, and only if the total outflow were processed would the problem be alleviated to any extent in the River. B. Research has proven that the cost of equipment and power dictate that to harvest algae for an animal feed supplement the algae must be present at a concentration equivalent to 200- 300 parts per million of solids to allow their separation by centrifugation. As this concentration exceeds the maximum occurring in Klamath Lake by several times, and since the organisms in the Lake possess a demonstrable toxic element, the product would be of necessity cost more to harvest and would not have the market value to make harvesting economic at the present time. IV. Control of algal productivity by elimination of nutrient. The opinion of the panel was that the diffuse nature of the nutrient sources militates against the successful application of this approach. In the cases where this method has been successfully applied the sources of enrich-ment have been man made, easily defined and easily intercepted. In fact, they were detected because the normal ecology of the lakes in question was being disturbed. In Klamath Lake this approach, even if otherwise feasible, promises to interfere with the natural high productivity of the basin and could result in severe economic repercussions. V. Control of algal production by artificially reducing light penetration. A discussion of the possibility of reducing light penetration by l) introduction of dye materials, 2) introduction of inert suspended solids, and 3) stirring the bottom sediments, led to the conclusion that in addition to the danger of such side effects as increase in water temperature to be expected from such operations, there is a very great probability that the costs would even exceed those of control with chemicals. The consensus was against recommending a study of this type of control. The discussions of the panel made it clear that if the Compact Commission feels compelled to embark on a program to investigate the Lake and/ or the feasibility of methods of algal control it should be understood that in the present state of knowledge the studies would have to be supported for a period of a good many years at a level of approximately $ 50,000 a year without any real promise that control would be forthcoming. Following the discussion of these proposals the attention of the panel turned to consideration of recommendations for positive action that could be placed before the Compact Commission. I. An economic study of the water resources of the Klamath drainage. Repeatedly during the discussions of the panel the desirability of an economic study was emphasized. There is a necessity of placing in proper perspective the present and projected valuations that can be assigned to the resource in its various applications. The knowledge to be obtained from such a study would be of great value ( l) in the deliberations of the Compact Commission and other government agencies concerned with the desirability of, or economic necessity for, support of studies of methods of control; ( 2) in determining the economic feasibility of any control program that might become available in the future; ( 3) in establishing the changes in the value of the resource that would result from the institution of new plans for developing the resource. It is the opinion of the panel that the Compact Commission could obtain this information from a study of a year or two in duration. The probable cost of the study was estimated to be $ 50,000. II. A general limnological study to characterize the Lake and associated drainage system. As conceived by the panel, this study would consist of an examination of the fundamental limnology of the entire drainage system. It would not channel effort into looking for methods of control. In order to operate effectively this project should be free of all political pressure and there-fore should be supported under an N. I. H. or H. S. F. grant. It was recognized that the magnitude of the problem would require expenditure of approximately $ 50,000 a year for an indefinite period to allow satisfactory investigation of all facets of the problem. One item is included here which, although not a matter discussed by the panel, was a direct outcome of the panel's discussions. The Executive Board of the Water Resources Research Institute at Oregon State University met a day or two later and recommended the Institute support a move to establish a cooperative project that would have as its objective the above- mentioned limnological study. A meeting of a group of potential cooperators was held on the 28th of February at which a tentative plan of action was outlined. There is every reason to believe that this group will actively prosecute the plans outlined with the result that the study outline under II above will be supported. Respectfully submitted, / s/ Harry K. Phinney Harry K. Phinney Associate Professor of Botany Close

• 343. [Image] An investigation into the comparative utility of color infrared aerial photography and LANDSAT data for detailed surface cover type mapping within Crater Lake National Park, Oregon

  	ill., maps; Typescript (photocopy); Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1978; Includes bibliographical references
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: An investigation into the comparative utility of color infrared aerial photography and LANDSAT data for detailed surface cover type mapping within Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Walsh, Stephen Joseph, Year: 1977, 2009 ill., maps; Typescript (photocopy); Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1978; Includes bibliographical references Title: An investigation into the comparative utility of color infrared aerial photography and LANDSAT data for detailed surface cover type mapping within Crater Lake National Park, Oregon Author: Walsh, Stephen Joseph, Year: 1977, 2009 ill., maps; Typescript (photocopy); Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1978; Includes bibliographical references Close

• 344. [Image] Annual project history and O. & M. report of the Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1931

