Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland Aquatic MIS Analysis - Redband Trout

July 20, 2011

Prepared by: Daniel Rife

/s/ Daniel Rife

Ochoco and Deschutes National Forest Fisheries Program Manager

I. Introduction

In the Ochoco National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Crooked River National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP - 1989), three aquatic management indicator species (MIS) have been identified. They are rainbow trout, brook trout, and steelhead trout. Subsequent to the signing of these LRMP’s rainbow trout on the east side of Cascade mountain crest in the Columbia basin and elsewhere were described as redband trout by Behnke (1992). Brook trout are a non-native trout that was planted for fishing opportunities in the 1920’s and 1930’s. They are known to exist in only a few streams on the Forest including Allen Creek, Lookout Creek, and Brush Creek. For purposes of the Forest wide MIS analysis we will consider redband trout, steelhead trout, and brook trout as the aquatic management indicator species.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland states that management indicator species, or groups of species, were chosen to help determine the effects of management activities on fish habitat. The habitat requirements of MIS are assumed to be similar for other fish species. If a selected species and its habitat are influenced significantly by management activities, like effects can be expected on other fish species with similar habitat requirements. Redband trout, brook trout, and steelhead trout were selected as an indicator group because salmonids have a broad distribution across the Forest and Grassland and are of economic importance resulting from commercial and recreational harvest. The group generally has similar habitat requirements which are narrow enough to ensure viability of most fish. The habitat requirements make the group a good indicator of riparian habitat and aquatic habitat condition for both the Ochoco National Forest and the Crooked River National Grassland.

The LRMP’s state that management of these species will occur through providing habitat by managing per riparian prescriptions (Management Area F-15 Riparian). Within the MA-15 Riparian description the LRMP states that “Fully functional riparian areas are essential for the maintenance of viable fish populations on the Forest. Riparian areas provide food, cover, and a source of large woody material for aquatic insects, fish and land animals. The vegetation of streamside areas filter sediment and shade the water surface to help maintain stable stream temperatures.”

Implementation of the LRMP’s includes monitoring of the following to determine viability of the management indicator species:

Monitoring Actions/Effects Units of Measure Variability Suggested Item Monitored Threshold Methods Fisheries: Determine if 1. Sedimentation Loss in habitat 1. Bucket or Habitat habitat meets 2. Temperature, capability, objectives ocular capability and management 3. Channel morphology not being met 2. Thermograph productivity, objectives 4. Riparian community 3. Cross section species and size composition 4. Line transects composition 5. Large woody material 5. Riparian plant 6. Smolt numbers survey 6. Electrofishing

II. Redband Trout Conservation Status

Endangered Species Act (ESA)_

Redband trout (Oncorhychus mykiss) were listed as a candidate species on the Endangered Species Act in 1982. Petitions to list populations of redband trout under ESA were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1994, 1995, and 1997. All three petitions ended with a review and decision by USFWS of the listing as not warranted, the last one issued in 2000. Due to budget and policy decisions in 1995 and 1996 the USFWS eliminated several categories under which species could be assigned candidate status. Specifically the only category left for candidate species is for those that are judged to warrant listing as threatened or endangered but the listing is precluded by higher priority needs. As such, redband trout are no longer listed as a candidate species.

Natureserve

Natureserve, which last reviewed the redband trout global status in February 2003, had the global status as “Secure—Common; widespread and abundant” and the infraspecific taxa (subspecies or varieties) status as “Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare, some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors”.

In the North American continent the status varies widely by province or state. British Columbia status is “Apparently Secure”, Montana is “Critically Imperiled”, Idaho and Nevada are “Imperiled”, and Oregon is ranked as “Vulnerable”. California and Washington are not rated

Oregon populations used for this status are Oregon Great Basin – “Vulnerable”, Klamath Basin – “Vulnerable”, Jenny Creek – SE Oregon – “Imperiled” due to little habitat remaining, Catlow Valley in SE Oregon – “Critically Imperiled”, due to little habitat remaining, Warner Valley – “Imperiled” due to some evidence of hybridization, and Goose Lake – “Imperiled” due to highly altered habitat and hybridization.

Global short term trend according to NatureServe is declining, with a decline of 10-30%. In the Columbia River basin, nearly all upriver and many lower river stocks have declined, though most Snake River native stocks appear to be improving after having declined (Nehlsen et al. 1991).

Threats: Snake River native stocks are threatended by maintem passage problems (e.g. dams), inadequate water flows, and habitat degradation (Nehlsen et al. 1991). Many stocks in the Columbia River basin are threatened by mainstem passage problems, habitat damage (due to logging, road construction, mining, agriculture, and grazing, which decrease water quality and increase siltation), and interactions with hatchery fishes. Dams cause problems for migrants via mortality in turbines, increased predation in impoundments and below dams, and loss of migratory motivation in the impoundments (Spahr, et al. 1991).

American Fisheries Society (AFS)

Status from AFS was of “Special Concern” in 1989.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

The redband trout is listed on the ODFW’s Sensitive Species list as “Vulnerable “ in all watersheds east of the Cascade Crest in Oregon except in the Great Basin watersheds where they are listed as “Critical”.

III. Species Distribution

Global Distribution

From NatureServe -Large scale, state, Forest Global Range Comments: Range - Columbia River basin east of the Cascades to barrier falls on the Kootenay, Pend Oreille, Spokane, and Snake rivers; the upper Fraser River basin above Hell's Gate; and Athabasca headwaters of the Mackenzie River basin, where headwater transfers evidently occurred from the upper Fraser River system (Behnke 1992). Native redband trout of Mackenzie's Liard and Peace drainages may be this subspecies (Behnke 1992). Native trout of the Oregon desert basins and the Upper Klamath Lake basin could be included in this subspecies (Behnke 1992).

Thurow and Rieman et al. (2007) summarized existing knowledge of the range of redband trout from 1996 in the interior Columbia River basin and portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins (Interior Columbia River Basin Management Plan effort). They estimated that the potential historical range includes 5,458 sub-watersheds and represented about 45% of the species’ North American range (Figure 1 below). They estimated that the redband trout occupy 47% of the Interior Columbia River Basin (not including Canada) and remain in 64% of their potential historical range. For Oregon, the range of redband trout is mainly east of the Cascade Crest, however, there is some genetic data that ties together the redband from the Lower Columbia River and the Willamette River to the populations upstream of the Cascade Crest (Currens et al. 2007). Thurow and Rieman et al. (2007) break the Oregon population distribution into six Ecological Reporting Units (ERU’s). These include the Southern Cascades, Upper Klamath, Northern Great Basin, Columbia Plateau, Blue Mountains, and the Owyhee Uplands. Only the Northern Great Basin and Upper Klamath ERU’s are entirely within the state of Oregon. Each of these ERU’s does have redband trout present.

DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS OF REDBAND TROUT 7 Figure 1.—The potential historical range, known and predicted current range, and known and predicted strong populations of sympatric redband trout (top) and allopatric redband trout (bottom) within the interior Columbia River Basin in the U.S. and portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins.

Oregon Distribution

The US Fish and Wildlife Service, on their fact sheet for species of concern has the following notes about redband: “Native rainbow trout east of the Cascades are commonly called “redband trout” (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.). Redband trout are a primitive form of rainbow trout and are an evolutionary intermediate between ancestral “cutthroat”-like species and coastal rainbow trout. Redband trout are described as inland populations of O. mykiss, with few morphological and meristic characters distinguishing them from coastal rainbow trout. Although there is no consensus on the classification of redband trout east of the Cascades, there is some agreement that at least two broad groups exist in Oregon: the Interior Columbia Basin redband trout and the Oregon Great Basin redband trout. In addition, redband trout in the upper Klamath Basin (e.g., Sprague and Williamson Rivers) represent a third evolutionary group within Oregon.”

Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland Distribution

On the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland distribution of redband includes all areas across the Forest including those that have steelhead trout. A total of 729.6 miles of stream have redband trout – including Snow Mountain RD with 144 miles (see Figure 2 below). The table below shows miles of redband trout by stream, by 5th field watershed. Specific miles of habitat by stream by 5th field Watershed are presented in the Appendix.

Miles of stream occupied by Redband trouton Ochoco NF and Crooked River National Grassland

5th Field Watershed Miles of Redband Middle South Fork John Day River 12.7 Lower South Fork John Day River 52.1 Upper Middle John Day 17.9 Mountain Creek 12.6 Rock Creek 27.3 Bridge Creek 18.1 Upper Beaver Creek 35.5 Paulina Creek 6.4 Lower Beaver Creek 46.7 Camp Creek 2.9 Watson Creek-Crooked River 2.0 Upper North Fork Crooked River 87.9 Deep Creek 59.6 Lower North Fork Crooked River 14.0 Horse Heaven Creek-Crooked River 25.7 Bear Creek 12.2 Prineville Reservoir-Crooked River 0.7 Upper Ochoco Creek 64.5 Mill Creek 27.0 McKay Creek 16.5 Juniper Butte-Crooked River 2.2

Willow Creek 9.9 Upper Trout Creek 21.3 Upper Silver (Snow Mtn RD) 90.1 Buck Creek (Snow Mtn RD) 1.9 Middle Silver Creek (Snow Mtn RD) 1.9 Claw Creek (Snow Mtn RD) 11.8 Emigrant creek (west 1/2) (Snow Mtn RD) 45.5 South Fork Beaver Creek (Snow Mtn RD) 2.9

Total Miles of Redband Trout Habitat on 729.8 the Ochoco NF and Crooked River National Grassland

Figure 2

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

IV. Life History

Information on life histories of redband trout were gathered from three main sources: the Interior Columbia Basin Management Project (ICBMP 1996), Columbia River Redband Trout Species Account (2005) and from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2011). Redband trout exhibit a variety of life histories that include adfluvial and fluvial migratory forms, and non-mirgratory resident or stream-dwelling forms. The abilities of individuals to express all these life histories is often tied to climatic cycles, with fluvial life histories expressed during wet cycles and reversing to resident life history during dry cycles. Adfluvial redband trout migrate from lakes to tributaries and fluvial redband trout remain in streams and rivers throughout their entire life cycle (Moyle and others 1989). The adfluvial form of redband trout was historically present in Canadian lakes, Crescent Lake, Washington, and several isolated lake basins within the Northern Great Basin in Oregon (Behnke 1992; Moyle and others 1989). When lacustrine habitats such as lakes and marshes are available and migratory corridors connect them with surrounding streams, adfluvial populations of redband trout flourish. This adfluvial form is much larger and more fecund than the fluvial form. Adfluvial juveniles typically migrate downstream after one to three years to mature in lakes. Allopatric redband trout are also isolated is small patches of habitat above migration barriers (Thurow et. al. 1997). Movement among populations may be an important mechanism for maintenance of genetic variability in populations (Leary and others 1992) and for their persistence in variable environments.

The ecology of redband trout remains largely unknown although many early life-history characteristics may be similar to those for steelhead or other rainbow trout. It appears that steelhead confined above barriers adopt a non-anadromous lifestyle appropriate for the habitats available (Moffit and Bjornn 1984) but retain the potential for anadromy (Mulland and others 1992)

The large range and appropriately broad adaptation of redband trout preclude narrow generalizations of life history but some observations are possible. Redband trout are primarily spring spanwers (March-June) although they may reproduce at any time of the year (Kunkel 1976). Redband trout spawn exclusively in flowing waters and typically migrate to spawning areas. Migration timing is likely effected by water temperature and stream flow. Migratory juveniles typically move downstream after one to three years in natal areas. Sexual maturity typically occurs at three to five years except in very cold (Mullan and others1992) or hot climates.

General Habitat Types and Conditions for Redband Trout:

Redband trout use a variety of habitats from forests to high desert stream environments that are characterized by a variety of flows including intermittent, high summer water temperatures, high alkalinity, drought, and fire. Because of this redband trout have historically naturally high levels of population fluctuation, and evolved traits that allow them to survive in conditions inhospitable to other types of trout.

The USFWS fact sheet for redband indicates that like other species of trout, redband trout abundance has been strongly correlated with riparian cover components, including undercut banks, large woody debris, and overhanging vegetation. Good redband trout habitat is associated with both low and higher gradient channels, often in riffles or with substrates dominated by boulders, cobbles, and pocket water. Pools are important for a variety of factors including holding and rearing habitat, resting places, over-wintering areas, and refuges from floods, drought, and extreme temperatures. Redband trout need loose gravel substrates to have successful redds in streams. 9

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Presented below are habitat needs and preferences for redband trout for various life stages.

Life Stage Needs and Preferences for Redband Trout (table is from “Columbia River Redband Trout Species Account”)

Life Stage/Attribute Need Preference

Spawning

Spawning water depth 7.8 to 11.8 inches

Spawning water velocity 1.3 to 2.3 ft/sec

Spawning substrate Clean gravels 0.08 to 0.2in

Spawning temperature 4 to 14oC (daily average) most Initiated when mean dalily frequently observed in the field for temperature reached 6oC about 10 trout and salmon days after peak spring discharge

Incubation

Habitat Characteristics Approximately 80% of redds located in pool tailouts that are favorable for adequate seepage velocity of interstitial water, oxygenation of eggs, and removal of waste produces

Incubation Temperature 4 to 12oC (constant) for good survival

6 to 10oC (constant) optimal

Rearing and Adult

Juvenile Rearing and Adult Juvenile: 13 to 20 oC (constant), Temperature optimal growth with unlimited food

Juvenile: 10 to 16oC (constant), optimal growth with limited food

Depth Age <0.7 ft.

