Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Status and Conservation of Oregon’s Interior Redband Trout
Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeNative Fish Investigations Project
OregonOregon ’’s Inland Redband Trouts Inland Redband Trout
Legend
Lakes
Streams
Klamath
Great Basin
Snake
Great Basin Redband TroutOncorhynchus mykiss newberrii
Rainbow trout and cutthroat trout diverge: late Plio cene (~2,000,000 ya)
Rainbow trout invade the Great Basin: Pleistocene ( ~70,000 ya)
Warming and drying of the Great Basin isolates rainb ow trout
Great Basin redband trout occur in 6 isolated basins wi th no connectivity
Redband Trout are isolated above dams and diversions in Klamath and
Snake
Redband Trout SMUs and PopulationsRedband Trout SMUs and Populations
Blitzen
Lost River
Lower Sprague
SIlver
Jenny
Chewaucan
Upper Williamson
Upper Sprague
McCoy
Honey
Wood
Klamath River
Upper Sycan
Upper Deep
Riddle
Dry
WillowSkull
Silvies
Silver
CascadeComplex
Rock
UpperDrews
Guano
Poison
Cow
Buck
Crooked
LowerWilliamson
Twentymile
Thomas-Bauers Complex
Bridge
Home
Cottonwood
CraneLowerDrews
RattlesnakeCoffeepot
Antelope
Prater
Kelley
Muddy
Threemile
Deadman
Cogswell
Fall
Foster
Tandy
Lower Deep
Fort Rock Malheur Lakes
Upper Klamath Basin
Catlow Valley
Warner Lakes
Chewaucan
Goose Lake
Great Basin Redband TroutSMU's and Populations
Species Management Units Species Management Units and Populationsand Populations
� Species Management Units are defined as the major pluvial lake basins of the Great Basin. � Are geographically isolated from populations in
other SMUs and may be genetically distinct.� Coincide with ODFW management plans and
the USFWS Status Review of Great Basin redband Trout.
� Populations were based on geography, movement patterns and genetic data.
• Area: 40,000 km 2
• 16% of Oregon’s area
• Pop: 14,000 people
• 0.4% of Oregon’s pop
• 6 interior basins with
redband trout
• Northern Basin & Range
• Elevation: 1,246 - 2,964 m
(4,088 - 9,725 ft)
• Annual ppt: 17 - 130 cm
(6 - 51 in)
distribution of redband troutin wadable streams
Oregon Great Basin
Great Basin Redband Trout
stream resident formadfluvial form
Redband trout persist in areas of higher elevation/preci pitation
Diverse habitats gave rise to diverse life histories
Majority of redband trout inhabit headwater streams
- stream resident form
Pluvial lakes present in Goose, Warner, and Malheur Lak es basins
- adfluvial form
Previous Redband Trout Assessments
1997: Redband trout petitioned to be listed under E SA
1999: ODFW surveys Great Basin redband trout
- 950,000 fish (± 21%)
2000: USFWS denies listing of redband trout
2005: Status Review of Oregon’s Native Fishes
ODFW Status ReviewODFW Status Review
Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria
1.1. Existing PopulationsExisting Populations
2.2. Habitat Use DistributionHabitat Use Distribution
3.3. AbundanceAbundance
4.4. ProductivityProductivity
5.5. Reproductive IndependenceReproductive Independence
6.6. HybridizationHybridization
Trout Status Criteria
Existing Populations• Extinct or functionally extinct• Population delineation based on Bowers et al, input from regional staff
Distribution
• Pass if meet two of three criteria:1) > 10% of total stream distance 2) Greater than 5 miles3) Connected to other populations
Redband Status CriteriaAbundance
•Data from Dambacher 2001, and district staff • Guidelines based on Dambacher and Jones 2007
Low <0.059 fish m-2Moderate 0.06 – 0.19 fish m-2High >0.2 fish m-2•Pass if moderate or high in 3 of the past 5 yrs.
Productivity• Not quantitatively assessed due to a lack of or inconsistent data
• Consider distribution and abundance• high densities with adequate distribution = pass• isolated populations (no migratory life history) = fail• presence of non-native salmonids = ?
Reproductive Independence
• Current and historic stocking records
• Failed if currently stocked, or if genetic analysis indicates significant interaction
Hybridization
• Pass if hybrids are rare or non-existent
• If data are not specific, then fail if con-generic non-native fish are sympatric
Redband Status Criteria
Conservation Status Score for SMUConservation Status Score for SMU
� Each of these attributes was evaluated for every population based on benchmark values related to species viability, persistence probability, and conservation risks.
