The Effects of Stream Adjacent Logging on Downstream Populations of Coastal Cutthroat Trout

The Effects of Stream Adjacent Logging on Downstream Populations of Coastal Cutthroat Trout. D. S. Bateman 1, R.E. Gresswell 2, Aaron M. Berger 3, D.P. Hockman-Wert 4 and D.W. Leer 1 1 Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management, Oregon State University 2 US Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Bozeman, Montana 3 Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems Division, BP D5 New Caledonia 4 U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, OR

Douglas County

Thanks to the Crews! Most Photos by David Leer

Experimental Design

Experimental Timeline: Hinkle Creek Calibration Phase Treatment Phase 2001 2006 2009 2011 Study Begins Treatment 1: Log 5 MU (Non-Fish Bearing) Treatment 2: Log 4 MU (Fish Bearing) Study Ends South Fork Treatments

Experimental Timeline: Hinkle Creek Calibration Phase Treatment Phase 2001 2006 2009 2011 Study Begins Treatment 1: Log 5 MU (Non-Fish Bearing) Treatment 2: Log 4 MU (Fish Bearing) Study Ends South Fork Treatments

Currently streams without fish or a domestic water use do not require the retention of a standing tree buffer.

Tributary Scale North Fork Hinkle South Fork Hinkle Swim-through PIT tag antenna

Tributary Scale North Fork Hinkle South Fork Hinkle Swim-through PIT tag antenna

Catchment Scale North Fork Hinkle Swim-through PIT tag antenna South Fork Hinkle

Results First Harvest

Hinkle Creek Annual Survival of Coastal Cutthroat Trout 0.6 South Fork Hinkle Creek MS 0.56 0.52 0.48 0.44 0.4 0.36 0.32 2007 2003 2003 2007 2008 2006 2005 2008 2005 2004 2004 2006 0.28 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4 0.44 0.48 North Fork Hinkle Creek MS

Mean Density of Age 1+ Cutthroat Trout in Pool Habitats North and South Fork Hinkle Creek: Tributary Scale 6 Age 1+ cutthroat trout (g/m 2 ) 5 4 3 2 NFT pre-treatment NFT post-treatment SFT pre-treatment SFT post-treatment 1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year

Proportion of Cutthroat Trout Displaying a Complex Movement Strategy at the Catchment Scale Proportion of cutthroat trout 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 NFH Pre-treatment NFH Post-treatment SFH Pre-treatment SFH Post-treatment 0.06 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year

Daily Average Proportion of Tagged Cutthtroat Trout Detected Moving by Catchment and Treatment Period 0.03 North Fork Hinkle Proportion of PIT tagged cutthroat trout detected moving 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 South Fork Hinkle Pre-treatment Post-treatment 0.00 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Month

Summary Evidence for increased biomass of age 1+ coastal cutthroat trout at the tributary scale Some evidence for increasing proportion of tagged fish exhibiting complex movement strategy and increase low-flow movement in South Fork Hinkle Overall very few detectable changes in habitat or biologic parameters were observed in conjunction with upstream logging

Preliminary Results from Second Harvest

Trout Response

Relative Growth Rate of PIT Tagged Age 1+ Cutthroat Trout in North and South Fork Hinkle Creek 0.30 Pre-treatment Post 1 Post 2 P=0.01 Relative growth rate (mm/mm/yr) 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 NF Hinkle Creek SF Hinkle Creek 0.14 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year

Mean Fork-length of Age 1+ Coastal Cutthroat Trout by Stream Segment and Treatment Period Mean forklength (mm) 140 130 120 110 100 N.F. Hinkle S.F. Hinkle Pre-treatment (2001-05) Post-treatment 1 (2006-08) Post-treatment 2 (2009-11) N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S8 Stream segment

Mean Fork Lengh Age 1+ Cutthroat in Tributaries North and South Fork Hinkle Creek 130 NF Hinkle Creek SF Hinkle Creek P=0.02 125 Fork length (mm) 120 115 110 Pre-treatment 105 Post 1 Post 2 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Age 1+ Cutthroat Trout Mean Annual Relative Growth with 95% C.I. NF Hinkle SF Hinkle 2003-05 2006-08 2009-11 NM1 NM2 NM3 NM4 NT1 NT2 NT3 SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 ST1 ST2 ST3 Segment Mean annual relative growth rate (mm/mm/yr)

Mean Fork Length Age 1+ Cutthroat Trout at the Catchment Scale North and South Forks Hinkle Creek 135 Pre-treatment Post 1 Post 2 P=0.06 130 Fork length (mm) 125 120 115 110 NF Hinkle Creek SF Hinkle Creek 105 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Years