Juvenile and adult: > 1.3 ft

Cover Age -0 Shallow microhabtiats along stream margins; pool mesohabitat;

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

avoidance of riffles

Juvenile and Adult: Deep microhabitats; pool mesohabitat; density of fish positively correlated with abundance of pools and negatively related to stream gradient; avoidance of riffles

Winter Habitat: deep pools dominated by cobble/boulder substrate and large woody debris

Water Velocity Age 0: < 0.3 ft/sec

Juvenile and adult: <1.6 ft/sec

Substrate Age 0: fines, small and large gravels; avoidance of large substrates

Juvenile and adult: wide range of substrates, generally clean gravels and cobbles

Winter Habitat: cobble/boulder substrate

Fish access Natural and artificial barriers may No artificial physical barriers benefit remaining populations

Feeding and Growth Generally macroinvertebrates in streams; highly piscivorous in lakes

In a study by Muhlfeld et al (2001) in Montana on summer habitat use by redband trout, they found that young fish (age 0) used shallow, low-velocity areas along the stream margins, but juvenile and adult trout occupied deeper, faster locations. Their study indicated that microhabitats used by different size-classes of redband trout were related to availability. Water depth was an important microhabitat factor for older fish. They suggest that water depth may influence microhabitat selection by juvenile and adult redband trout more than water velocity does. In addition the distribution of redband trout was related to a combination of physical stream habitat variables. In general, low-gradient, medium-size reaches with abundant pools had higher densities of redband trout.

In this study they found that gradient influences the distribution and abundance of redband trout. Specifically as gradient increased, the density of redband trout generally decreased. Redband trout were most abundant in meandering, low-gradient reaches with well defined floodplains. Densities were lowest

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

in steep headwater stream reaches (>4%), and no redband trout were observed in headwater streams with gradients greater than 10%.

For spawning habitats Muhlfeld (2002) found that most redband trout redds (80%) were located in pool tailouts, which provide the best spawning conditions in terms of water depth, water velocity, and substrate composition. His study indicated that spawning redband trout primarily selected redd sites based on substrate size and water depth and may be dependent on the size of the fish spawning. Gravel composition in redds was dominated by small gravel (2–6 mm) and contained no substrate particle sizes larger than 75 mm. This was influenced by the small size of the trout within the study area. Larger fish will use larger substrates with higher velocities as reported by Smith (1973) reported that rainbow trout preferred to spawn in a variety of substrates, ranging from 6 to 52 mm in diameter. Timing of spawning is influenced by both water temperature and stream discharge. Redband trout spawning began once maximum daily water temperatures exceeded 7oC.

V. Population Trend

Range Wide Populations

Overall population trend for redband has been noted in various papers and reports. Current population trend range wide is unknown. However, current population status verse historic has been noted in NatureServe which states that the population is or has declined, with a decline of 10-30%. In the Columbia River basin, nearly all upriver and many lower river stocks have declined, though most Snake river native stocks appear to be improving after having declined (Nehlsen et al. 1991). Thurow and Rieman et al. (2007), in a paper that summarized existing knowledge of the range of redband trout from 1996 in the interior Columbia River basin and portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins (Interior Columbia River Basin Management Plan effort). They estimated that the potential historical range includes 5,458 sub-watersheds and represented about 45% of the species’ North American range (Figure 1 above). They estimated that the redband trout occupy 47% of the Interior Columbia River Basin (not including Canada) and remain in 64% of their potential historical range.

Oregon Populations

Beyond the work in the Interior Columbia Basin referred to above that includes Oregon populations, little work has been done of the status of populations or densities of fish in the state. However, Dambacher and Jones (2007) summarized some population and density work done in the Crooked River and in the Catlow Valley basin in southeastern Oregon. Benchmarks of abundance were estimated from 82 abundance estimates. Benchmarks for > age 1 redband trout abundance showed the following: low abundance levels were < 0.059 fish/m2, moderate abundance were 0.060-0.19 fish/m2, and high abundance were > 0.20 fish/m2. In the Crooked River streams, densities of redband trout were highest in Brush Creek with 0.66 fish/m2. Overall population estimates for Roba Creek, Porter Creek, and Brush Creek were 500 fish in 15,000 square meters of habitat, 4,000 fish in 24,000 square meters of habitat, and 9,000 fish in 23,000 square meters of habitat respectively. In the Catlow Valley populations they summarized work done by Kunkel (1976) and compared it to their own population sampling. Kunkel found in a section of Three Mile Creek that the estimated population was 1700 redband trout. In 1995 they found no redband in that

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

same section. In Skull Creek they found no redband trout in 1996, but repeat sampling in 1997 indicated that the population could be between 250-500 fish.

Crooked River Basin Populations

On the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland a study done by Stuart et al. (2007) found the following on habitat condition and population status.

They found that spawning occurs in the Crooked River basin from early spring to early summer. In tributaries age 0+ fish typically were 40-90 mm. while age 1+ fish were 74-98mm, age 2+ averaged 124-147mm. Densities were 0.01 to >2.64 fish/m2. Streams with higher summer temperatures >210C tended to support densities less than 0.5 fish/m2. In the mainstem Crooked River below Bowman Dam fish sizes were larger than those in the tributaries. Age 0+ fish were typically 60-100mm, age 1+ fish were estimated at 119mm, age 2+ fish were estimated at 206mm, age 3+ fish were estimated at 237mm and age 4+ fish were estimated at 400mm. Abundance of redband trout greater than 180 mm ranges from 516 to 5140 fish/km. Presented below are relative densities of redband trout in tributary streams of the Crooked River Basin.

Watershed Stream Date Fish/m2 Ochoco Canyon Aug 1992 2.6 Ochoco Aug 1992 2.7 Marks Aug 1992 0.3-0.8 Mill July 1991 <0.1-0.1 North Fork N.F. Crooked July 1990 <0.1 Crooked River River Gray July 1994 0.1 Lookout Aug 1991 0.8 Brush Aug 1991 1.4 E. Fork Howard July 1991 0.5-0.7 W. Fork Howard July 1991 1.0 Howard July 1991 0.8 Porter Aug 1992 0.4 Beaver Dippingvat Aug 1992 1.0 Roba Aug 1992 0.2

Redband trout inhabit most major watersheds and tributaries in the basin. However, relative abundance appears to be directly related to quality of habitat, which range from excellent to very poor. Streams with good to excellent habitat generally had redband trout densities > 1 fish/m2. Streams with poor habitat had lower abundance of fish, generally < 0.5 fish/m2.