� Criteria for individual SMUs were met when at least 80% of existing constituent populations met the standard.
� Risk categories were assigned based on the number of interim criteria met by each SMU.
Implementation of CriteriaImplementation of CriteriaScoring of Interim Criteria Scoring of Interim Criteria
place SMUs in one of three place SMUs in one of three ““conservation riskconservation risk””categories:categories:
–– ““ At RiskAt Risk ””SMU does not meet at least four of the six criteria.SMU does not meet at least four of the six criteria.
–– ““ Potentially at RiskPotentially at Risk ””SMU meets four or five criteria.SMU meets four or five criteria.
–– ““ Not at RiskNot at Risk ””SMU meets all criteria.SMU meets all criteria.
Status of Redband Trout
Klamath
Malheur
Catlow
Fort Rock
WarnerGoose
Chewaucan
Potentially at riskAt riskExtinct
Not at risk
Scoring of Status Criteria for Redband Trout SMUsScoring of Status Criteria for Redband Trout SMUs
0%
40%
80%
0%40%80%
ExistingPopulations
Distribution Abundance Productivity ReproductiveIndependence
Hybridization
0%
40%
80%
0%
40%
80%
0%
40%
80%
0%
40%
80%
0%
40%
80%
Per
cent
of P
opul
atio
ns M
eetin
g C
riter
ion
Upper KlamathUpper Klamath 1010
Goose LakeGoose Lake 13 13
ChewaucanChewaucan44
Fort RockFort Rock 33
Warner LakesWarner Lakes 44
Catlow ValleyCatlow Valley 55
Malheur LakesMalheur Lakes 1010
Factors Limiting Redband ProductivityFactors Limiting Redband Productivity
�� Flow diversionFlow diversion
�� Degraded Stream & Riparian HabitatDegraded Stream & Riparian Habitat
�� Migration BarriersMigration Barriers
�� Competition with exotic salmonidsCompetition with exotic salmonids
�� Climate regimeClimate regime
ODFW Redband Trout Study2007: ODFW’s Native Fish Investigations Project init iates a six-year
study to assess status and trends of Great Basin redb and trout
Key Objective:
- To assess the response of fish populations to chan ges in climatic
conditions and evaluate subsequent shifts in popula tion
abundance and structure
Great Basin Redband StudyGreat Basin Redband Study�� To address data gaps outlined in the Native Fish Status To address data gaps outlined in the Native Fish Status
Review (ODFW 2005).Review (ODFW 2005).
�� To assess the response of fish populations to changes in To assess the response of fish populations to changes in climatic conditions. climatic conditions.
�� To provide better management for future fishing To provide better management for future fishing opportunities.opportunities.
�� To write effective conservation plans for all Great Basin To write effective conservation plans for all Great Basin SMUs.SMUs.
EPA’s Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS ) design
- probabilistic surveys
- spatially balanced, representative sample
30 sites per basin every year
Density estimates at randomly selected sites
- 2-pass removal electrofishing
Calibrate removal estimates
- mark-recapture at sub-sample of sites
Collect stream habitat data at each site
ODFW Redband Trout Study
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!( !( !(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!( !(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(!(!(
!(!(
!( !( !( !(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
30 sites per population every 3 years
Land Ownership of Great Basin Land Ownership of Great Basin Redband Trout HabitatRedband Trout Habitat
Fort Rock
Malheur Lakes
Cat low Valley
Warner Lakes
Chewaucan
Goose Lake
Legend
Redband Trout Populations Land OwnershipLand Ownseship
BLM
ODF
PVT
USFS
USFWS
0 40 8020 Kilometers
Sampling SuccessSampling Success
Warner Lakes, 2007
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Completed (53)
Did Not Survey (1)Access Denied (21)
Failed Estimate (2)
Dry Channel (13)
Site Status ( n = 90)
All SMUs 2007-08
Calibration of Removal EstimatesCalibration of Removal Estimates
y = 1.55x + 5.98
R2 = 0.86
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 50 100 150 200
Removal Estimate
Mar
k-R
ecap
ture
Est
imat
e• ~ 10 % of sample sites calibrated with mark-recapture techniques.
• Removal estimates underestimated abundance by 37%, a 0.63 bias.
• Develop predictive models based on channel complexity and fish attributes.
• Preliminary analysis of 2006 data show bias correlated to in-stream wood and fish size.
