Search

Search Results

• 3111. [Article] Status, Distribution, and Life History Investigations of Warner Suckers, 2006-2010 Information Reports number 2011-02

  Abstract -- The Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis is endemic to the Warner Valley, a subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. This species was historically abundant ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Status, Distribution, and Life History Investigations of Warner Suckers, 2006-2010 Information Reports number 2011-02 Abstract -- The Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis is endemic to the Warner Valley, a subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. This species was historically abundant (Snyder 1908) and its historical range includes three permanent lakes (Hart, Crump, and Pelican), several ephemeral lakes, a network of sloughs and diversion canals, and three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile creeks). Warner sucker abundance and distribution has declined over the past century and it was federally listed as threatened in 1985 due to habitat fragmentation and threats posed by the proliferation of piscivorous non-native game fishes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). The Warner Valley is a northeast-southwest trending endorheic basin that extends approximately 90 km (Figure 1). The elevation of the valley floor is approximately 1,370 m and the basin is bound by fault block escarpments, the Warner Rim on the west and Hart Mountain and Poker Jim Ridge on the east. The Warner basin was formed during the middle Tertiary and late Quaternary geologic periods as a result of volcanic and tectonic activity (Baldwin 1974). Abundant precipitation during the Pleistocene Epoch resulted in the formation of Pluvial Lake Warner (Hubbs and Miller 1948). At its maximum extent approximately 11,000 years ago, the lake reached approximately 100 m in depth and 1,300 km2 in area (Snyder et al. 1964; Weide 1975). The Warner sucker inhabits the lakes and low gradient stream reaches of the Warner Valley. The metapopulation of Warner suckers is comprised of two life history forms: lake and stream morphs. The lake suckers display a lacustrine-adfluvial pattern in which they spend most of the year in the lake and spawn in the streams. However, when upstream migration is hindered by low stream flows during drought years or by irrigation diversion dams, lake suckers may spawn in nearshore areas of the lakes (White et al. 1990). Large lake-dwelling populations of introduced fishes in the lakes likely reduce sucker recruitment by predation on young suckers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Periodic lake desiccation also threatens the lake suckers. The stream suckers display a fluvial life-history pattern and spawn in the three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks). Threats specific to the stream form include water withdrawals for irrigation and impacts from grazing. Stream suckers recolonized the lakes after past drying events (mid-1930’s and early-1990’s). The Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) sets three recovery criteria for delisting the species. These criteria require that: (1) a self-sustaining metapopulation is distributed throughout the drainages of Twentymile Creek, Honey Creek, and below the falls on Deep Creek, and in Pelican, Crump, and Hart Lakes; (2) passage is restored within and among these drainages so that individual populations of Warner suckers can function as a metapopulation; and (3) no threats exist that would likely threaten the survival of the species over a significant portion of its range. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW’s) Native Fish Investigations Project conducted investigations from 2006 through 2010 to describe the conservation (recovery) status of Warner suckers. The objectives of our investigations were to: 1) describe the current distribution of suckers in the Warner subbasin, 2) estimate their abundance in the lakes and streams, 3) collect life history information, and 4) describe the primary factors that currently limit the sucker’s ability to maintain a functioning metapopulation, including connectivity/fragmentation of habitats and factors affecting successful recruitment in the lake and stream environments. Previous similar studies were conducted in 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2001 (White et al. 1990; White et al. 1991; Allen et al. 1994; Allen et al. 1995; Allen et al. 1996; Bosse et al. 1997; Hartzell et al. 2001). We addressed these objectives by implementing the following tasks: 1) conducting surveys in Hart and Crump Lakes to describe the distribution and quantify the abundance of Warner suckers, search for evidence of recent recruitment, estimate sucker abundance relative to nonnative fish abundance, and describe certain life history characteristics, 2) tagging suckers with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags in the lakes and tributaries to estimate growth rates and describe seasonal movements, 3) radio tracking suckers in the lakes and tributaries to describe seasonal movements, 4) fishing screw traps in Warner basin tributaries to monitor downstream movements, 5) operating a trap at a fish ladder on a Warner tributary to assess upstream passage success, 6) conducting surveys in Warner basin tributaries to describe the current distribution of stream resident populations of Warner suckers and to quantify their abundance, 7) describing associations between the distribution of suckers and habitat variables in Twentymile Creek, 8) trapping larval suckers in the tributaries to describe the relative abundance and timing of larval movements, 9) describing life history parameters including growth rates, length frequency distributions, length at maturity, and weight-length relationships, 10) evaluating a nonlethal ageing technique, 11) describing the distribution and abundance of the Warner suckers at Summer Lake Wildlife Management area, where a self-sustaining population became established after fish salvage from Hart Lake during the 1992 drought, and 12) collecting tissue samples