Redband trout were present in all or parts of 45% of the watersheds in the basin. Strong populations were limited to 7% of the basin mostly in the headwater sections found on Federally owned lands.

Despite the overall degraded condition of the habitat in the basin, abundance and growth of redband trout are similar to other streams in central and eastern Oregon. Redband trout were in both large and small streams were found to live at least 6 years and sometimes longer. 13

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Crooked River basin redband trout showed relatively high genetic variability when compared to other redband trout populations, but variability within population was significantly less than populations of redband trout in other basins.

Most streams in the Crooked River basin are too warm to support healthy redband trout populations. Only 36% of the streams monitored in the Crooked River basin had maximum temperatures below 20oC. All of the streams monitored were from the Ochoco National Forest that has the best remaining habitat. Water temperature on over 40% of the streams exceeded 23oC at which they classified the population as depressed.

Although redband trout occupy an estimated 75% of their historic range their abundance is severely depressed. Strong populations are located in the headwaters. Most reaches of the North Fork and main-stem Crooked River are in a degraded condition with low flows and high summer temperatures. These areas support densities of redband trout <300 fish/km.

In the 1996 Crooked River Basin Plan (ODFW) population conditions were described for the entire Crooked River basin.

 North Fork Crooked River: The status of redband trout populations is mixed. Redband trout are moderately abundant in tributaries with good habitat and cool water but are depressed in tributaries with poor fish habitat or degraded riparian conditions. Much of the basin has fragmented and isolated populations of redband trout due to temperatures barriers and culverts that block upstream passage.  South Fork Crooked River: Native redband trout have been eliminated due to rotenone treatments in the early 1980’s. It was replaced with hatchery based program.  Beaver Creek: Redband trout populations are depressed compared to historic numbers due to poor riparian and stream conditions. Much of this section of the basin trout populations are fragmented and/or isolated due to current land and water management practices.  Mainstem Crooked River below Beaver Creek and South Fork Confluence: Redband trout populations are depressed and the mainstem does not support a significant trout fishery due to poor conditions.  Bear and Sanford Creeks: Similar to other areas, redband trout populations are depressed due to poor riparian conditions, low flows and high temperatures in the summer. Populations are fragmented and isolated.  Crooked River – below Bowman Dam: Redband trout are abundant below Bowman Dam for the first 12 miles. Diversions continue to be an issue with all but one unscreened.  Ochoco Creek: Native redband and hatchery rainbow trout both inhabit this system.  McKay Creek: Similar to Ochoco Creek, however only native redband trout are known to occur.

VI. Habitat and Habitat Trend

Habitat condition was rated against Forest Plan Standards, State Water Quality standards for temperatures, PacFish Infish Biological Opinion standards and guidelines and the newest local science for woody debris. Presented below are the standards that habitats were rated against.

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Source Habitat Component Standard PIBO Woody debris >20 per mile Cordova (1995) Woody debris >155 per mile (North facing watersheds) McKay WA Woody debris >116 per mile (South facing watersheds) State Water Quality Temperature <640F Rosgen (1996) Width to depth ratio Varies by stream type Steelhead Critical Habitat – Percent fines <20% PCE’s

Habitat for redband has been surveyed in numerous areas around the Forest. Presented below are the most recent data by 5th field watershed, stream and reach of stream. Habitat trend is presented also where available and is derived from PIBO monitoring sites that have specifically been randomly set up for monitoring trend on certain habitat parameters. There are 18 PIBO trend sites with data that were used across the forest. Data is presented below at the end of each 5th field discussion.

On the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland a study done by Stuart et al. (2007) found that a major factor influencing trout populations in the basin is habitat simplification and estimated populations of redband on a per square meter of habitat based on a habitat rating of good, fair, or poor. They found a lack of deep pools and large woody debris (especially the large size) with low densities of LWD within the basin contributing to reduced habitat complexity and fish production. Habitat complexity has decreased because undercut stream banks and structure created by LWD has been lost. At the end of each watershed habitat discussion will be an estimate of overall habitat condition for the 5th field watershed (in miles where possible) linked to the study done by Stuart et al. and an associated population estimate for redband.

In the 1996 Crooked River Basin Plan (ODFW) habitat conditions, fisheries resources, and management recommendations were described for the entire Crooked River basin.

 North Fork Crooked River: The status of redband trout populations is mixed. Redband trout are moderately abundant in tributaries with good habitat and cool water but are depressed in tributaries with poor fish habitat or degraded riparian conditions. Much of the basin has fragmented and isolated populations of redband trout due to temperatures barriers and culverts that block upstream passage.  South Fork Crooked River: Native redband trout have been eliminated due to rotenone treatments in the early 1980’s. It was replaced with hatchery based program. Much of the basin has poor riparian conditions due to over grazing and there are numerous unscreened irrigation diversions that may cause mortality.  Beaver Creek: Redband trout populations are depressed compared to historic numbers due to poor riparian and stream conditions. Channel incision has caused reduced flow conditions especially in drought conditions. Much of this section of basin trout populations are fragmented and/or isolated due to current land and water management practices.  Mainstem Crooked River below Beaver Creek and South Fork Confluence: Redband trout populations are depressed and the mainstem does not support a significant trout fishery due to poor conditions.

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

 Bear and Sanford Creeks: Similar to other areas, redband trout populations are depressed due to poor riparian conditions, low flows and high temperatures in the summer. Populations are fragmented and isolated.  Crooked River – below Bowman Dam: Redband trout are abundant below Bowman Dam for the first 12 miles. Diversions continue to be an issue with all but one unscreened.  Ochoco Creek: Habitat varies from good to poor. Native redband and hatchery rainbow trout both inhabit this system. High temperatures due to past management, irrigation withdrawals and channel incision are a problem within this system.  McKay Creek: Similar to Ochoco Creek, however only native redband trout are known to occur. Up to 65% of the stream has been channelized or altered. Water temperatures on private land are high due to diversions.

Fifth Field Watershed Discussions:

For the Ochoco National Forest and the Crooked River National Grassland there are twenty three 5th field watersheds that have redband trout in them, however, only twenty of these watersheds have stream surveys and associated data that are presented below. Survey information for woody debris, width to depth ratios (channel form), and fine sediment is presented below by 5th field watershed, stream and by reach. General observations of watershed and stream condition are discussed, but because the data in any given watershed on any stream in any reach is so divergent there has been no attempt to average data for each 5th field watershed. By 5th field watershed additional information, where available, has been incorporated into the discussion to help determine overall quality of habitat. Not all watersheds have the same information available and many watersheds have a lack of data for temperature, fine sediment, and riparian vegetation. In some cases professional judgment has been used to determine habitat quality in a particular watershed.