Mean Fork Length of Age 0 Trout at the Catchment Scale for North and South Fork Hinkle Creek P=0.02 66 64 Pre-treatment Post 1 Post 2 62 Fork length (mm) 60 58 56 54 52 50 NF Hinkle Creek SF Hinkle Creek 48 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

Mean Fork Length Age 0 Trout Tributary Scale North and South Fork Hinkle Creek 70 P=0.01 Pre-treatment Post 1 Post 2 65 Fork length (mm) 60 55 NF Hinkle Creek SF Hinkle Creek 50 45 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

1.12 1.10 Mean Condition of Cutthroat Trout by Size Class, Watershed, and Treatment Period with 95% C.I. N.F. Hinkle 3= 75-104mm 4= 105-134mm 5= > 135mm S.F. Hinkle Pre (2001-05) Post1 (2006-08) Post2 (2009-11) Fulton's k 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.02 1.00 3 4 5 3 4 5 Size class

Age 1+ Coastal Cutthroat Trout per Meter from 40 Randomly Selected Watersheds and 11 Years of the North and South Forks of Hinkle Creek 1.4 Fish per meter 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Random 40 NFH_Pre NFH_Post1 NFH_Post2 SFH_Pre SFH_Post1 SFH_Post2 0.2 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Rank

Significant differences were related to increases in production (growth and mass).

Habitat Response

Proportion of Fish Bearing Channel Length in Pool Habitat in North and South Fork Hinkle Creek Proportion channel length in pool 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 2001 2002 2003 2004 NF Hinkle SF Hinkle 2005 2006 2007 P=0.77 Pre-treatment Post 1 Post 2 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

Proportion of Wetted Channel Area in Pool Habitat North and South Fork Hinkle 0.32 NF Hinkle Creek SF Hinkle Creek P=0.75 Proportion channel area in pool 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 Pre-treatment Post 1 Post 2 0.18 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

Mean Maximum Pool Depth Tributary Scale North and South Fork Hinkle Creek 0.30 NF Hinkle Creek SF Hinkle Creek P=0.04 Mean maximum depth (m) 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 Pre-treatment Post 1 Post 2 0.20 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

Proportion of Wetted Streambed in Boulder Size Substrate North and South Fork Hinkle 0.40 Pre-treatment Post 1 Post 2 P=0.1 Proportion 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 NF Hinkle Creek SF Hinkle Creek 0.15 0.10 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

Summary Treatment 2 Evidence for increased biomass of age-0 trout and all salmonids combined at the catchment scale Evidence for continued elevated biomass of age-1+ coastal cutthroat trout relative to the pretreatment period at the tributary scale but no evidence that biomass increased with treatment 2 Evidence for increase mean length of both Age-1+ cutthroat trout and age-0 trout Evidence of increased relative growth rates from PIT tagged cutthroat trout

Summary Treatment 2 Both increases in size and growth have strong spatial component with the increases apparent in the tributaries and upper mainstem. Some evidence indicating that the proportion of tagged fish exhibiting complex movement strategy declined after the second harvest. Again very few detectable changes in habitat or biologic parameters were observed in conjunction with logging adjacent to streams using prescribed buffers.

Summary Treatment 2 Post-treatment age 1+ cutthroat trout abundance in South Fork Hinkle appears to be well within the range of those observed in similar streams across western Oregon. At Hinkle Creek, Oregon Forest Practices Rules provided adequate short-term protection from acute negative effects to the resident fish community

Questions?

Age 1+ Cutthroat Trout Biomass by Year from Single-pass Census of Pool Habitats Flynn Creek and Needle Branch 4.5 4.0 Flynn Creek Needle Branch 3.5 Gram/m 2 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year

Cumulative Catch in Grams of Age 1+ Cutthroat Trout from Mainstems of Needle Branch and Flynn Creek 6000 5000 4000 3000 Needle Branch 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2000 1000 Cumulative grams 0 6000 5000 Down stream edge of clear cut 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Flynn Creek 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Distance (m)

Comparision of Single-pass Catch to Population Estimate from Mark-Recapture 100 80 Adjusted R2 = 0.74 Outliers removed Adjusted R2=0.91 60 Nhat 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 Single-pass catch

Comparision of Single-pass Catch to Population Estimate from Mark-Recapture 100 80 Outliers included, average factor of difference is 1.6 Outliers removed, average factor of difference is 1.5 3x 60 Nhat 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 Single-pass catch