Search
Search Results
-
Abstract -- Bull trout have been adversely affected by many land, water, and fisheries management activities throughout the range of the species. Degraded and fragmented habitat and negative interactions with ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Abundance, Life History, and Distribution of Bull Trout in the Hood River Basin: A Summary of Findings from 2006 to 2009 Information Reports number 2010-01
Abstract -- Bull trout have been adversely affected by many land, water, and fisheries management activities throughout the range of the species. Degraded and fragmented habitat and negative interactions with nonnative fishes have led to a decline in bull trout distribution and abundance, several local extirpations, and a federal listing in 1998 as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2002). Distribution and abundance of bull trout also have declined in Oregon, and most management units in the state are considered to be threatened by conservation risks (ODFW 2005). One of these at-risk management units exists in the Hood River basin (ODFW 2005). Bull trout in Hood River basin currently are thought to exist as two independent reproductive units (USFWS 2002), known as local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1995). The Clear Branch local population was isolated from the rest of the basin by the construction of Clear Branch Dam in 1968. This dam provides limited downstream fish passage during periods of spill and no voluntary upstream passage. Bull trout in this population inhabit Laurance Lake reservoir and the tributaries Pinnacle Creek and upper Clear Branch, which flow into the reservoir. The Hood River local population is distributed in the mainstem Hood River, Middle Fork Hood River (Middle Fork), and a few Middle Fork tributaries. Fluvial migrants from Hood River basin also forage and winter in the Columbia River (Pribyl et al. 1996, Buchanan et al. 1997). Bull trout have been observed in the East and West Fork basins of the Hood River, but these sightings have been rare. Presently, there is little evidence to suggest local populations exist in these tributary basins (USFWS 2002, Reagan and Olsen 2008). The status of both local populations is extremely precarious. Threats that put the Clear Branch population at risk of extirpation include low abundance, negative interactions with illegally introduced smallmouth bass, isolation from upstream migration and immigration, and diminished spawning and rearing habitat (USFW 1998). The Hood River population also appears to be small and is affected by passage barriers, unscreened irrigation diversions, impaired water quality, and periodic debris flows during glacial outbursts (USFWS 1998). As mandated by their federally designated threatened status, recovery plans were drafted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for each distinct population segment, including for Hood River bull trout in 2002. This draft plan listed four goals for recovery in this basin: 1) establish at least one more local population in addition to the two existing populations, 2) increase the estimated adult population in the basin to at least 500 individuals, 3) achieve a stable or increasing trend at the population recovery level for at least two generations (=10 years), and 4) improve habitat connectivity by addressing problems with passage and screening at diversions and seasonal water quality barriers (USFWS 2002). The recovery plan also sets out research and monitoring needs critical to the recovery of these populations. Needed are accurate adult abundance estimates; a standardized monitoring program; more life history information for each local population, including how Hood River bull trout use of the Columbia River and the effects of potential passage obstructions on movement; and more information on the threat posed to the Clear Branch population by the illegal introduction of smallmouth bass in Lake Laurance reservoir. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), with the help of the USDA Forest Service (USFS), initiated a four-year study in 2006 seeking to address these needs by synthesizing available data and conducting further studies to improve our understanding of the abundance, life history, and potential limiting factors of bull trout in the Hood River recovery unit. This report describes our findings, summarizes previous studies in the context of new information, and recommends a standardized monitoring protocol and future research. Our specific study objectives were as follows: 1. Assess adult abundance of the Clear Branch local population and develop a monitoring protocol to track abundance trends that is statistically reliable, cost-effective, and that minimizes potential adverse effects on this small isolated population. 2. Describe the juvenile and adult life history patterns of the Clear Branch local population. 3. Assess the potential impact of smallmouth bass on bull trout in Laurance Lake reservoir. 4. Determine current distribution of bull trout reproduction and early rearing in potential bull trout streams in the Hood River basin. 5. Describe the migratory life history of Hood River bull trout and assess the potential impacts of Coe Diversion and two new falls on the Middle Fork Hood River (scoured by the November 2006 glacial outburst) on bull trout migrations.