It is important to note also that Snow Mountain RD that is currently managed by the Malheur National Forest is still managed under the Ochoco National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Redband trout analysis for this district will be incorporated into the overall baseline viability analysis for the Ochoco National Forest. That analysis is in Appendix C attached at the end of this document.

Population estimates for each stream are based on Stuart et al. (2007). They found in a series of Ochoco streams that good habitat in streams equated to >1.0 fish/m2 and poor habitat streams had less than 0.5 fish/m2. For the purposes of this analysis Functioning Appropriately (FA) streams were considered good habitat (1.0 fish/m2), Functioning at Risk (FAR) streams were considered moderate habitat (0.74 fish/m2), and Functioning at Unacceptable Risk (FAUR) streams were considered poor habitat (<0.5 fish/m2). Population estimates were calculated based on these stream habitat calls, combined with estimates of average width of streams and total length of fish bearing portions of these streams.

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Lower South Fork John Day River

Meets Forest Plan Std/Pacfish Predominate and Infish Rosgen Std. 20/mile Width Channel or to Type Local data of depth Min % Max % Ave % Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile 116/mile Ratio <2mm <2mm <2mm Lower South Yes/Yes Fork John North Fork Day River Wind Creek 1992 177.0 11 North Fork Yes/Yes

Wind Creek 2006 120.9 19.5 Wind Creek 1994 69.3 Yes/No 15 B SF Wind Yes/No B Creek 1994 43.2 15 Black Yes/No Canyon A and B Creek 2003 37.6 11.7 11 73 33 Frazier Creek 2004 33.5 Yes/No 15 B

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Risk - For large woody debris, the streams in this 5th field are similar to the McKay Creek drainage where surveys in unmanaged sections have found an average of 116 pieces per mile. Within Black Canyon Creek the systems is predominately in wilderness and appears to be functioning appropriately even though numbers of woody debris are lower than what they should be. However, channel types of predominately A in the upper half of the watershed do not normally contribute to large amounts of LWD as most pieces are suspended above the channel. Wind Creek and associated tributaries have had some harvest along riparian areas and stream sides which has contributed to the reduced numbers of woody debris in some areas.

Width to Depth Ratios: Functioning Appropriately - Width to depth ratios appear to be in the appropriate ranges for the stream types. There are likely areas where width to depth ranges are too large for the appropriate channel type but the data is not on a fine enough scale to determine where the specific areas are.

Stream Stream Substrate W/D Class Frazier Creek A3/B3a small gravel to 5-13.4 cobble depending on reach NF Wind Ba3/C3a Cobble 7.7-9.7 Creek SF Wind A3/B4 Cobble/Small 8-19 Creek Boulder Black Canyon A/B3 Cobble/Small 6-12 boulder reaches 2- 4 and 11- 23 reach 1

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Fine Sediment: Functioning at Risk - Fine sediment data has only been collected in the Black Canyon sub-watershed and indicates that because of fires that fine sediment is/was an issue in some areas (2006 data), while other areas show very little fine sediment. Professional observations along Wind Creek and associated tributaries are that fine sediment is not an issue in the reaches that have been walked/observed.

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning Appropriately - Wind Creek sub-watershed has good overall riparian vegetative condition with abundant alder and conifer vegetation along the mainstem and tributaries (survey reports). Black Canyon Creek, while having some impacts from the 747 Fire and the Black Canyon Fire, also has abundant riparian vegetation of all age classes.

Temperature: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk - Most temperatures throughout the watershed are or have been above the state standards. See table below

Black Canyon Creek 1707020104 66.9 1995 Black Canyon Creek 1707020104 67.8 1996 Black Canyon Creek 1707020104 66.4 1997 Black Canyon Creek 1707020104 68.6 1998 Black Canyon Creek 1707020104 66.8 1999 Black Canyon Creek 1707020104 69.5 2003 Black Canyon Creek 1707020104 68.6 2003 Black Canyon Creek 1707020104 66.6 2003 Black Canyon Creek 1707020104 66.5 2004 Black Canyon Creek 1707020104 74.7 2005 Black Canyon Creek 1707020104 68.3 2008

Congleton Creek 1707020104 65.6 1999 Congleton Creek 170702010401 63.1 2007

Frazier Creek 1707020104 68.3 1995 Frazier Creek 1707020104 71.9 1996 Frazier Creek 1707020104 63.3 1997 Frazier Creek 1707020104 68.4 1999 Frazier Creek 1707020104 71.7 2002 Frazier Creek 1707020104 74.2 2003 Frazier Creek 1707020104 56.2 2004 Frazier Creek 1707020104 61.5 2008

North Fork Wind Creek 1707020104 65.9 1995 North Fork Wind Creek 1707020104 69.4 1995 North Fork Wind Creek 1707020104 71.0 1996 North Fork Wind Creek 1707020104 65.9 1996 North Fork Wind Creek 1707020104 66.6 1997 North Fork Wind Creek 170702010401 68.0 2000 North Fork Wind Creek 1707020104 66.8 2004 North Fork Wind Creek 1707020104 68.8 2007 North Fork Wind Creek 1707020104 63.5 2008

South Fork Wind Creek 1707020104 77.3 2003

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Wind Creek 1707020104 69.4 1995 Wind Creek 1707020104 70.5 1995 Wind Creek 1707020104 71.2 1996 Wind Creek 1707020104 69.1 1996 Wind Creek 1707020104 68.8 1997 Wind Creek 1707020104 69.0 1999 Wind Creek 1707020104 70.6 2000 Wind Creek 1707020104 69.7 2004 Wind Creek 1707020104 66.8 2008

Habitat Trend: Trend data from the Pacfish/Infish Biological Opinion (PIBO) monitoring has only been collected in Black Canyon. Data suggests that pool frequency has increased, width to depth ratios have decreased and woody debris has increased significantly over the time from 2003 to 2008. There is no trend data for other streams in this 5th field.

Summary/Population Estimates – Habitat for redband trout in this 5th field watershed is considered to be in good condition in most areas. Black Canyon is predominately wilderness and the majority of the riparian areas outside of wilderness in Black Canyon and Wind Creek sub-watersheds have not been harvested and are therefore in relatively good condition. There are 52.1 miles of occupied redband habitat associated with this 5th field watershed (refer to Appendix B for specific miles per stream of occupied redband habitat).