for future genetic analyses. This report compiles the results of this work, synthesizes and interprets findings relative to the conservation status of the species, and recommends future studies. Title: Status, Distribution, and Life History Investigations of Warner Suckers, 2006-2010 Information Reports number 2011-02 Abstract -- The Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis is endemic to the Warner Valley, a subbasin of the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. This species was historically abundant (Snyder 1908) and its historical range includes three permanent lakes (Hart, Crump, and Pelican), several ephemeral lakes, a network of sloughs and diversion canals, and three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile creeks). Warner sucker abundance and distribution has declined over the past century and it was federally listed as threatened in 1985 due to habitat fragmentation and threats posed by the proliferation of piscivorous non-native game fishes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). The Warner Valley is a northeast-southwest trending endorheic basin that extends approximately 90 km (Figure 1). The elevation of the valley floor is approximately 1,370 m and the basin is bound by fault block escarpments, the Warner Rim on the west and Hart Mountain and Poker Jim Ridge on the east. The Warner basin was formed during the middle Tertiary and late Quaternary geologic periods as a result of volcanic and tectonic activity (Baldwin 1974). Abundant precipitation during the Pleistocene Epoch resulted in the formation of Pluvial Lake Warner (Hubbs and Miller 1948). At its maximum extent approximately 11,000 years ago, the lake reached approximately 100 m in depth and 1,300 km2 in area (Snyder et al. 1964; Weide 1975). The Warner sucker inhabits the lakes and low gradient stream reaches of the Warner Valley. The metapopulation of Warner suckers is comprised of two life history forms: lake and stream morphs. The lake suckers display a lacustrine-adfluvial pattern in which they spend most of the year in the lake and spawn in the streams. However, when upstream migration is hindered by low stream flows during drought years or by irrigation diversion dams, lake suckers may spawn in nearshore areas of the lakes (White et al. 1990). Large lake-dwelling populations of introduced fishes in the lakes likely reduce sucker recruitment by predation on young suckers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Periodic lake desiccation also threatens the lake suckers. The stream suckers display a fluvial life-history pattern and spawn in the three major tributary drainages (Honey, Deep, and Twentymile Creeks). Threats specific to the stream form include water withdrawals for irrigation and impacts from grazing. Stream suckers recolonized the lakes after past drying events (mid-1930’s and early-1990’s). The Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) sets three recovery criteria for delisting the species. These criteria require that: (1) a self-sustaining metapopulation is distributed throughout the drainages of Twentymile Creek, Honey Creek, and below the falls on Deep Creek, and in Pelican, Crump, and Hart Lakes; (2) passage is restored within and among these drainages so that individual populations of Warner suckers can function as a metapopulation; and (3) no threats exist that would likely threaten the survival of the species over a significant portion of its range. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW’s) Native Fish Investigations Project conducted investigations from 2006 through 2010 to describe the conservation (recovery) status of Warner suckers. The objectives of our investigations were to: 1) describe the current distribution of suckers in the Warner subbasin, 2) estimate their abundance in the lakes and streams, 3) collect life history information, and 4) describe the primary factors that currently limit the sucker’s ability to maintain a functioning metapopulation, including connectivity/fragmentation of habitats and factors affecting successful recruitment in the lake and stream environments. Previous similar studies were conducted in 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2001 (White et al. 1990; White et al. 1991; Allen et al. 1994; Allen et al. 1995; Allen et al. 1996; Bosse et al. 1997; Hartzell et al. 2001). We addressed these objectives by implementing the following tasks: 1) conducting surveys in Hart and Crump Lakes to describe the distribution and quantify the abundance of Warner suckers, search for evidence of recent recruitment, estimate sucker abundance relative to nonnative fish abundance, and describe certain life history characteristics, 2) tagging suckers with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags in the lakes and tributaries to estimate growth rates and describe seasonal movements, 3) radio tracking suckers in the lakes and tributaries to describe seasonal movements, 4) fishing screw traps in Warner basin tributaries to monitor downstream movements, 5) operating a trap at a fish ladder on a Warner tributary to assess upstream passage success, 6) conducting surveys in Warner basin tributaries to describe the current distribution of stream resident populations of Warner suckers and to quantify their abundance, 7) describing associations between the distribution of suckers and habitat variables in Twentymile Creek, 8) trapping larval suckers in the tributaries to describe the relative abundance and timing of larval movements, 9) describing life history parameters including growth rates, length frequency distributions, length at maturity, and weight-length relationships, 10) evaluating a nonlethal ageing technique, 11) describing the distribution and abundance of the Warner suckers at Summer Lake Wildlife Management area, where a self-sustaining population became established after fish salvage from Hart Lake during the 1992 drought, and 12) collecting tissue samples for future genetic analyses. This report compiles the results of this work, synthesizes and interprets findings relative to the conservation status of the species, and recommends future studies. Close