Fish/m 2
0.0 (n = 59)
0.01 – 0.15 (n = 107)
0.16 – 0.40 (n = 52)
0.41 – 1.00 (n = 17)
2008 Site Densities
ODFW Redband Trout Study
• High variability
•Some areas of high
density
ODFW Redband Trout Study2008 Site Densities
Fish/m 2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Per
cent
age
of S
ites
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Cum
ulat
ive
Per
cent
of S
ites
20
40
60
80
100
Blitzen Population Length Frequency
0
10
20
30
40
50
6030 50 70 90 11
0
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
310
330
350
370
390
410
Fork Length (mm)
Fre
quen
cy
n = 9181+ > 85mm
ODFW Redband Trout Study
• Dominated by smaller, younger fish
• High productivity?
Occurrence of Brook TroutOccurrence of Brook Trout
LegendBrook Trout
Redband Trout Distribution
Other Streams
2008 population estimates
2007 population estimates
ODFW Redband Trout StudySMUSMU nn EstimateEstimate 95% CI95% CI
Catlow ValleyCatlow Valley 77 24,53924,539 65%65%
ChewaucanChewaucan 3131 120,577120,577 50%50%
Fort RockFort Rock 2727 70,31570,315 28%28%
Goose LakeGoose Lake 9090 102,855102,855 36%36%
Malheur LakesMalheur Lakes 3939 447,970447,970 37%37%
Warner LakesWarner Lakes 5353 221,985221,985 50%50%
TotalTotal 247247 988,241988,241 22%22%
SMUSMU nn EstimateEstimate 95% CI95% CI
Catlow ValleyCatlow Valley -- -- --
ChewaucanChewaucan 2525 112,275112,275 38%38%
Fort RockFort Rock 2424 39,83339,833 42%42%
Goose LakeGoose Lake 2424 36,26636,266 47%47%
Malheur LakesMalheur Lakes 138138 395,855395,855 19%19%
Warner LakesWarner Lakes 2424 396,580396,580 41%41%
TotalTotal 235235 980,810980,810 19%19%
Trends in AbundanceTrends in Abundance
Chewaucan Warner Lakes Malheur Lakes
Year
Age
1+
Fis
h x
1000
Fort Rock120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Goose Lake200
160
120
80
40
0
Catlow Valley80
60
40
20
0
1999 2007 2008
250
200
150
100
50
01999 2007 2008
800
600
400
200
01999 2007 2008
800
600
400
200
0
SMUSMU PopulationPopulation nn EstimateEstimate 95% CI95% CI
Goose Lake Drews 20 16,477 69%
2007 Dry 12 2,749 163%
Eastside 17 21,613 28%
Thomas 21 38,309 58%
West Goose 20 41,146 84%
Warner Lakes Deep 18 163,565 75%
2007 Honey 17 16,247 60%
Twentymile 18 79,808 58%
Malheur Lakes Blitzen 23 106,807 36%
2008 East Burns 25 27,940 45%
McCoy 24 124,255 35%
Riddle 18 45,938 51%
Silver 25 41,161 49%
Silvies 23 112,074 52%
Population Abundance
Application of Results Application of Results
ODFW Redband Trout Study- Possible Outcomes -
Abundance of redband trout as it relates to stream flow
Mean Annual Precipitation (inches)years i-1 and i-2
Age
1+
LCT
abu
ndan
ce x
100
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
105 15 20 25 30
R2 = 0.89p = 0.055
1989
2005
1994
1999
1941 19611951 1971 19911981 2001
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
CF
SMean Annual Flow
years i-1 and i-2Donner und Blitzen River
Fish/m 2
no fish
low density
high density
Wet
ODFW Redband Trout Study- Possible Outcomes -
Changes in Distribution of redband trout relative to climate cycles
Dry
Redband Trout DensityRedband Trout DensityMalheur River, 2007Malheur River, 2007
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
Malheur R
iver
Willow Creek
Bully Creek
Cotto
nwoo
d Cre
ek
So
uth
Fo
rk M
alh
eur
Ri v
er
North
Fork M
alheu
r River
L itt le Malh
eur R
iv er
WarmSprings
Reservoir
Beulah Reservoir
Bully Creek
Reservoir
!(
!(
!(!(!(
0.0
0.01 – 0.10
0.11 – 0.19
0.20 – 0.39
0.40 – 1.30
Estimated Abundance
298,250 ± 29%
Migratory PopulationsMigratory Populations
Upper Klamath BasinUpper Klamath Basin
�� Complex life historiesComplex life histories�� Lake rearingLake rearing
�� Stream residentsStream residents
�� Connected PopulationsConnected Populations
�� Sampling IssuesSampling Issues
Klamath Basin PopulationsKlamath Basin Populations
Oregon
California
N. Fk.
Sprague R
iver
Trout Cr
S. Fk. Sprague River
Sycan River
Mer
yl C
r
4-mile Cr
Spencer Creek