Stream Miles Estimated Overall Habitat Population Average Width Condition Estimate Wind Creek 6.4 15 FAR 42,240 SF Wind Creek 3.1 8 FAR 10,911 NF Wind Creek 4.3 8 FAR 15,135 Frazier Creek 2.9 6 FAR 10,208 Black Canyon 11.5 15 FA 101,200 Unnamed Tribs 13.5 4 FAR 23,760 Congleton Creek 3.3 5 FAR 7,260 South Prong 6.0 5 FAR 13,200 Payton Creek 1.1 5 FAR 2,419

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Mountain Creek

Meets Forest Plan Predomi Std/Pacfish nate and Infish Rosgen Std. 20/mile Width Min Channel or to % Max Type Local data depth <2m % Ave % Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile of 155/mile Ratio m <2mm <2mm Mountain Keeton Yes/no B Creek Creek 1997 78.9 11 Badger Yes/no E and B Creek 2002 44.1 9.6 1 80 35 Bug Creek 2002 61.0 Yes/no 8 29 56 42

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Risk - From the 1997 and 2002 Level II stream survey on Badger, Keeton, Fry, and Fort Creeks the average LWD per mile is presented below. Within the Bridge Creek Wilderness surveys have shown an average of about 150 pieces per mile. These small drainages are similar vegetatively to Bridge Creek Wilderness.

Stream LWD per mile Badger Reach 1 15 per mile (Rosgen E type – low woody debris naturally) Badger Reach 2 96.4 per mile – Reach is between two E types Badger Reach 3 21.1 per mile (Rosgen E type) Keeton 182 per mile Fry 171 per mile Fort 301 per mile Trib to Fort 125 per mile

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning Appropriately - Badger Creek comparison between 2002 survey and BLS 1995

Date Reach number Width to depth 1995 1 13 2002 1 11 1995 2 12.8 2002 2 14 1995 3 10.2 2002 3 8.6

W:D for streams in the Mountain watershed:

Stream Survey Date W:D Keeton 1997 8.7 20

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Fry 1997 5.8 Fort 1997 5.4 Fort Creek Trib 1997 5.9 Mac Creek 1997 5.8 Badger 2005 PIBO 10.8

Predominate morphological characteristics of the upper reaches of the sub-watersheds are A3 (Rosgen 1996). Width to depth ratios are less than 12 and slopes are between from 4% to greater than 21%, which correspond to Rosgen’s classification for a stable stream system.

Sediment: Functioning Appropriately - On Forest sediment does not appear to be an issue from the stream survey reports in 1997 and 2002, along with PIBO data. Survey reports for Badger, Keeton, Fry, and Fort Creeks indicate that unstable banks range from 0.8% to 2% except in the third reach of Badger where unstable banks were recorded at 23% (Forest Plan and Pac Fish standard is no more than 20%). PIBO data on Badger for the long term trend site had stable banks increase from 90 to 95% in the years from 2005 to 2010. PIBO long term trend data on the one reach of Badger Creek indicates that over the five years from 2005 to 2010 the D50 increased in size from 0.002 to 0.014. Level II surveys indicated (1997 and 2002) that there are no embedded reaches on the National Forest. Freshwater mussels were observed in the lower reach of Badger Creek, indicating good water quality (including lower levels of fines). Riparian Vegetation: Functioning Appropriately - Unknown in most areas along Mountain Creek proper, however, the Mid Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan indicates that riparian vegetation is a limiting factor/threat. In Upper and Middle Mountain (Functioning Appropriately) on Forest, there are the following observations from the District Range Specialists Holly Myers and Jamie McCormack : Badger Creek primarily runs through large meadows that are sedge dominated. All three pastures are sedge dominated, however the Lower Riparian pasture has alder on the stream banks and is providing good shade and bank stability. There is minimal conifer encroachment within the meadows. Kitty Creek has a large portion of the greenline that is dominated by sedges with a conifer overstory. It appears to be in mid to late successional status. Indian Creek has a large portion of the greenline that is dominated by a mix of sedges and grasses. It has a conifer overstory. Ponderosa pine and true fir dominate the overstory. Keeton Creek is very well shaded by canopy cover, where there are openings there is a very small alder component for riparian hardwoods (mostly upland species rose and currant are along stream), and a minor sedge component where sediment has collected along the stream banks. The creek in general is controlled by large woody debris for capture of sediment and creating channel roughness and habitat. Parts of Fry Creek are much more open because the majority of the Grand Fir has died and the canopy cover is significantly reduced opening things up for alder to line the stream. Sedges are present along the streambank in areas where sediment has collected, but are a small player compared to the large wood and alder. Mac Creek channel is lined with alder which have grown to provide excellent shade and streambank protection. There is a sedge and rush component where there are gaps in the alder and next to the roads where there are culverts. Many areas contain dead or dying Grand Fir overstory with alder coming back in. Fort Creek is in a steep, thickly wooded drainage that impedes livestock movement. There is a heavy large woody debris load in Fort Creek that is a barrier to livestock access, mostly due to the high percentage of dead Grand Fir falling in. Temperature: Functioning at Risk in Upper Mountian sub-watershed and Functioning Appropriately in Middle Mountain sub-watershed on National Forest administered lands. Badger Creek, in the Middle

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Mountain sub-watershed is functioning at risk. PIBO trend data from 2005 and 2010 indicates that conditions are improving. Average temperature improved from 14.4oC to 12.3oC from June to the beginning of August. The weekly maximum temp improved from 23.67oC to 20.24oC and the number of days over 22o C went from 24 to 0 between the two years. Similarly the number of days over 18o C went from 42 to 32. From stream survey information (1995 and 2002) the lower reach increased in shade to 58% in this E type stream, indicating an increase in hardwoods. However, in reach 2, Rosgen B,shade decreased from 45 to 32%. This is possibly due to grand fir mortality over that time period. Badger Creek comparison between 2002 survey and BLS 1995

Date Reach number Total shade Hardwood shade

1995 1 53.6 31.5

2002 1 58.6 37.1

1995 2 45.7 2.8

2002 2 32.3 3.6

1995 3 5.5 0

2002 3 5.6 0

Keeton, Fry, and Fort Creeks are all functioning appropriately on Forest. Shade ranges from 77 to 81% and temperatures during stream surveys in June and August ranged from 7 to 13oC and long term temperature loggers for those years indicated that these streams never exceeded state standards. These streams are also known by local fish biologists and hydrologists to be good sources of cool water. In the 1997 surveys it was noted that grand fir was dying off in all these small basins. With this reduction in overstory there should be a corresponding increase in hard woods along these streams.

Habitat Trend: PIBO data – Data has only been collected on one site in Badger Creek for this 5th field. Trend data is not consistent with a decrease in pool frequency but no change in large woody debris. There was no data collected for width to depth ratio’s. Habitat trend data is not conclusive in this watershed from data collected, however, professional observation of the smaller tributaries of Keeton, Fry, and Fort Creeks indicate that these systems are increasing in overall habitat complexity.