• 3112. [Article] 2006 Oregon Chub Investigations Progress Reports 2006

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

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

• 3113. [Article] Oregon Chub Investigations, Progress Report 2001

  Abstract -- Populations of Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, endemic to the Willamette Valley, have been drastically reduced. Factors in the decline of this fish include changes in flow regimes and habitat ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Chub Investigations, Progress Report 2001 Abstract -- Populations of Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, endemic to the Willamette Valley, have been drastically reduced. Factors in the decline of this fish 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, small mouth bass M. dolomieui, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We surveyed in the Willamette River drainage in April-October 2000 to quantify existing Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations. We sampled a total of 77 sites in 2000. We collected Oregon chub for the first time from Barnard Slough in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage. Oregon chub were last collected from this location in 1983 (Bond 1984). Thirty-one of the 77 sites were new sites that were sampled for the first time in 2000. Forty-six sites, sampled in 1991-1999, were revisited. Three sites were sampled twice. We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 20 locations. These include naturally occurring populations in the Santiam drainage (Geren Island, Santiam Conservation Easement, Gray Slough, Santiam 1-5 backwaters, Pioneer Park backwater, Santiam Public Works Pond), Mid-Willamette drainage (Finley Gray Creek Swamp) and Middle Fork Willamette drainage (Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Buckhead Creek, Oakridge Slough, Elijah Bristow State Park, Rattlesnake Creek, and Hospital Pond) and introduced populations in the Middle Fork Willamette (Wicopee Pond, Fall Creek Spillway Ponds), Santiam (Foster Pullout Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Dunn Wetland, Finley Display Pond). Oregon chub were not found at several locations (Jasper Park Slough, Wallace Slough, East Ferrin Pond, Dexter East Alcove, Hospital lmpoundment Pond, Logan Slough, Green's Bridge Backwater, Camas Swale) where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-1999 (Scheerer et. al. 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1998; 1999; 2000; Scheerer and Jones 1997). Non-native fish were common in off-channel habitats that were surveyed in the Willamette River drainage. Non-native fish were collected from 23 of the 31 new sites sampled in 1999 (74%); no fish were collected at three locations (10%). Western mosquitofish and centrarchids (largemouth bass and bluegill) were the most common non-native fish collected. Oregon chub were introduced into Menear's Bend Pond in the Santiam River drainage in the October 2000. Additional Oregon chub were introduced into Foster Pullout Pond in October 2000, to supplement the 85 fish introduced in 1999. In the summer of 2000, a habitat enhancement project creating new habitat to benefit Oregon chub was completed in the Long Tom drainage (Mid-Willamette River). Seven potential Oregon chub reintroduction sites were monitored and evaluated. These included four sites in the Mid-Willamette River drainage (Finley National Wildlife Refuge Beaver and Cattail Ponds, Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge Dunlin-Woodduck Pond, Long Tom Ranch Pond), one site in the Santiam River drainage (Menear's Bend Pond), one site in the McKenzie River drainage (Russell Pond), and one site in the Coast Fork Willamette drainage (Layng Pond). Estimates of abundance were obtained for naturally occurring populations of Oregon chub in East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Elijah Bristow State Park Sloughs, Hospital Pond, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Buckhead Creek, Oakridge Slough, Santiam Conservation Easement Sloughs, Geren Island Ponds, and Finley Gray Creek Swamp. Five of these populations showed an increase in abundance in 2000 (East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Middle Buckhead Creek, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Finley Gray Creek Swamp). Four populations decreased in abundance (or remain depressed) in 2000 (Geren Island, Santiam Conservation Easement, Elijah Bristow Sloughs, Oakridge Slough) (Table 1 ). Abundance estimates for introduced populations of Oregon chub were also obtained. The Oregon chub population in East Ferrin Pond declined from 7,200 fish in 1997 to O fish in 2000, and is presumed extinct. The Oregon chub population in the Fall Creek Spillway Pond totaled 5,030 fish in 2000, compared to 6,300 fish in 1999. The Oregon chub population in Wicopee Pond expanded dramatically from ~50 fish in 1999 to 4,580 fish in 2000. The Oregon chub population in the Dunn Wetland Ponds increased from 4,860 fish in 1999 to 14,090 fish in 2000. The Oregon chub population in Finley Display Pond increased from 360 fish in 1999 to 1,750 fish in 2000. Three of the four largest populations in 2000 were introduced populations. The Middle Fork Willamette River drainage supported the largest number of Oregon chub populations (n=12), followed by the Santiam drainage (n=B), and the Mid-Willamette drainage (n=5). The most abundant Oregon chub populations were found in the Middle Fork Willamette and Mid-Willamette drainages. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set a recovery goal for downlisting the species to "threatened" and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species was to establish and manage ten populations of at least 500 adult fish. All populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years. At least three populations must be located in each of the three sub-basins (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2000, there were 11 populations totaling 500 or more individuals and six of these populations exhibited a stable or increasing trend for the past five years (Table 1 ). Five of these six populations were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage. In summary, Oregon chub remain at risk due to their limited distribution compared with their historic geographic range in the Willamette Valley, the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, unauthorized fill and removal operations, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications. Title: Oregon Chub Investigations, Progress Report 2001 Abstract -- Populations of Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri, endemic to the Willamette Valley, have been drastically reduced. Factors in the decline of this fish 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, small mouth bass M. dolomieui, crappies Pomoxis sp., sunfishes Lepomis sp., bullheads Ameiurus sp., and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. We surveyed in the Willamette River drainage in April-October 2000 to quantify existing Oregon chub populations, search for unknown populations, evaluate potential introduction sites, and monitor introduced populations. We sampled a total of 77 sites in 2000. We collected Oregon chub for the first time from Barnard Slough in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage. Oregon chub were last collected from this location in 1983 (Bond 1984). Thirty-one of the 77 sites were new sites that were sampled for the first time in 2000. Forty-six sites, sampled in 1991-1999, were revisited. Three sites were sampled twice. We confirmed the continued existence of Oregon chub at 20 locations. These include naturally occurring populations in the Santiam drainage (Geren Island, Santiam Conservation Easement, Gray Slough, Santiam 1-5 backwaters, Pioneer Park backwater, Santiam Public Works Pond), Mid-Willamette drainage (Finley Gray Creek Swamp) and Middle Fork Willamette drainage (Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Buckhead Creek, Oakridge Slough, Elijah Bristow State Park, Rattlesnake Creek, and Hospital Pond) and introduced populations in the Middle Fork Willamette (Wicopee Pond, Fall Creek Spillway Ponds), Santiam (Foster Pullout Pond), and Mid-Willamette drainages (Dunn Wetland, Finley Display Pond). Oregon chub were not found at several locations (Jasper Park Slough, Wallace Slough, East Ferrin Pond, Dexter East Alcove, Hospital lmpoundment Pond, Logan Slough, Green's Bridge Backwater, Camas Swale) where they were collected on at least one occasion between 1991-1999 (Scheerer et. al. 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1998; 1999; 2000; Scheerer and Jones 1997). Non-native fish were common in off-channel habitats that were surveyed in the Willamette River drainage. Non-native fish were collected from 23 of the 31 new sites sampled in 1999 (74%); no fish were collected at three locations (10%). Western mosquitofish and centrarchids (largemouth bass and bluegill) were the most common non-native fish collected. Oregon chub were introduced into Menear's Bend Pond in the Santiam River drainage in the October 2000. Additional Oregon chub were introduced into Foster Pullout Pond in October 2000, to supplement the 85 fish introduced in 1999. In the summer of 2000, a habitat enhancement project creating new habitat to benefit Oregon chub was completed in the Long Tom drainage (Mid-Willamette River). Seven potential Oregon chub reintroduction sites were monitored and evaluated. These included four sites in the Mid-Willamette River drainage (Finley National Wildlife Refuge Beaver and Cattail Ponds, Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge Dunlin-Woodduck Pond, Long Tom Ranch Pond), one site in the Santiam River drainage (Menear's Bend Pond), one site in the McKenzie River drainage (Russell Pond), and one site in the Coast Fork Willamette drainage (Layng Pond). Estimates of abundance were obtained for naturally occurring populations of Oregon chub in East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Elijah Bristow State Park Sloughs, Hospital Pond, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Buckhead Creek, Oakridge Slough, Santiam Conservation Easement Sloughs, Geren Island Ponds, and Finley Gray Creek Swamp. Five of these populations showed an increase in abundance in 2000 (East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Shady Dell Pond, Middle Buckhead Creek, Dexter Reservoir Alcoves, Finley Gray Creek Swamp). Four populations decreased in abundance (or remain depressed) in 2000 (Geren Island, Santiam Conservation Easement, Elijah Bristow Sloughs, Oakridge Slough) (Table 1 ). Abundance estimates for introduced populations of Oregon chub were also obtained. The Oregon chub population in East Ferrin Pond declined from 7,200 fish in 1997 to O fish in 2000, and is presumed extinct. The Oregon chub population in the Fall Creek Spillway Pond totaled 5,030 fish in 2000, compared to 6,300 fish in 1999. The Oregon chub population in Wicopee Pond expanded dramatically from ~50 fish in 1999 to 4,580 fish in 2000. The Oregon chub population in the Dunn Wetland Ponds increased from 4,860 fish in 1999 to 14,090 fish in 2000. The Oregon chub population in Finley Display Pond increased from 360 fish in 1999 to 1,750 fish in 2000. Three of the four largest populations in 2000 were introduced populations. The Middle Fork Willamette River drainage supported the largest number of Oregon chub populations (n=12), followed by the Santiam drainage (n=B), and the Mid-Willamette drainage (n=5). The most abundant Oregon chub populations were found in the Middle Fork Willamette and Mid-Willamette drainages. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan (U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) set a recovery goal for downlisting the species to "threatened" and for delisting the species. The criteria for downlisting the species was to establish and manage ten populations of at least 500 adult fish. All populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for five years. At least three populations must be located in each of the three sub-basins (Middle Fork Willamette River, Santiam River, Mid-Willamette River tributaries). In 2000, there were 11 populations totaling 500 or more individuals and six of these populations exhibited a stable or increasing trend for the past five years (Table 1 ). Five of these six populations were located in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage. In summary, Oregon chub remain at risk due to their limited distribution compared with their historic geographic range in the Willamette Valley, the loss of suitable habitat and the continued threats posed by the proliferation of non-native fishes, illegal water withdrawals, unauthorized fill and removal operations, and potential chemical spills or careless pesticide applications. Close