  	Information Of Interest Source of water supply: Upper Klamath Lake, Lost River and Clear Lake. Area of drainage basin: 3,700 square miles. Length of irrigation season: From April 15 to September ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Annual project history and O. & M. report of the Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1931 Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1931, 2008, 2006 Information Of Interest Source of water supply: Upper Klamath Lake, Lost River and Clear Lake. Area of drainage basin: 3,700 square miles. Length of irrigation season: From April 15 to September 30 - 168 days. Average elevation of irrigable area: 4,100 feet above sea level. Average annual rainfall on irrigable area: 12.7 inches. Average of recorded temperatures, 12 years: highest 97, lowest -4 F Character of soil of irragable area: Disintegrated basalt, volcanic ash, and diatomaceous eart, being largely classifid as Yakima sandy loam. Principal products: Alfalfa, hay, grain and vegetables; stock,poultry, and dairy products. Principa; markets: Portland Oregon; Sacramento and San Francisco, Ca. Limit of area of farm units: 160 acres. The irrigation plan of the Klamath Project provides for the storage of water in Upper Klamath Lake, lying just North of Klamath Falls, Oregon, and in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, at the head of Lost River. Water for lands in Langell Valley and in the vicinity of Bonanza will be supplied from Clear Lake Reservoir and from Gerber Reservoir. Water for all other lands will be supplied from Klamath Lake. Water is diverted from the outlet of Upper Klamath Lake just above the Link River Dam, into the "A" Canal which extends nine miles in a southeasterly direction, and supplies the canals on both sides of Lost River. Water for the Tule Lake lands, which are served by the "J" Canal, is discharged into Lost River from the C-G Canal and from this point to the diversion dam two miles southeast of Merrill; Lost River being used as a carrier. At the diversion dam, the water is diverted into the "J" Canal. One of the principal features of the Klamath Project is the reclamation of the lands in the bed of Tule Lake. These lands are being reclaimed in a double sense: first, by causing the waater recede and, second, by constructing irrigation works to irrigate the lands uncovered. The lowering of the water surface in Tule Lake is being brought about by evaporation from the lake itself and by preventing inflow. The works designed to prevent inflow consists of Clear Lake Reservaoir, and the Lost River diversion canal. Clear Lake Reservoir is located at the head of Lost River and stops the flood waters coming in from abouve. Flood waters coming in Lost River below Clear Lake are diverted from Lost River int the Klamath River through the diversion canal. The works designed to provede irrigation service for the uncovered lands consist of a diversion dam on Lost River tow miles southeast of Merrill, the "J" Canal and lateral system. The Keno Canal has been constructed on the West side of Link River and extends from the Link River Dam to a point about one mile below; the river in this distance makes a drop of about 50 feet. The Keno Canal was designed to develop power and to supply water for irrigation to lands on the west of Klamath River, also, to the marsh lands around Lower Klamath Lake. Irrigation from the Keno Canal has now been abandoned and the United States has installed no power plant. The Keno Canal has been leased to the California-Oregon Power Company. The Pricipal features of the project are the Clear Lake Reservoir, the Gerber Reservoir, the Link River Dam, the Main "A" Canal with a tunnel 3300 feet long, the precast concrete flume 4300 feet long on the "C" Canal, the di2 diversion dams on the Lost River, the Lost River pipe lines on the C-G Canal and the main canals and laterals and 128 miles of open drains. Irrigation service may now be provided for about 101,000 acres or irrigable land. Title: Annual project history and O. & M. report of the Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1931 Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1931, 2008, 2006 Information Of Interest Source of water supply: Upper Klamath Lake, Lost River and Clear Lake. Area of drainage basin: 3,700 square miles. Length of irrigation season: From April 15 to September 30 - 168 days. Average elevation of irrigable area: 4,100 feet above sea level. Average annual rainfall on irrigable area: 12.7 inches. Average of recorded temperatures, 12 years: highest 97, lowest -4 F Character of soil of irragable area: Disintegrated basalt, volcanic ash, and diatomaceous eart, being largely classifid as Yakima sandy loam. Principal products: Alfalfa, hay, grain and vegetables; stock,poultry, and dairy products. Principa; markets: Portland Oregon; Sacramento and San Francisco, Ca. Limit of area of farm units: 160 acres. The irrigation plan of the Klamath Project provides for the storage of water in Upper Klamath Lake, lying just North of Klamath Falls, Oregon, and in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, at the head of Lost River. Water for lands in Langell Valley and in the vicinity of Bonanza will be supplied from Clear Lake Reservoir and from Gerber Reservoir. Water for all other lands will be supplied from Klamath Lake. Water is diverted from the outlet of Upper Klamath Lake just above the Link River Dam, into the "A" Canal which extends nine miles in a southeasterly direction, and supplies the canals on both sides of Lost River. Water for the Tule Lake lands, which are served by the "J" Canal, is discharged into Lost River from the C-G Canal and from this point to the diversion dam two miles southeast of Merrill; Lost River being used as a carrier. At the diversion dam, the water is diverted into the "J" Canal. One of the principal features of the Klamath Project is the reclamation of the lands in the bed of Tule Lake. These lands are being reclaimed in a double sense: first, by causing the waater recede and, second, by constructing irrigation works to irrigate the lands uncovered. The lowering of the water surface in Tule Lake is being brought about by evaporation from the lake itself and by preventing inflow. The works designed to prevent inflow consists of Clear Lake Reservaoir, and the Lost River diversion canal. Clear Lake Reservoir is located at the head of Lost River and stops the flood waters coming in from abouve. Flood waters coming in Lost River below Clear Lake are diverted from Lost River int the Klamath River through the diversion canal. The works designed to provede irrigation service for the uncovered lands consist of a diversion dam on Lost River tow miles southeast of Merrill, the "J" Canal and lateral system. The Keno Canal has been constructed on the West side of Link River and extends from the Link River Dam to a point about one mile below; the river in this distance makes a drop of about 50 feet. The Keno Canal was designed to develop power and to supply water for irrigation to lands on the west of Klamath River, also, to the marsh lands around Lower Klamath Lake. Irrigation from the Keno Canal has now been abandoned and the United States has installed no power plant. The Keno Canal has been leased to the California-Oregon Power Company. The Pricipal features of the project are the Clear Lake Reservoir, the Gerber Reservoir, the Link River Dam, the Main "A" Canal with a tunnel 3300 feet long, the precast concrete flume 4300 feet long on the "C" Canal, the di2 diversion dams on the Lost River, the Lost River pipe lines on the C-G Canal and the main canals and laterals and 128 miles of open drains. Irrigation service may now be provided for about 101,000 acres or irrigable land. Close