Summary/Population Estimates – Summary – Habitat conditions in the Mountain Creek watershed on Forest for redband trout are generally in good condition. These small tributaries are on north facing slopes and are generally steep systems. Woody debris amounts are generally high in the stream types that are forested and low in those areas that flow through meadow systems. Fine sediment does not appear to be issue on Keaton, Fry, Fort or Mac Creeks. Stream survey information does appear to indicate that some reaches of Badger Creek and Bug Creek may have high levels of fine sediment. Width to depth ratios are within ranges for the stream types

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

associated with these reaches. There are 12.6 miles of occupied redband habitat in this 5th field watershed.

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Badger 2.7 10 FA 15,840 Keeton 2.7 5 FA 7,920 Fry 1.7 5 FA 4,986 Fort 1.0 5 FA 2,933 Mac 0.3 5 FA 880 Indian 0.8 10 FAR 3,519 Milk 1.9 6 FA 6,688 Unnamed 1.5 5 FAR 3,300

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Rock Creek

Meets Forest Plan Predo Std/Pacfish and minate Infish Std. 20/mile Width Rosgen or to Min Max Channe Local data of depth % % Ave % l Type Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile 155/mile Ratio <2mm <2mm <2mm Rock Creek Baldy Creek 1991 283.2 Yes/yes 12.7 Yes/yes

Windy Creek 1991 375.5 Little Windy Yes/yes

Creek 1991 355.4 Yes/yes C and Rock Creek 2004 166.0 14.9 B 0.8 0.9 0.9

Large Woody Debris: Functioning Appropriately - Large woody debris is easily within standards for most reaches and has a low of 125 pieces per mile in Rock Creek and a high of 375 in Wind Creek. Recruitment from surrounding vegetation is high as most of the riparian area throughout Rock Creek and its tributaries has not been harvested.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning Appropriately - Width to depth ratios for this watershed appear to be appropriate for the stream types. Rock Creek in the first reach is a bit wider than other reaches but the stream narrows at it proceeds upstream and changes from a Rosgen C to Rosgen B type stream.

Sediment: Functioning Appropriately - Fine sediment, because of the unmanaged condition, has not been a concern on Rock Creek or its tributaries. Fines less than 2 mm are less than 1% of the bedload.

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning Appropriately - Information is lacking but with the other overall indicators functioning well, it is suspected that riparian vegetation is also functioning appropriately.

Temperature: Functioning at Risk - While most temperatures are above standards in both Cottonwood (an adjacent watershed) and Rock Creek, these streams are both mostly unmanaged and are in a natural condition. Overall this watershed is in the best condition for redband trout and temperatures exhibited here should be within the redband trout range.

Baldy Creek 1707020113 63.3 1997 Baldy Creek 1707020113 74.6 2002 Baldy Creek 1707020113 70.0 2003 Baldy Creek 1707020113 60.6 2004

Cottonwood Creek 1707020113 74.7 1995 Cottonwood Creek 1707020113 68.1 1996 Cottonwood Creek 1707020113 66.6 1998 Cottonwood Creek 1707020113 65.2 1999 Cottonwood Creek 1707020113 67.6 2002 Cottonwood Creek 1707020113 71.9 2003 Cottonwood Creek 1707020113 66.4 2004 24

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Cottonwood Creek 1707020113 62.8 2008

Fir Creek 1707020113 73.6 2002

Little Windy Creek 1707020113 58.2 1997 Little Windy Creek 1707020113 60.0 2003 Little Windy Creek 1707020113 67.4 2004

Rock Creek 1707020113 69.2 1996 Rock Creek 1707020113 70.0 1997 Rock Creek 1707020113 59.0 1997 Rock Creek 1707020113 69.9 1998 Rock Creek 1707020113 71.2 2000 Rock Creek 1707020113 62.0 2003 Rock Creek 1707020113 66.4 2003 Rock Creek 1707020113 74.4 2004 Rock Creek 1707020113 68.2 2005 Rock Creek 1707020113 74.5 2007 Rock Creek 1707020113 66.6 2008

Habitat Trend: In this watershed Rock Creek has the only PIBO trend data that has been collected. From 2001 to 2006 pool percentage has increased from 11% to 32%, width to depth has remained the same and woody debris has increased slightly from 185 pieces per km to 210 pieces per km.

Summary/Population Estimates Rock Creek is predominately an unmanaged watershed. There is one road in the lower watershed on Forest, but the remainder of roads are located along the upper ridges and upper watershed. Habitat is in excellent condition for redband trout with high woody debris counts, low width to depth ratios and little fine sediment. The riparian community is dominated by coniferous overstory with alder and willow as the understory along the stream banks. Temperatures are within state standards. This watershed is key for both redband trout and steelhead. There are 27.3 miles of occupied redband habitat in the Rock Creek 5th field watershed. In the adjacent 5th field Upper Middle John Day the Forest also has the Cottonwood watershed. Those miles of streams that contain redband trout are included in the table below.

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Rock 8.6 20 FA 100,906 Cottonwood 12.8 18 FA 135,168 Baldy 3.5 12 FA 24,640 Windy 0.8 12 FA 5,632 Little Windy 1.6 8 FA 7,509 Fir 2.8 6 FAR 7,392 Bear 2.7 5 FAR 5,940 Second 0.9 6 FAR 2,376 Back 1.0 6 FAR 2,640 Cougar 1.7 6 FAR 4,488 Unnamed Tribs 10.3 5 FAR 22,659

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Bridge Creek

Meets Forest Plan Predo Std/Pacfish minate and Infish Rosgen Std. 20/mile Width Channe or to Max Ave l Type Local data of depth Min % % % Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile 155/mile Ratio <2mm <2mm <2mm Dodds Yes/no

Bridge Creek Creek 1989 59.4 4.0 Cougar Yes/yes

Creek 1989 159.7 14.6 Bear Yes/no C and Creek 1992 58.9 18.9 B Bridge Yes/no A and Creek 1993 102.1 7.6 B

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Risk - From the 1993 Level II stream survey on Bridge Creek the average LWD per mile was 126.7 pieces. Within the Bridge Creek Wilderness more than half of the reaches had 126.7 pieces or greater, of LWD per mile. It is unknown off Forest the amount of LWD.