-
62. [Article] Oregon North Coast Spring Chinook Stock Assessment – 2005-06 Information Reports 2008-01
Abstract -- Chinook salmon populations of the Oregon coast exhibit two general life history types, classified as either spring-run or fall-run depending on adult life-history traits. Fall chinook are present ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Oregon North Coast Spring Chinook Stock Assessment – 2005-06 Information Reports 2008-01
Abstract -- Chinook salmon populations of the Oregon coast exhibit two general life history types, classified as either spring-run or fall-run depending on adult life-history traits. Fall chinook are present in most Oregon coastal basins, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified 28 fall chinook populations in this area (ODFW 2005). Spring chinook salmon are found in larger river basins on the Oregon coast, and the upper portions of the Umpqua and Rogue rivers. This is a more limited distribution than coastal fall chinook and includes only 10 populations (ODFW 2005). Oregon coastal fall chinook stocks have been monitored through a set of 56 standard spawning ground surveys, many conducted since the 1950’s. There has not been a similar, consistent, coast-wide monitoring program for Oregon coastal spring chinook spawners. Abundance of these populations has been monitoring through a variety of methods including; freshwater harvest estimates, counts at dams and weirs, summer resting hole counts, and spawning ground surveys. In 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed west coast chinook salmon populations in regards to status under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The NMFS identified a total of 15 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of chinook salmon (Myers et al. 1998). Oregon coastal chinook are predominantly in the Oregon Coast ESU (Necanicum River to Elk River). This ESU includes both spring and fall chinook, and was determined to not warrant listing (Federal Register Notice 1998). In 2005, ODFW conducted a review of Oregon native fish status, in regards to the State’s Native Fish Conservation Policy. This review grouped populations by Species Management Unit (SMU), and examined coastal spring and fall chinook populations separately. The review determined the near-term sustainability of the Coastal Fall Chinook SMU was not at risk, but the Coastal Spring Chinook SMU was at risk (ODFW 2005). The Tillamook and Nestucca spring chinook populations were of particular concern because they failed to pass the interim criteria for abundance, productivity, and reproductive independence. Hatchery supplementation of spring chinook has occurred in the Tillamook and Nestucca basins since the early 1900’s. Currently, approximately 450,000 spring chinook smolts are released annually from Trask Hatchery, Cedar Creek Hatchery (Nestucca), and from a STEP program at Whiskey Creek. These hatchery smolts have been mass marked with an adipose fin clip since the 1998 brood year. Therefore, hatchery origin adult spring chinook may now be positively identified by the lack of an adipose fin. Declining trends in wild coastal spring chinook populations have resulted in management actions to target harvest on adipose fin clipped hatchery fish, and to restrict harvest of wild origin fish. Results of status reviews, and changes in management practices have required a more thorough evaluation of stock status for the Tillamook and Nestucca spring chinook populations (Keith Braun, personal communication). Therefore, ODFW developed a monitoring plan for spring chinook in these basins. The monitoring plan identified four project objectives; 1) Determine adult spring chinook abundance in the Trask, Wilson, and Nestucca Rivers, 2) Determine hatchery vs. wild ratios for these three basins, 3) Determine age structure and sex ratios for adult spawners, and 4) Determine distribution and abundance for spring chinook recycled from local ODFW hatcheries. This project began in 2004 with an exploratory season to determine distribution, survey methodology, and feasibility of the proposed protocol. In 2005 and 2006 a more intensive sampling effort was implemented, designed to cover the entire distribution of spring chinook spawning in the Nestucca, Trask, and Wilson rivers. Since 2004, project field work has been funded with Restoration and Enhancement Program (R&E) funds, administered by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Project administration is covered through existing funding for the ODFW Oregon Adult Salmonid Inventory and Sampling Project (OASIS). Funding from R&E is scheduled to continue through the 2008 spawning season. Further monitoring will require a new funding source for project field work. This report documents results for project Objectives 1 to 4, including the abundance and distribution of spring chinook spawners during 2005 and 2006 in Oregon’s Trask, Wilson, and Nestucca river basins.