• 3114. [Image] Relation between selected water-quality variables and lake level in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon

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

• 3115. [Image] Status of Oregon's bull trout : distribution, life history, limiting factors, management considerations, and status

  	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Limited historical references indicate that bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Oregon were once widely spread throughout at least 12 basins in the Klamath River and Columbia River ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Status of Oregon's bull trout : distribution, life history, limiting factors, management considerations, and status Author: Buchanan, David V; Hanson, Mary L; Hooton, Robert M Year: 1997, 2007, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Limited historical references indicate that bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Oregon were once widely spread throughout at least 12 basins in the Klamath River and Columbia River systems. No bull trout have been observed in Oregon's coastal systems. A total of 69 bull trout populations in 12 basins are currently identified in Oregon. A comparison of the 1991 bull trout status (Ratliff and Ho well 1992) to the revised 1996 status found that 7 populations were newly discovered and 1 population showed a positive or upgraded status while 22 populations showed a negative or downgraded status. The general downgrading of 32% of Oregon's bull trout populations appears largely due to increased survey efforts and increased survey accuracy rather than reduced numbers or distribution. However, three populations in the upper Klamath Basin, two in the Walla Walla Basin, and one in the Willamette Basin showed decreases in estimated population abundance or distribution. Some Oregon river basins have bull trout populations at extreme risk of extinction. This statewide status review listed only 19% of the bull trout populations in Oregon with a ulow risk of extinction" or "of special concern." Therefore, 81% of Oregon's bull trout populations are considered to be at a "moderate risk of extinction," "high risk of extinction," or "probably extinct." Populations in the Hood, Klamath, and Powder basins, as well as the Odell Lake population in the Deschutes basin, which contain only a few remaining bull trout, are examples of populations having a "moderate" or "high risk" of extinction. Approximately 55% of current bull trout distribution occurs on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. A much smaller proportion occurs on Bureau of Land Management managed lands (2%). Only 16% of current bull trout distribution occurs within a protected area defined as Wilderness, Wild and Scenic River, or within a National Park. The Northwest Forest Plan, Inland Native Fish Strategy, and Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California have provided increased protection for bull trout habitat depending on their scope and geographic areas affected, and the extent to which they are being effectively implemented in watersheds containing bull trout. Recent reduction in timber production on National Forests (up to 50% in western Oregon National Forests and over 30% in eastern Oregon National Forests) should help improve riparian and stream habitat conditions for bull trout. The remaining bull trout distribution occurs on private, state, or tribal owned lands. A comparison of approximately 39 locations throughout the state with protective angling regulations on bull trout (in some areas more than one bull trout population is protected by one regulation) shows that all state managed areas were upgraded in a protective angling status or at least maintained in 1996 compared to 1989. Restrictive angling regulations prohibit angler harvest of all bull trout populations in Oregon except for one in the Deschutes Basin. Restrictive bull trout angling regulation changes (including the elimination of bull Vll trout harvest in all spawning areas) may be the major reasons why the Metolius River/Lake Billy Chinook and mainstem McKenzie River populations have shown significant increases in abundance. Statewide stocking of non-native brook trout, including the high lakes stocking program, has been discontinued in locations where managers believe brook trout could migrate downstream and potentially interact with native bull trout. Hatchery stocking of legal rainbow trout to promote recreational fisheries has been discontinued in most locations near bull trout populations to avoid incidental catch of bull trout. The spatial and temporal distributions of bull trout reported for each river basin in this status report should be used as an accurate baseline for fisheries managers. Current distribution and relative change of distribution should be useful indicators of population health and status. The GIS maps in this report provide a template to add new layers of data such as critical spawning and juvenile rearing areas, or as a method to compare distribution changes through time. Length frequency data are presented for most Oregon bull trout populations. This should provide estimates for the presence of multiple age classes and the percent of fluvial size life history component. Vlll Title: Status of Oregon's bull trout : distribution, life history, limiting factors, management considerations, and status Author: Buchanan, David V; Hanson, Mary L; Hooton, Robert M Year: 1997, 2007, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Limited historical references indicate that bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Oregon were once widely spread throughout at least 12 basins in the Klamath River and Columbia River systems. No bull trout have been observed in Oregon's coastal systems. A total of 69 bull trout populations in 12 basins are currently identified in Oregon. A comparison of the 1991 bull trout status (Ratliff and Ho well 1992) to the revised 1996 status found that 7 populations were newly discovered and 1 population showed a positive or upgraded status while 22 populations showed a negative or downgraded status. The general downgrading of 32% of Oregon's bull trout populations appears largely due to increased survey efforts and increased survey accuracy rather than reduced numbers or distribution. However, three populations in the upper Klamath Basin, two in the Walla Walla Basin, and one in the Willamette Basin showed decreases in estimated population abundance or distribution. Some Oregon river basins have bull trout populations at extreme risk of extinction. This statewide status review listed only 19% of the bull trout populations in Oregon with a ulow risk of extinction" or "of special concern." Therefore, 81% of Oregon's bull trout populations are considered to be at a "moderate risk of extinction," "high risk of extinction," or "probably extinct." Populations in the Hood, Klamath, and Powder basins, as well as the Odell Lake population in the Deschutes basin, which contain only a few remaining bull trout, are examples of populations having a "moderate" or "high risk" of extinction. Approximately 55% of current bull trout distribution occurs on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. A much smaller proportion occurs on Bureau of Land Management managed lands (2%). Only 16% of current bull trout distribution occurs within a protected area defined as Wilderness, Wild and Scenic River, or within a National Park. The Northwest Forest Plan, Inland Native Fish Strategy, and Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California have provided increased protection for bull trout habitat depending on their scope and geographic areas affected, and the extent to which they are being effectively implemented in watersheds containing bull trout. Recent reduction in timber production on National Forests (up to 50% in western Oregon National Forests and over 30% in eastern Oregon National Forests) should help improve riparian and stream habitat conditions for bull trout. The remaining bull trout distribution occurs on private, state, or tribal owned lands. A comparison of approximately 39 locations throughout the state with protective angling regulations on bull trout (in some areas more than one bull trout population is protected by one regulation) shows that all state managed areas were upgraded in a protective angling status or at least maintained in 1996 compared to 1989. Restrictive angling regulations prohibit angler harvest of all bull trout populations in Oregon except for one in the Deschutes Basin. Restrictive bull trout angling regulation changes (including the elimination of bull Vll trout harvest in all spawning areas) may be the major reasons why the Metolius River/Lake Billy Chinook and mainstem McKenzie River populations have shown significant increases in abundance. Statewide stocking of non-native brook trout, including the high lakes stocking program, has been discontinued in locations where managers believe brook trout could migrate downstream and potentially interact with native bull trout. Hatchery stocking of legal rainbow trout to promote recreational fisheries has been discontinued in most locations near bull trout populations to avoid incidental catch of bull trout. The spatial and temporal distributions of bull trout reported for each river basin in this status report should be used as an accurate baseline for fisheries managers. Current distribution and relative change of distribution should be useful indicators of population health and status. The GIS maps in this report provide a template to add new layers of data such as critical spawning and juvenile rearing areas, or as a method to compare distribution changes through time. Length frequency data are presented for most Oregon bull trout populations. This should provide estimates for the presence of multiple age classes and the percent of fluvial size life history component. Vlll Close

• 3116. [Image] Region II Klamath Project annual history, 1945

  	Ill., maps (some color), photographs; Includes fiscal year financials, photographs, crop and livestock yields, water storage and distribution, hydrography report, etc.; Title covers: calendar years for ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Region II Klamath Project annual history, 1945 Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1945, 2008 Ill., maps (some color), photographs; Includes fiscal year financials, photographs, crop and livestock yields, water storage and distribution, hydrography report, etc.; Title covers: calendar years for 1944 – 1945; Description is based on: Region II Klamath Project annual history 1944. Contains three parts and three table of contents.; Dates of the beginning year(s) of publication are derived from May 1, 1903 to December 31, 1912, History of the Klamath Project and from the volume information on later volumes (v. 35) Klamath District and Klamath Project Annual history for 1945, dated December 1, 1946 Title: Region II Klamath Project annual history, 1945 Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1945, 2008 Ill., maps (some color), photographs; Includes fiscal year financials, photographs, crop and livestock yields, water storage and distribution, hydrography report, etc.; Title covers: calendar years for 1944 – 1945; Description is based on: Region II Klamath Project annual history 1944. Contains three parts and three table of contents.; Dates of the beginning year(s) of publication are derived from May 1, 1903 to December 31, 1912, History of the Klamath Project and from the volume information on later volumes (v. 35) Klamath District and Klamath Project Annual history for 1945, dated December 1, 1946 Close

• 3117. [Image] Questions and answers : five-year review of Klamath sucker populations

  	Fact sheet summarizing the reasons behind the five-year review of the issues surrounding the Klamath sucker fish
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Questions and answers : five-year review of Klamath sucker populations Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2004, 2005 Fact sheet summarizing the reasons behind the five-year review of the issues surrounding the Klamath sucker fish Title: Questions and answers : five-year review of Klamath sucker populations Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2004, 2005 Fact sheet summarizing the reasons behind the five-year review of the issues surrounding the Klamath sucker fish Close