• 345. [Image] Crater Lake limnological studies 1988 annual report

  	1982-2002; ill.; Includes bibliographic references; Issues lack volume numbering;
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Crater Lake limnological studies 1988 annual report Year: 1989, 2009, 2010 1982-2002; ill.; Includes bibliographic references; Issues lack volume numbering; Title: Crater Lake limnological studies 1988 annual report Year: 1989, 2009, 2010 1982-2002; ill.; Includes bibliographic references; Issues lack volume numbering; Close

• 346. [Image] Crater Lake limnological studies 1989 annual report

  	1982-2002; ill.; Includes bibliographic references; Issues lack volume numbering;
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Crater Lake limnological studies 1989 annual report Year: 1990, 2009, 2010 1982-2002; ill.; Includes bibliographic references; Issues lack volume numbering; Title: Crater Lake limnological studies 1989 annual report Year: 1990, 2009, 2010 1982-2002; ill.; Includes bibliographic references; Issues lack volume numbering; Close

• 347. [Image] Report of the Secretary of the Interior under Section 7 of Public Law 100-443 on the presence or absence of significant thermal features within Crater Lake National Park

  	ill.; "September, 1992."; Includes bibliographical references
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Report of the Secretary of the Interior under Section 7 of Public Law 100-443 on the presence or absence of significant thermal features within Crater Lake National Park Author: [United States. Dept. of Interior. Office of the Secretary.] Year: 1992, 2008 ill.; "September, 1992."; Includes bibliographical references Title: Report of the Secretary of the Interior under Section 7 of Public Law 100-443 on the presence or absence of significant thermal features within Crater Lake National Park Author: [United States. Dept. of Interior. Office of the Secretary.] Year: 1992, 2008 ill.; "September, 1992."; Includes bibliographical references Close

• 348. [Image] The energy budget of a pumice desert

  	Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1973; ill.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The energy budget of a pumice desert Author: Holbo, Harold Richard Year: 1972, 2008 Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1973; ill. Title: The energy budget of a pumice desert Author: Holbo, Harold Richard Year: 1972, 2008 Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1973; ill. Close

• 349. [Image] A new model for the formation of Crater Lake Caldera, Oregon

  	ill. (some col.), maps ; Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1972; Includes bibliographical references
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A new model for the formation of Crater Lake Caldera, Oregon Author: Lidstrom, John Walter Year: 1972, 2008 ill. (some col.), maps ; Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1972; Includes bibliographical references Title: A new model for the formation of Crater Lake Caldera, Oregon Author: Lidstrom, John Walter Year: 1972, 2008 ill. (some col.), maps ; Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1972; Includes bibliographical references Close

• 350. [Image] Crater Lake limnological studies 1986 annual report

  	1982-2002; ill., maps; Title covers calendar years 1985-1987; CA 9000-3-0003 Subagreement 12; Includes bibliographic references; Issues lack volume numbering
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Crater Lake limnological studies 1986 annual report Author: Oregon State University; in collaboration with Crater Lake National Park Year: 1986, 2009 1982-2002; ill., maps; Title covers calendar years 1985-1987; CA 9000-3-0003 Subagreement 12; Includes bibliographic references; Issues lack volume numbering Title: Crater Lake limnological studies 1986 annual report Author: Oregon State University; in collaboration with Crater Lake National Park Year: 1986, 2009 1982-2002; ill., maps; Title covers calendar years 1985-1987; CA 9000-3-0003 Subagreement 12; Includes bibliographic references; Issues lack volume numbering Close