Shovel Creek
Klamath Rive
r
Will
i am
son
Riv
er
Sycan River
Sun Creek
Merritt Creek
Annie Creek
Wood R
iver
Fishhole Creek
Rock C
reek
Lost Rive
r
4-mile Cr
Jack
son C
reek
5-m
il e C
reekCherry Cr
7-mile Canal
7-mile Cr
Sprague River
Snake Cr
Roc
k C
reek
Rock C
reek
Lost
Riv
er
Spring C
r
William
son River
Rock Creek
Fou
rmile
Cre
ek
Rock Cr
Crys ta l C
ree k
Rock Creek
Long Creek
U Klamath Lake
Crater Lake
Agency L.
Lost River
Lower Sprague
Jenny
Upper Williamson
Upper Sprague
Wood
Klamath River
Upper Sycan
Cascade Complex
Lower Williamson
*B
*A
KLAMATH R
SPRAGUE R
LOST R
*C
SYCAN
CR
WILLIA
MS
ON
RJENNY CR
LON
G C
R
TOM
CR
MERRIT CR
FISHHOLE CR
JAC
K C
R
MILLER CR
FALL
CR
LON
G P
RA
IRIE
CR
BOGUS CR
CRATER L
WIL
LOW
CR
AS
PE
N L
AK
E
GER
BER R
ES
*B
*A
WILLOW CR
•10 Populations•4 Adfluvial
Klamath Redband TrendsKlamath Redband Trends
Klamath Redband Genetic StudyKlamath Redband Genetic Study
�� Better define population structureBetter define population structure
�� Mine samples collected in 2000Mine samples collected in 2000
�� Also compare with other populationsAlso compare with other populations
�� Analyzed by Devon Pearce, NOAA, UCSCAnalyzed by Devon Pearce, NOAA, UCSC
�� 18 microsatellite loci18 microsatellite loci
Klamath Redband Genetic Population StructureKlamath Redband Genetic Population Structure
Goose Goose LakeLake
Klamath Klamath Lake BasinLake Basin
Upper Klamath RiverUpper Klamath River
Lower Klamath Lower Klamath River & Jenny CrRiver & Jenny Cr
Wood Wood RiverRiver
Lower Lower Sprague Sprague RiverRiver
Trout Cr, Trout Cr, Lower Lower Sprague Sprague RiverRiver
Rock Cr, Lower Sprague RiverRock Cr, Lower Sprague River
Lost Lost RiverRiver
Scott Cr, central Scott Cr, central CA coastCA coast
Movement and Passage of Movement and Passage of Redband Trout in the Blitzen RiverRedband Trout in the Blitzen River
Study LocationStudy Location
Blitzen R Diversion DamsSodhouse Busse
Grain Camp Page
1.1. Determine movement patterns of fluvial Determine movement patterns of fluvial life historylife history
2.2. Investigate migratory delays at diversion Investigate migratory delays at diversion damsdams
Objectives
MethodsMethods
�� Trout caught in traps and by Trout caught in traps and by anglingangling
�� Radio telemetryRadio telemetry
�� PIT tagsPIT tags
�� Stream temperature and flowStream temperature and flow
�� Fish scale interpretationFish scale interpretation
Trout Size and Age DistributionsTrout Size and Age Distributions
Age:
Nu
mb
er
of
tro
ut
pa
ssin
g P
IT r
ea
de
r
Grain Camp
Busse
Cato Bridge
(N = 24)
PageT
em
p ⁰
CF
low
CF
S
died
Upstream Migration Extent and Arrival Timing
Passage Delay at DamsPassage Delay at DamsP
rop
ort
ion
of
tro
ut
be
low
da
m
Time (days)
1.0
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Page
Grain Camp
Busse
Page
Grain Camp
Busse
Stream Temperature
UILT
Summer 7-day Max AverageT
em
pe
ratu
re ⁰
C
River km
Conclusions
• Multiple migrations within lifetime
• Migration not exclusively for reproduction
• Seasonal migration pattern
• Spawning had a limited distribution
•Lack of repeat spawning
• Lower river trout arrive later at spawning habitat
• Some dams present passage limitations to trout
- Some delayed up to 40 days
- Some never pass
Conservation Principles forRedband Trout
Keys to persistence (Williams et al, 2007):- Protect current strongholds
- Increase size and extent of existing populations
- Maintain genetic and life historydiversity
- Reconnect stream systems
- Minimize anthropogenic stressors
- Improve adaptive management
ODFW Conservation PlanningODFW Conservation PlanningNative Fish Conservation PolicyNative Fish Conservation Policy
Native Fish Conservation PlansNative Fish Conservation Plans
•• Define desired status relative to biological attributesDefine desired status relative to biological attributes
•• Describe current status at the population levelDescribe current status at the population level