• 3118. [Image] Middle Klamath River sub-basin planning : final report

  	ABSTRACT Phase VI of the School-Based Klamath Restoration Project (319h) is a collaborative effort between seven Siskiyou County schools, the Siskiyou County Office of Education (SCOE), and the United ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Middle Klamath River sub-basin planning : final report Author: Karuk Tribe of California, Dept. of Natural Resources Year: 2001, 2005 ABSTRACT Phase VI of the School-Based Klamath Restoration Project (319h) is a collaborative effort between seven Siskiyou County schools, the Siskiyou County Office of Education (SCOE), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The objectives of the project include: ? Expanding hands-on field science watershed education. ? Encouraging a sense of resource stewardship among students at all grade levels. ? Collecting quality data for inclusion in the 319h data base. ? Teaching applications of the scientific method. ? Providing on-going inservice training for teachers to increase the effectiveness of the project. Project tasks that were completed include acquisition and analysis of Klamath River Watershed Data, including river water temperatures, river cross sectional profiles and spawning ground surveys. Descriptions of methodology are included in the report. Many other watershed-related projects were undertaken by schools. In some cases the field data was collected and compiled by agency personnel. The spawning ground survey data collected by student volunteers was part of a project conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Forest Service. Although a substantial amount of excellent work has been accomplished by the schools, the opportunity exists to improve the program at all levels. Increased field and technical support is needed to successfully integrate the goals of the project. Computer training for teachers and students is an essential component of the project, which would allow analysis of data and creation of web sites within classrooms. Data analysis and reporting is the critical component of the project that would provide students with a complete understanding of scientific research methodology. Providing a forum for communication between the 319h participants is another important area of the project that needs to be expanded. Travel time, mountainous topography, and intense winter storms can be barriers to travel in Siskiyou County. Communication helps to increase the level of standardization of data collection and transfer and gives teachers a chance to share successful ideas. Communication also sustains the positive momentum of the project, reinforcing the idea of working as a team towards establishing common goals for watershed education. Title: Middle Klamath River sub-basin planning : final report Author: Karuk Tribe of California, Dept. of Natural Resources Year: 2001, 2005 ABSTRACT Phase VI of the School-Based Klamath Restoration Project (319h) is a collaborative effort between seven Siskiyou County schools, the Siskiyou County Office of Education (SCOE), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The objectives of the project include: ? Expanding hands-on field science watershed education. ? Encouraging a sense of resource stewardship among students at all grade levels. ? Collecting quality data for inclusion in the 319h data base. ? Teaching applications of the scientific method. ? Providing on-going inservice training for teachers to increase the effectiveness of the project. Project tasks that were completed include acquisition and analysis of Klamath River Watershed Data, including river water temperatures, river cross sectional profiles and spawning ground surveys. Descriptions of methodology are included in the report. Many other watershed-related projects were undertaken by schools. In some cases the field data was collected and compiled by agency personnel. The spawning ground survey data collected by student volunteers was part of a project conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Forest Service. Although a substantial amount of excellent work has been accomplished by the schools, the opportunity exists to improve the program at all levels. Increased field and technical support is needed to successfully integrate the goals of the project. Computer training for teachers and students is an essential component of the project, which would allow analysis of data and creation of web sites within classrooms. Data analysis and reporting is the critical component of the project that would provide students with a complete understanding of scientific research methodology. Providing a forum for communication between the 319h participants is another important area of the project that needs to be expanded. Travel time, mountainous topography, and intense winter storms can be barriers to travel in Siskiyou County. Communication helps to increase the level of standardization of data collection and transfer and gives teachers a chance to share successful ideas. Communication also sustains the positive momentum of the project, reinforcing the idea of working as a team towards establishing common goals for watershed education. Close

• 3119. [Image] Bull Trout, Salvelinus Confluentus... Draft Recovery Plan, Chapter 1, Introduction...

