Status and Conservation of Oregon s Interior Redband Trout Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Native Fish Investigations Project
Oregon s s Inland Redband Trout Legend Lakes Streams Klamath Great Basin Snake
Great Basin Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss newberrii Rainbow trout and cutthroat trout diverge: late Pliocene (~2,000,000 ya) Rainbow trout invade the Great Basin: Pleistocene (~70,000 ya) Warming and drying of the Great Basin isolates rainbow trout Great Basin redband trout occur in 6 isolated basins with no connectivity Redband Trout are isolated above dams and diversions in Klamath and Snake
Redband Trout SMUs and Populations Great Basin Redband Trout SMU's and Populations Silvies Silver Poison Prater Cow Coffeepot Rattlesnake Buck Fort Rock Malheur Lakes Bridge Riddle Jenny Wood Cascade Complex Lower Williamson Klamath River Upper Williamson Lower Sprague Upper Klamath Basin Lost River SIlver Upper Sycan Foster Chewaucan Chewaucan Warner Lakes Rock Willow Upper Sprague Honey Crooked Guano Thomas-Bauers Complex Cottonwood Upper Deep Upper Muddy Drews Deadman Antelope Lower Deep Lower Crane Drews Cogswell Dry Tandy Kelley Twentymile Fall Goose Lake McCoy Blitzen Threemile Home Skull Catlow Valley
Species Management Units and 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.
Oregon Great Basin Area: 40,000 km 2 16% of Oregon s area distribution of redband trout in wadable streams 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)
Great Basin Redband Trout Redband trout persist in areas of higher elevation/precipitation 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 Lakes basins - adfluvial form adfluvial form stream resident form
Previous Redband Trout Assessments 1997: Redband trout petitioned to be listed under ESA 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 Review
Evaluation Criteria 1. Existing Populations 2. Habitat Use Distribution 3. Abundance 4. Productivity 5. Reproductive Independence 6. Hybridization
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 miles 3) Connected to other populations
Redband Status Criteria Abundance Data from Dambacher 2001, and district staff Guidelines based on Dambacher and Jones 2007 Low <0.059 fish m-2 Moderate 0.06 0.19 fish m-2 High >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 Redband Status Criteria Pass if hybrids are rare or non-existent If data are not specific, then fail if con-generic non-native fish are sympatric
Conservation 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 Criteria Scoring of Interim Criteria place SMUs in one of three conservation risk categories: At Risk SMU does not meet at least four of the six criteria. Potentially at Risk SMU meets four or five criteria. Not at Risk SMU meets all criteria.
Status of Redband Trout Not at risk Potentially at risk At risk Extinct Fort Rock Malheur Chewaucan Klamath Goose Warner Catlow
Scoring of Status Criteria for Redband Trout SMUs Upper Klamath 10 80% 40% 0% Goose Lake 13 Chewaucan 4 Fort Rock 3 Warner Lakes 4 Catlow Valley 5 Percent of Populations Meeting Criterion 80% 40% 0% 80% 40% 0% 80% 40% 0% 80% 40% 0% 80% 40% 0% Malheur Lakes 10 80% 40% 0% Existing Populations Distribution Abundance Productivity Reproductive Independence Hybridization
Factors Limiting Redband Productivity Flow diversion Degraded Stream & Riparian Habitat Migration Barriers Competition with exotic salmonids Climate regime
ODFW Redband Trout Study 2007: ODFW s Native Fish Investigations Project initiates a six-year study to assess status and trends of Great Basin redband trout Key Objective: - To assess the response of fish populations to changes in climatic conditions and evaluate subsequent shifts in population abundance and structure
Great Basin Redband Study To address data gaps outlined in the Native Fish Status Review (ODFW 2005). To provide better management for future fishing opportunities. To write effective conservation plans for all Great Basin SMUs. To assess the response of fish populations to changes in climatic conditions.