-
Abstract -- Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is represented by a single population that inhabits a 4.1 hectare geothermally-heated alkaline lake in Harney County, Oregon. The Borax Lake chub is a small ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- 2006 Borax Lake Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006
Abstract -- Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is represented by a single population that inhabits a 4.1 hectare geothermally-heated alkaline lake in Harney County, Oregon. The Borax Lake chub is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in Oregon’s Alvord Basin (Williams and Bond 1980). Borax Lake is a natural lake, perched 10 meters above the desert floor on sinter deposits, which is fed almost exclusively by thermal groundwater. The Borax Lake chub was listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act in 1982 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Population abundance estimates obtained in 1991-1996 indicated a fluctuating population ranging from a low of 8,144 fish to a high of 34,634 fish (Salzer 1997). The basis for the Borax Lake chub’s listed status was not population size, but the security of a very limited, unique, isolated, and vulnerable habitat. Because Borax Lake is situated above salt deposits on the desert floor, alteration of the salt crust shoreline could reduce lake levels and the habitat quantity and quality available to Borax Lake chub. At the time of the listing, Borax Lake was threatened by habitat alteration caused by geothermal energy development and alteration of the lake shore crust to provide irrigation to surrounding pasture lands. The Borax Lake chub federal recovery plan, completed in 1987, advocated protection of the lake ecosystem through the acquisition of key private lands, protection of groundwater and surface waters, controls on access, and the removal of livestock grazing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). Numerous recovery measures implemented since listing have improved the conservation status of Borax Lake chub and protection of its habitat (Williams and Macdonald 2003). When the species was listed, critical habitat was designated on 259 hectares of land surrounding the lake, including 129 hectares of public lands and two 65- hectare parcels of private land. In 1983, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management designated the public land as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The Nature Conservancy began leasing the private lands in 1983 and purchased them in 1993, bringing the entire critical habitat into public or conservation ownership. The Nature Conservancy ended water diversion from the lake for irrigation and livestock grazing within the critical habitat. Passage of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 removed the public BLM lands from mineral and geothermal development within a majority of the basin. These actions, combined with detailed studies of the chub and their habitat have added substantially to our knowledge of the Borax Lake ecosystem (Scoppettone et al. 1995, Salzer 1992, Perkins et al. 1996). However, three primary threats remain. These include the threat to the fragile lake shoreline, wetlands, and soils from a recent increase in recreational use around the lake (particularly off-road vehicle usage), the threat of introduction of nonnative species, and potential negative impacts to the aquifer from geothermal groundwater withdrawal if groundwater pumping were to occur on private lands outside the protected areas (Williams and Macdonald 2003). Although an increase in abundance is not a goal in the successful recovery of this species, monitoring trends in abundance over time is an important management tool to assess species status. From 1998-2004, data describing the abundance of the Borax Lake chub population are not available. Abundance estimates were obtained from 1986- 1997 by The Nature Conservancy (Salzer 1997) (Figure 1). Abundance estimates for 1986-1990 are not comparable with those obtained in 1991-1997. Prior to 1991, estimates were obtained only from traps set around the perimeter of the lake. In 1991, estimates were obtained from traps set on a regularly spaced grid throughout the lake. A study comparing the methods suggests that prior to 1991 abundance was under estimated, perhaps by as much as 50 percent (Salzer 1992). A recent review of the conservation status of the Borax Lake chub by Williams and Macdonald (2003) cited the lack of recent and ongoing population and ecosystem monitoring as one argument against downlisting or delisting the species at this time. The chub population has experienced substantial fluctuations in abundance over the time period (1986-1997) when abundance data are available (Figure 1). At the time of the review, the most recent abundance estimates that were obtained in 1996 and 1997 were some of the lowest estimates since 1991. Borax Lake chub population abundance estimates from 1986 to 1997 and 2005 to 2006. Horizontal bars represent 95% confidence limits. In 1986-1990 (solid symbols), only the perimeter of the lake was trapped. After 1990 (open symbols) the entire lake was trapped. Estimates are not directly comparable across these time periods. There are limited data on population age structure that offer valuable insight into the productivity of Borax Lake chub. Williams and Bond (1983) examined lengthfrequency data and concluded that the population consisted primarily of age 1 fish, with few age 2 and age 3 fish present. Limited opercle bone aging of chub collected in 1992- 1993 also indicated that most Borax Lake were less than one year of age (67-79%), yet a few individuals were aged at 10+ years (Scoppettone 1995). Because Borax Lake chub are only found in one location and the population is apparently dominated by a single year-class of adults, the species has a high inherent risk of extinction. 