  	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE BULL TROUT RECOVERY PLAN Current Species Status The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the coterminous United States was listed as threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bull Trout, Salvelinus Confluentus... Draft Recovery Plan, Chapter 1, Introduction... Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2003, 2008, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE BULL TROUT RECOVERY PLAN Current Species Status The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the coterminous United States was listed as threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). Earlier rulemakings had listed distinct population segments of bull trout as threatened in the Columbia River, Klamath River, and Jarbidge River basins (63 FR 31647, 63 FR 42757, 64 FR 17110). Bull trout distribution, abundance, and habitat quality have declined rangewide. Several local extirpations have been documented, beginning in the 1950fs. Bull trout continue to occur the Klamath River, Columbia River, Jarbidge River, St. Mary-Belly River, and Coastal-Puget Sound, in the states of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids. Habitat components that influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, substrate for spawning and rearing, and migratory corridors. Bull trout are found in colder streams and require colder water than most other salmonids for incubation, juvenile rearing, and spawning. Spawning and rearing areas are often associated with cold-water springs, groundwater infiltration, and/or the coldest streams in a watershed. Throughout their lives, bull trout require complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools. Alterations in channel form and reductions in channel stability result in habitat degradation and reduced survival of bull trout eggs and juveniles. Channel alterations may reduce the abundance and quality of side channels, stream margins, and pools, which are areas bull trout frequently inhabit. For spawning and early rearing bull trout require loose, clean gravel relatively free of fine sediments. Because bull trout have a relatively long incubation and development period within spawning gravel (greater than 200 days), transport of bedload in unstable channels may kill young bull trout. Bull trout use migratory corridors to move from spawning and rearing habitats to foraging and overwintering habitats and back. Different habitats provide bull trout with diverse resources, and migratory corridors allow local populations to connect, which may increase the potential for gene flow and support or refounding of populations. Declines in bull trout distribution and abundance are the results of combined effects of the following: habitat degradation and fragmentation, the blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, angler harvest and poaching, entrainment (process by which aquatic organisms are pulled through a diversion structure or other device) into diversion channels and dams, and introduced iv normative species. Specific land and water management activities that continue to depress bull trout populations and degrade habitat include dams and other diversion structures, forest management practices, livestock grazing, agriculture, road construction and maintenance, mining, and urban and rural development. Some threats to bull trout are the continuing effects of past land management activities. Organization and Development of the Recovery Plan Because bull trout in the coterminous United States are widely distributed within a large area, the recovery plan is organized into multiple chapters. This introductory chapter (Chapter 1) describes our overall recovery strategy for the species, defines recovery, and identifies recovery actions applicable for all listed bull trout in the coterminous United States. Each successive chapter focuses on bull trout in specific geographic areas (recovery units), and describes conditions, defines recovery criteria, and identifies specific recovery actions for the recovery unit. Recovery Objectives The goal of this recovery plan is to describe the actions needed to achieve the recovery of bull trout, that is, to ensure the long-term persistence of self-sustaining, complex interacting groups (or multiple local populations that may have overlapping spawning and rearing areas) of bull trout distributed across the species' native range. Recovery of bull trout will require reducing threats to the long-term persistence of populations, maintaining multiple interconnected populations of bull trout across the diverse habitats of their native range, and preserving the diversity of bull trout life-history strategies (e.g., resident or migratory forms, emigration age, spawning frequency, local habitat adaptations). To recover bull trout, the following four objectives have been identified: ? Maintain current distribution of bull trout within core areas as described in recovery unit chapters and restore distribution where recommended in recovery unit chapters. ? Maintain stable or increasing trend in abundance of bull trout. ? Restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages and strategies. ? Conserve genetic diversity and provide opportunity for genetic exchange. ? These objectives apply to bull trout in all recovery units. Additional objectives may be necessary to achieve recovery in some recovery units and will be identified in the respective recovery unit chapters. Recovery Criteria Criteria are established to assess whether recovery objectives are being achieved. Criteria specific to each recovery unit are defined in each recovery unit chapter. Individual chapters may contain criteria for assessing the status of bull trout and alleviation of threats that are unique to one or several recovery units. However, every recovery unit chapter will contain criteria that address the following characteristics: ? The distribution of bull trout in identified and potential local populations in all core areas within the recovery unit. ? The estimated abundance of adult bull trout within core areas in the recovery unit, expressed as either a point estimate or a range of individuals. ? The presence of stable or increasing trends for adult bull trout abundance in the recovery unit. ? The restoration of passage at specific barriers identified as inhibiting recovery. We expect recovery of bull trout to be a dynamic process occurring over time. The recovery objectives are based on our current knowledge and may be refined as more information becomes available. Some local populations of bull trout, and possibly core area populations, may be extirpated even though recovery actions are being implemented. If reestablishment of recently extirpated populations is not feasible or practical, recovery criteria for a given recovery unit will be revised on a case-by-case basis. Meeting the four recovery criteria is not intended to be precluded where localized extirpations of bull trout are offset by sufficiently strong improvements in other areas of a recovery unit in meeting the four recovery objectives. The determination of whether a distinct population segment of bull trout is recovered will rely on an analysis of the overall status of the species, threats to the species, and the adequacy of existing regulatory and conservation mechanisms. For example, it may be possible for the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment, which has 22 recovery units, to be recovered prior to all recovery unit criteria being met in all recovery units. Success in accomplishing the recovery VI criteria will be reviewed and considered for the impacts both within a recovery unit and throughout a distinct population segment. Actions Needed Specific tasks falling within the following seven categories will be necessary to initiate recovery within all recovery units: ? Protect, restore, and maintain suitable habitat conditions for bull trout. ? Prevent and reduce negative effects of normative fishes and other normative taxa on bull trout. ? Establish fisheries management goals and objectives compatible with bull trout recovery and implement practices to achieve goals. ? Characterize, conserve, and monitor genetic diversity and gene flow among local populations of bull trout. ? Conduct research and monitoring to implement and evaluate bull trout recovery activities, consistent with an adaptive management approach using feedback from implemented, site-specific recovery tasks. ? Use all available conservation programs and regulations to protect and conserve bull trout and bull trout habitats. ? Assess the implementation of bull trout recovery by recovery units and revise recovery unit plans based on evaluations. Recovery Priority Number The recovery priority number for bull trout in the coterminous United States is 9C, on a scale of 1 to 18, indicating that (1) taxonomically, these populations are distinct population segments of a species, (2) the five populations are subject to a moderate degree of threat(s), (3) the recovery potential is high, and (4) the degree of potential conflict during recovery is high. vrr Estimated Cost of Recovery The total cost estimate of recovery for bull trout in the coterminous United States is presented in the individual recovery unit chapters. The costs presented in each chapter are attributed to bull trout conservation but other species will also benefit. Date of Recovery Expected time to achieve recovery varies among recovery units because of differences in bull trout status, factors affecting bull trout, implementation and effectiveness of recovery tasks, and responses to recovery tasks. Achieving bull trout recovery in all recovery units will be a complex process that will likely take 25 years or more. vin Title: Bull Trout, Salvelinus Confluentus... Draft Recovery Plan, Chapter 1, Introduction... Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2003, 2008, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE BULL TROUT RECOVERY PLAN Current Species Status The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the coterminous United States was listed as threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). Earlier rulemakings had listed distinct population segments of bull trout as threatened in the Columbia River, Klamath River, and Jarbidge River basins (63 FR 31647, 63 FR 42757, 64 FR 17110). Bull trout distribution, abundance, and habitat quality have declined rangewide. Several local extirpations have been documented, beginning in the 1950fs. Bull trout continue to occur the Klamath River, Columbia River, Jarbidge River, St. Mary-Belly River, and Coastal-Puget Sound, in the states of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids. Habitat components that influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, substrate for spawning and rearing, and migratory corridors. Bull trout are found in colder streams and require colder water than most other salmonids for incubation, juvenile rearing, and spawning. Spawning and rearing areas are often associated with cold-water springs, groundwater infiltration, and/or the coldest streams in a watershed. Throughout their lives, bull trout require complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools. Alterations in channel form and reductions in channel stability result in habitat degradation and reduced survival of bull trout eggs and juveniles. Channel alterations may reduce the abundance and quality of side channels, stream margins, and pools, which are areas bull trout frequently inhabit. For spawning and early rearing bull trout require loose, clean gravel relatively free of fine sediments. Because bull trout have a relatively long incubation and development period within spawning gravel (greater than 200 days), transport of bedload in unstable channels may kill young bull trout. Bull trout use migratory corridors to move from spawning and rearing habitats to foraging and overwintering habitats and back. Different habitats provide bull trout with diverse resources, and migratory corridors allow local populations to connect, which may increase the potential for gene flow and support or refounding of populations. Declines in bull trout distribution and abundance are the results of combined effects of the following: habitat degradation and fragmentation, the blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, angler harvest and poaching, entrainment (process by which aquatic organisms are pulled through a diversion structure or other device) into diversion channels and dams, and introduced iv normative species. Specific land and water management activities that continue to depress bull trout populations and degrade habitat include dams and other diversion structures, forest management practices, livestock grazing, agriculture, road construction and maintenance, mining, and urban and rural development. Some threats to bull trout are the continuing effects of past land management activities. Organization and Development of the Recovery Plan Because bull trout in the coterminous United States are widely distributed within a large area, the recovery plan is organized into multiple chapters. This introductory chapter (Chapter 1) describes our overall recovery strategy for the species, defines recovery, and identifies recovery actions applicable for all listed bull trout in the coterminous United States. Each successive chapter focuses on bull trout in specific geographic areas (recovery units), and describes conditions, defines recovery criteria, and identifies specific recovery actions for the recovery unit. Recovery Objectives The goal of this recovery plan is to describe the actions needed to achieve the recovery of bull trout, that is, to ensure the long-term persistence of self-sustaining, complex interacting groups (or multiple local populations that may have overlapping spawning and rearing areas) of bull trout distributed across the species' native range. Recovery of bull trout will require reducing threats to the long-term persistence of populations, maintaining multiple interconnected populations of bull trout across the diverse habitats of their native range, and preserving the diversity of bull trout life-history strategies (e.g., resident or migratory forms, emigration age, spawning frequency, local habitat adaptations). To recover bull trout, the following four objectives have been identified: ? Maintain current distribution of bull trout within core areas as described in recovery unit chapters and restore distribution where recommended in recovery unit chapters. ? Maintain stable or increasing trend in abundance of bull trout. ? Restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages and strategies. ? Conserve genetic diversity and provide opportunity for genetic exchange. ? These objectives apply to bull trout in all recovery units. Additional objectives may be necessary to achieve recovery in some recovery units and will be identified in the respective recovery unit chapters. Recovery Criteria Criteria are established to assess whether recovery objectives are being achieved. Criteria specific to each recovery unit are defined in each recovery unit chapter. Individual chapters may contain criteria for assessing the status of bull trout and alleviation of threats that are unique to one or several recovery units. However, every recovery unit chapter will contain criteria that address the following characteristics: ? The distribution of bull trout in identified and potential local populations in all core areas within the recovery unit. ? The estimated abundance of adult bull trout within core areas in the recovery unit, expressed as either a point estimate or a range of individuals. ? The presence of stable or increasing trends for adult bull trout abundance in the recovery unit. ? The restoration of passage at specific barriers identified as inhibiting recovery. We expect recovery of bull trout to be a dynamic process occurring over time. The recovery objectives are based on our current knowledge and may be refined as more information becomes available. Some local populations of bull trout, and possibly core area populations, may be extirpated even though recovery actions are being implemented. If reestablishment of recently extirpated populations is not feasible or practical, recovery criteria for a given recovery unit will be revised on a case-by-case basis. Meeting the four recovery criteria is not intended to be precluded where localized extirpations of bull trout are offset by sufficiently strong improvements in other areas of a recovery unit in meeting the four recovery objectives. The determination of whether a distinct population segment of bull trout is recovered will rely on an analysis of the overall status of the species, threats to the species, and the adequacy of existing regulatory and conservation mechanisms. For example, it may be possible for the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment, which has 22 recovery units, to be recovered prior to all recovery unit criteria being met in all recovery units. Success in accomplishing the recovery VI criteria will be reviewed and considered for the impacts both within a recovery unit and throughout a distinct population segment. Actions Needed Specific tasks falling within the following seven categories will be necessary to initiate recovery within all recovery units: ? Protect, restore, and maintain suitable habitat conditions for bull trout. ? Prevent and reduce negative effects of normative fishes and other normative taxa on bull trout. ? Establish fisheries management goals and objectives compatible with bull trout recovery and implement practices to achieve goals. ? Characterize, conserve, and monitor genetic diversity and gene flow among local populations of bull trout. ? Conduct research and monitoring to implement and evaluate bull trout recovery activities, consistent with an adaptive management approach using feedback from implemented, site-specific recovery tasks. ? Use all available conservation programs and regulations to protect and conserve bull trout and bull trout habitats. ? Assess the implementation of bull trout recovery by recovery units and revise recovery unit plans based on evaluations. Recovery Priority Number The recovery priority number for bull trout in the coterminous United States is 9C, on a scale of 1 to 18, indicating that (1) taxonomically, these populations are distinct population segments of a species, (2) the five populations are subject to a moderate degree of threat(s), (3) the recovery potential is high, and (4) the degree of potential conflict during recovery is high. vrr Estimated Cost of Recovery The total cost estimate of recovery for bull trout in the coterminous United States is presented in the individual recovery unit chapters. The costs presented in each chapter are attributed to bull trout conservation but other species will also benefit. Date of Recovery Expected time to achieve recovery varies among recovery units because of differences in bull trout status, factors affecting bull trout, implementation and effectiveness of recovery tasks, and responses to recovery tasks. Achieving bull trout recovery in all recovery units will be a complex process that will likely take 25 years or more. vin Close

• 3120. [Image] Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010

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