ODFW Redband Trout Study EPA s Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) design - probabilistic surveys - spatially balanced, representative sample 30 sites per basin every year 30 sites per population every 3 years 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
Land Ownership of Great Basin Redband Trout Habitat Legend Redband Trout Populations Land Ownership Land Ownseship BLM ODF PVT USFS USFWS 0 20 40 80 Kilometers Fort Rock Malheur Lakes Chewaucan Warner Lakes Catlow Valley Goose Lake
Sampling Success Warner Lakes, 2007 Site Status ( n = 90) Completed (53) Did Not Survey (1) Access Denied (21) Failed Estimate (2) Dry Channel (13) All SMUs 2007-08
Calibration of Removal Estimates ~ 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. 300 Mark-Recapture Estimate 250 200 150 100 50 0 y = 1.55x + 5.98 R 2 = 0.86 0 50 100 150 200 Removal Estimate
ODFW Redband Trout Study 2008 Site Densities 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) High variability Some areas of high density
ODFW Redband Trout Study 2008 Site Densities 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Fish/m 2 Percentage of Sites Cumulative Percent of Sites 100 80 60 40 20
ODFW Redband Trout Study 60 Blitzen Population Length Frequency 50 n = 918 1+ > 85mm Frequency 40 30 20 10 0 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 Dominated by smaller, younger fish High productivity? Fork Length (mm)
Occurrence of Brook Trout Legend Brook Trout Redband Trout Distribution Other Streams
ODFW Redband Trout Study 2007 population estimates SMU n Estimate 95% CI Catlow Valley 7 24,539 65% Chewaucan 31 120,577 50% Fort Rock 27 70,315 28% Goose Lake 90 102,855 36% Malheur Lakes 39 447,970 37% Warner Lakes 53 221,985 50% Total 247 988,241 22% 2008 population estimates SMU n Estimate 95% CI Catlow Valley - - - Chewaucan 25 112,275 38% Fort Rock 24 39,833 42% Goose Lake 24 36,266 47% Malheur Lakes 138 395,855 19% Warner Lakes 24 396,580 41% Total 235 980,810 19%
Age 1+ Fish x 1000 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 250 200 150 100 50 0 Trends in Abundance Fort Rock 200 160 120 80 40 0 Goose Lake Chewaucan Warner Lakes Malheur Lakes 1999 2007 2008 800 600 400 200 0 1999 2007 2008 Year 80 60 40 20 0 800 600 400 200 0 Catlow Valley 1999 2007 2008
Population Abundance SMU Population n Estimate 95% 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%
Application of Results
ODFW Redband Trout Study - Possible Outcomes - Abundance of redband trout as it relates to stream flow Age 1+ LCT abundance x 1000 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 R 2 = 0.89 p = 0.055 1989 1994 2005 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mean Annual Precipitation (inches) years i-1 and i-2 1999
300 Mean Annual Flow years i-1 and i-2 Donner und Blitzen River 250 CFS 200 150 100 50 0 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
ODFW Redband Trout Study - Possible Outcomes - Changes in Distribution of redband trout relative to climate cycles Wet Dry Fish/m 2 no fish low density high density
Redband Trout Density Malheur River, 2007 0.0 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.19 0.20 0.39 0.40 1.30 Malheur River North Fork Malheur River Little Malheur River Beulah Reservoir Bully Creek Cottonwood Creek Willow Creek Bully Creek Reservoir Estimated Abundance 298,250 ± 29% Warm Springs Reservoir South Fork Malheur River
Migratory Populations
Upper Klamath Basin Complex life histories Lake rearing Stream residents Connected Populations Sampling Issues
Lost River Klamath Basin Populations Klamath Basin Populations Jackson Creek Rock Creek Williamson River Sun Creek Annie Creek Sycan River 7-mile Cr Sycan River Merritt Creek Spring Cr Sprague River Wood River N. Fk. Sprague River Meryl Cr Williamson River 7-mile Canal 4-mile Cr Cherry Cr 5-mile Creek Rock Cr Snake Cr Trout Cr Crystal Creek 4-mile Cr S. Fk. Sprague River Rock Creek Fishhole Creek Spencer Creek Lost River Rock Creek Klamath River Oregon Rock Creek Fourmile Creek Shovel Creek California Crater Lake Long Creek Cascade Complex Jenny Wood Agency L. U Klamath Lake Klamath River Upper Williamson Lower Williamson Lower Sprague Upper Sycan Lost River 10 Populations 4 Adfluvial MILLER CR JACK CR CRATER L LONG CR SYCAN CR MERRIT CR *C *B *A SPRAGUE R Upper Sprague FISHHOLE CR *B *A WILLIAMSON R ASPEN LAKE GERBER RES JENNY CR TOM CR LOST R LONG PRAIRIE CR FALL CR WILLOW CR WILLOW CR BOGUS CR Rock Creek KLAMATH R