•• Limiting factor analysis including corrective strategiesLimiting factor analysis including corrective strategies
•• Identify monitoring and research needs to evaluate Identify monitoring and research needs to evaluate success of corrective strategiessuccess of corrective strategies
•• Include measurable criteria indicating significant Include measurable criteria indicating significant deterioration in status & triggering recovery actionsdeterioration in status & triggering recovery actions
DistributionDistribution SurvivalSurvival
AbundanceAbundance Rate of Population GrowthRate of Population Growth
Population DiversityPopulation Diversity Forecast of PersistenceForecast of Persistence
Population ConnectivityPopulation Connectivity
ODFW Conservation PlanningODFW Conservation PlanningNative Fish Conservation PolicyNative Fish Conservation Policy
Native Fish Conservation PlansNative Fish Conservation Plans
� Collaborative process� Technical committee� Stakeholder committee� Peer review
Conservation Planning Conservation Planning Challenges for Redband TroutChallenges for Redband Trout
� Limited data available� Abundance & distribution� Lack of long term data sets� Lack of sensitivity to detect trend
� Conflict in scale at which data are collected� Smallest populations aggregated
Silvies
Silver East Burns
North Malheur Lakes
Conservation Planning Conservation Planning Challenges for Redband TroutChallenges for Redband Trout
� High among population variability� Populations differ in potential
� Irregular & sporadic monitoring activities� Limited opportunities to detect deterioration
� Few fishery management options for recovery� Limited harvest, little or no stocking in running waters
Approach
� Evaluate Populations by Potential� Flow - Precipitation & Area� Temperature – Elevation & Aspect
Mean Annual PrecipitationMalheur Lakes SMUPopulation PotentialMalheur Lakes SMU
ApproachDefine desired and current status -
Abundance & DistributionVaries by potentialVaries by water year
High Potential Low Potential
High water years
- 98% of sites with fish- 50% of sites > 8.1 g/m2
- 74% of sites with fish- 50% of sites > 0.31 g/m2
Low Water years
- 58% of sites with fish- 50% of sites > 0.86 g/m2
- 50% of sites with fish- 50% of sites > 0.31 g/m2
Approach� Define desired and current status -
� Reproductive Potential – length frequency� Population diversity – Number of Eco-regions� Spatial diversity – Habitat heterogeneity
Approach• Identify habitat related recovery actions
� Habitat Restoration� Restoration of Passage� Restoration of instream flow
Recent Conservation Actions for Great Recent Conservation Actions for Great Basin Redband TroutBasin Redband Trout
�� Harvest impacts are being minimized.Harvest impacts are being minimized.
�� 20092009--10 Creel Survey in Upper Klamath Lake10 Creel Survey in Upper Klamath Lake
�� Trout stocking in waters containing redband trout will use Trout stocking in waters containing redband trout will use only triploid (sterile) trout.only triploid (sterile) trout.
�� Passage and screening in Chewaucan Basin.Passage and screening in Chewaucan Basin.
�� Screening in Warner Lakes Basin.Screening in Warner Lakes Basin.
�� Collaboration with USGS to analyze redband data to refine Collaboration with USGS to analyze redband data to refine population benchmarks (WNTI)population benchmarks (WNTI)
Parting ShotsParting Shots
�� Progress over last decadeProgress over last decade
�� Overall abundant but disconnected and Overall abundant but disconnected and constrained life history expressionconstrained life history expression
�� Uncertainty of what monitoring can be Uncertainty of what monitoring can be continuedcontinued
�� Appropriate conservation objectives Appropriate conservation objectives
�� Effective monitoring strategiesEffective monitoring strategies
�� Problem of time scaleProblem of time scale