3 The objectives of this study were to: 1) obtain a mark-recapture population estimate of Borax Lake chub, and 2) to evaluate ways to reduce handling of Borax Lake chub when monitoring population abundance both by modifying previous mark-recapture protocols and by developing snorkeling survey protocols to use as an alternative to mark-recapture estimates. In addition, we collected data regarding lake temperatures, chub size (age) structure, and the condition of the fragile lake shoreline and outflows.
-
64. [Article] 2006 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006
Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette Valley, were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Factors implicated in the decline ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- 2006 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006
Abstract -- Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, small minnows endemic to the Willamette Valley, were federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Factors implicated in the decline of this species include changes in flow regimes and habitat characteristics resulting from the construction of flood control dams, revetments, channelization, diking, and the drainage of wetlands. The Oregon chub is further threatened by predation and competition by non-native species such as largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We continued surveys initiated in 1991 in the Willamette River drainage to quantify the abundance of known Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations as part of the implementation of the Oregon Chub Recovery Plan. We sampled a total of 103 sites in 2006. No new populations of Oregon chub were discovered. Thirty-five of the 103 sites were new locations that were sampled for the first time in 2006. Sixty-eight sites, sampled on at least one occasion between 1991-2005, were revisited. We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 33 locations. These included 23 naturally occurring and 10 introduced populations. Locations of naturally occurring populations were: Santiam drainage (Geren Island, Santiam I-5 Side Channels, Santiam Conservation Easement, Stayton Public Works Pond, Green’s Bridge Backwater, Pioneer Park, Santiam Conservation Easement, and Gray Slough), Mid-Willamette drainage (Finley Gray Creek Swamp), McKenzie drainage (Shetzline Pond and Big Island), Coast Fork Willamette drainage (Coast Fork Side Channels and Lynx Hollow), and the Middle Fork Willamette drainage (two Dexter Reservoir alcoves, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Buckhead Creek, two Elijah Bristow State Park sloughs and an island pond, Barnhard Slough, and Hospital Pond). Introduced populations were located in the Middle Fork Willamette (Wicopee Pond and Fall Creek Spillway Ponds), Santiam (Foster Pullout Pond), McKenzie (Russell Pond), Coast Fork Willamette (Herman Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Dunn Wetland, Finley Display Pond, Finley Cheadle Pond, Ankeny Willow Marsh, and Jampolsky Wetlands). We did not find Oregon chub at 14 locations where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-2005 (Jasper Park Slough, Wallace Slough, East Ferrin Pond, Dexter East Alcove, Hospital Impoundment Pond, Rattlesnake Creek, Elijah Bristow Large Gravel Pit, Elijah Bristow Small Gravel Pit, Little Muddy Creek tributary, Bull Run Creek, Camas Swale, Barnhard Slough, Camous Creek, and Dry Muddy Creek). Nonnative fish were collected at most of these locations. We obtained abundance estimates of naturally occurring populations of Oregon chub at 18 locations in the Middle Fork Willamette (East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Elijah Bristow State Park Sloughs and Island Pond, Hospital Pond, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Haws Pond, and Buckhead Creek), Santiam (Geren Island, Gray Slough, Stayton Public Works Pond, Pioneer Park Pond, and Santiam I-5 Side Channels), McKenzie (Big Island and Shetzline Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Finley Gray Creek) (Table 1). We obtained abundance estimates for 10 introduced populations of Oregon chub, located in Fall Creek Spillway Ponds, Wicopee Pond, Dunn Wetland Ponds, Finley Display Pond, Finley Cheadle Pond, Ankeny Willow Marsh, Jampolsky Wetlands, Foster Pullout Pond, Herman Pond, and Russell Pond. The three largest populations in 2006 were introduced populations. In addition, we evaluated eleven potential Oregon chub introduction sites in the Willamette River drainage. We introduced Oregon chub into the South Stayton Pond, a recently restored site located on ODFW property in the Santiam drainage, from Stayton Public Works Pond and Pioneer Park Pond. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set recovery criteria for downlisting the species to “threatened” and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species are: 1) establish and manage 10 populations of at least 500 adult fish, 2) all of these populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years, and 3) at least three populations meeting criterion 1 and 2 must be located in each of the three recovery areas (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, and Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2006, there were 18 populations totaling 500 or more individuals (Table 1). Thirteen of these populations also met the second criteria. Of the 13 populations meeting criteria 1 and 2, eight were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage, three were located in the Mid-Willamette drainage, and two were located in the Santiam drainage. With the addition of one more stable population in the Santiam drainage, the downlisting criteria will be met. Findings to date indicate that Oregon chub remain at risk due to the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, accelerated sedimentation, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications. Their status has improved in recent years, resulting primarily from successful introductions and the discovery of previously undocumented populations.
-
65. [Article] Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2016 Annual Progress Report
Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2016 Annual Progress Report
Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of the four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts, annually. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities; include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin as described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as the adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until the allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided a larger portion of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys to determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2016. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW
-
66. [Article] Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2015 Annual Progress Report
Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2015 Annual Progress Report
Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of the four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities; include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin is described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as the adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until the allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided a larger portion of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys to determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2015. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW
-
67. [Article] Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2014 Annual Progress Report
Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2014 Annual Progress Report
Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of the four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts originating from the Catherine Creek population. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities, include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin is described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as the adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until the allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided a larger portion of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys to determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2014. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW
-
68. [Article] Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2013 Annual Progress Report
Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2013 Annual Progress Report
Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts originating from the Catherine Creek population. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities, include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin is described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided more of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2013. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to post-season preliminary estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW
-
69. [Article] Hood River Watershed Action Plan
Abstract -- This Watershed Action Plan identifies cooperative projects, strategies, and priorities to improve water quality and fish populations in the Hood River subbasin of the Columbia River.Citation -
70. [Article] Vector Control - Unique, Rare and Vulnerable Habitats
Abstract -- The Unique, Rare and Vulnerable Habitat dataset represents one type of “sensitive area” for the purpose of reviewing and approving Pesticide Use Plans per ODFW's obligations under ORS 452.140 ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Vector Control - Unique, Rare and Vulnerable Habitats
Abstract -- The Unique, Rare and Vulnerable Habitat dataset represents one type of “sensitive area” for the purpose of reviewing and approving Pesticide Use Plans per ODFW's obligations under ORS 452.140 and ORS 452.245. ODFW will only make recommendations for mosquito control treatment protocols on sensitive areas, as identified in "ODFW's Vector Control Guidance for Sensitive Areas" (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/water/vector_control_guidance.asp) or confirmed by the local fish and wildlife biologists utilizing the guidelines in the document. In general, a sensitive area is any area where fish and wildlife and their habitats are rare or of local importance due to their special nature or role in the ecosystem. Species-specific and location-specific details are not maintained in this dataset.