Klamath Redband Trends
Klamath Redband Genetic Study Better define population structure Mine samples collected in 2000 Also compare with other populations Analyzed by Devon Pearce, NOAA, UCSC 18 microsatellite loci
Klamath Redband Genetic Population Structure Rock Cr, Lower Sprague River Wood River Lower Sprague River Trout Cr, Lower Sprague River Upper Klamath River Lower Klamath River & Jenny Cr Klamath Lake Basin Lost River Scott Cr, central CA coast Goose Lake
Movement and Passage of Redband Trout in the Blitzen River
Study Location
Blitzen R Diversion Dams Sodhouse Busse Grain Camp Page
Objectives 1. Determine movement patterns of fluvial life history 2. Investigate migratory delays at diversion dams
Methods Trout caught in traps and by angling Radio telemetry PIT tags Stream temperature and flow Fish scale interpretation
Trout Size and Age Distributions Age:
Flow CFS Grain Camp Busse Cato Bridge (N = 24) Page Number of trout passing PIT reader Temp ⁰C
died
Upstream Migration Extent and Arrival Timing
Passage Delay at Dams Proportion of trout below dam 1.0 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 Busse Busse Grain Camp Grain Camp Page Page 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (days)
Stream Temperature Summer 7-day Max Average Temperature ⁰C UILT 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 for Redband Trout Keys to persistence (Williams et al, 2007): - Protect current strongholds - Increase size and extent of existing populations - Maintain genetic and life history diversity - Reconnect stream systems - Minimize anthropogenic stressors - Improve adaptive management
ODFW Conservation Planning Native Fish Conservation Policy Native Fish Conservation Plans Define desired status relative to biological attributes Distribution Survival Describe current status at the population level Abundance Rate of Population Growth Limiting factor analysis including corrective strategies Population Diversity Forecast of Persistence Identify Population monitoring Connectivity and research needs to evaluate success of corrective strategies Include measurable criteria indicating significant deterioration in status & triggering recovery actions
ODFW Conservation Planning Native Fish Conservation Policy Native Fish Conservation Plans Collaborative process Technical committee Stakeholder committee Peer review
Conservation Planning Challenges for Redband Trout Limited data available Abundance & distribution Lack of long term data sets Lack of sensitivity to detect trend North Malheur Lakes Silvies Conflict in scale at which data are collected Smallest populations aggregated Silver East Burns
Conservation Planning Challenges 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 Population Annual Potential Precipitation Malheur Lakes SMU
Approach Define desired and current status - Abundance & Distribution Varies by potential Varies by water year High water years Low Water years High Potential Low Potential - 98% of sites with fish - 74% of sites with fish - 50% of sites > 8.1 g/m 2-50% of sites > 0.31 g/m 2-58% of sites with fish - 50% of sites > 0.86 g/m 2-50% of sites with fish - 50% of sites > 0.31 g/m 2
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 Basin Redband Trout Harvest impacts are being minimized. 2009-10 Creel Survey in Upper Klamath Lake Trout stocking in waters containing redband trout will use only triploid (sterile) trout. Passage and screening in Chewaucan Basin. Screening in Warner Lakes Basin. Collaboration with USGS to analyze redband data to refine population benchmarks (WNTI)
Parting Shots Progress over last decade Overall abundant but disconnected and constrained life history expression Uncertainty of what monitoring can be continued Appropriate conservation objectives Effective monitoring strategies Problem of time scale