Reach Length in feet LWD per mile 1 2500 114 2 5000 114 3 6900 187 4 6100 125 5 2500 166 6 4400 5.2

In Bear Creek large woody debris averaged 9 pieces per mile in 1993. The 1997 high water event moved significant amounts of large wood out of the channel but the relative amounts within the channel remained at about 9 pieces per mile. Most of the wood is still within the 100-year floodplain.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning Appropriately

Reach Length LWD Stream Gradient Flow Substrate % W/d in feet per Class Shade mile 1 2500 116 A3/B3a 8 12.9 Cobble 55 8 2 5000 116 Ba3/C3a 7 6.5 Cobble 57 9 3 6900 190 A3a/B3a 13 5.7 Cobble 72 9

4 6100 126 A3 7 2.5 Cobble 70 5

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

5 2500 169 B3a 4 0.4 Cobble 55 4

6 4400 5 E5b 2 0.3 Sand 12 3

Predominate morphological characteristics of the upper reaches of the watershed are A3 (Rosgen 1996). Width to depth ratios are less than 12 and slopes are between from 4% to greater than 13%, which correspond to Rosgen’s classification for a stable stream system.

In Bear Creek the width/depth ratio was 15.5 in 1992. 1997 High flows have altered the width/depth ratio to an average of 13.5 in 1997 which is within the range of Rosgen C type channels, however, legacy effects on some channels with incisement continues to be an issue in some limited areas. According to the 2010 PIBO long term trend report, data collected in the Bear Creek drainage width to depth ratios in riffles decreased from 30.1 feet to 16.9 feet from 2003 to 2008 at the site monitored.

Sediment: Functioning Appropriately - Currently turbidity and sediment are not collected on the National Forest. Although no quantitative data on actual sediment conditions has been collected, it appears Bridge Creek on the National Forest is Functioning Appropriately for sediment. This conclusion is based on:  A channel substrate of cobble-dominant and small boulder gravel subdominant.  90% stable banks  Sixty to 85% of the riparian communities sampled (1993 Level II stream survey on riparian zone successional classes) are estimated to be at potential. Community types at potential are primarily those within the greenline, immediately adjacent to the active channel. Most of the streams surveyed on forest and resulting conditions are indicative of allotment conditions and are confirmed by more recent professional observations by District Range Specialist Holly Myers. This also seems consistent with off Forest areas where RHCA’s have been fenced or restored to improve riparian conditions.

Bank instability within Bear Creek average 8.5 to 10% on the mainstem. While there are areas of concern mostly as a result of the floods of 1996/7 overall condition is generally good. Of the six unnamed tributaries that were surveyed in the 1990’s to Bear Creek five were 0-10% cutbanks while one was 39%. All other named tributaries (and Bear Creek proper) that were surveyed in the sub-watershed (Dodds, Heflin) all had less than 13% cutbank. Stream bank alteration has been clearly kept at or below 10% over the past 12 years on DMA areas. While legacy issues continue to exist in some site specific locations the overall condition of the watershed has generally improved over time.

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning Appropriately - Headwaters of the main-stem of Bridge Creek are the Bridge Creek Wilderness. Before 1995, harvest activities included harvest of the riparian areas. All activities since 1995 have followed PACFISH Guidelines. Visual observation by the District Range specialist (Holly Myers) indicates that there are multiple age classes of woody vegetation throughout the Bridge Creek watershed. PIBO (2010 PIBO report) trend data from Bridge Creek indicates on the one site monitored that greenline woody vegetation has increased at the site from 2% to 13% while effective ground cover has stayed relatively constant, averaging 99%. In the reach total greenline cover has increased from 50 to 73% with richness (number different species) of the native vegetation increasing from 43% to 64%. (PIBO 2010).

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

In Bear Creek riparian habitat conservation areas were fragmented and poorly connected in this drainage in the past due to overgrazing at the in the mid 1900’s, roading and harvest, with improvement over the last 15 years. Shade in the mid-1990’s was between 60-85% coverage. Professional observation is that there are multiple age classes of hardwoods throughout the streams in this sub-watershed. Alder, cottonwood, and willows dominated most areas and where these are not present the overstory is mixed conifer. In the two sites on Bear Creek that have PIBO trend data the total effective ground cover has increased from 68% to 94% and from 78% to 97%. In addition, woody cover increased from 23% to 47% on the one site in Bear Creek where it was collected.

Temperature: Functioning Appropriately - The highest daily temperature recorded on the National Forest from 6/29/99 to 10/1/99 was 58.4 ºF. The highest 7 day average temperature was 57.63 º F on 8/26/1999.

Bridge Creek is a 303D listed stream for temperature below the National Forest Boundary. BLM data (4 sites: Lower Bridge, Myer Canyon, Highway 26, Nelson Creek) had an average of the 7-day daily maximum of 88.5, 84, 79, and 72.8 respectively above the standard (64F) in the late 1990’s.

Bear Creek (trib to Bridge Creek) is a 303 D listed stream for stream temperature. Temperature readings were 77/78/59/79 (Ochoco National Forest unpublished temperature files, 1991-1994). BLM data at a road crossing had an average of the 7-day daily maximum of 89.1, 82.5, 88.8 exceeding the standard (64 F) (Bureau of Land Management unpublished temperature files, 1991-1994). Conditions throughout the drainage have improved since the mid 1990’s. The latest temperature information is from 2004. All streams in the Bear Creek drainage (Dodds, Grant, Bear and North Fork Bear) that were monitored were below the standard except for the downstream ends of North Fork Bear and Bear at the Forest boundary. Bear Creek data appears to have been influenced by low flows and in some years dry stream channels. Dodds Creek has good perennial flow and is therefore a good source of cold water and refugia habitat for steelhead and resident fish.

Stream 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Bear at 69 69.1 69.6 69.6 68 73.2 70 FS Boundary Bridge at 59 FS Boundary Bridge at 59 57.5 60.6 60.1 57.6 4330 Rd Bridge 62.6 62.5 above 2630 RD Dodds at 56.5 54 52.3 550 Rd NF Bear 62.0 61 62.0 65.0 64.0 at the mouth West Fork 59.3 63.5 Bridge

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

There is no more recent data but professional observation from hydrologists, fisheries biologists, and range personnel indicate that hardwood cover and shade have improved as has conifer cover. We believe that currently the Bear Creek watershed is functioning at risk.

Habitat Trend: The only habitat trend data from PIBO in this watershed is from Bridge Creek and has only been collected for pools. Data is inconclusive.

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Bridge Creek 5.0 15 FAR 33,000 West Branch 0.4 10 FAR 1,759 Bridge Creek Dodds Creek 2.2 10 FAR 9,679 Bear Creek 3.6 15 FAR 23,760 Heflin 0.8 8 FAR 2,815 NF Bear 2.4 6 FAR 6,336 Grant 0.7 5 FAR 1,538 Scotty 0.7 5 FAR 1,539 Rail 0.1 5 FAR 219 Unnamed 2.2 5 FAR 4,839

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Upper Beaver Creek

Meets Forest Plan Predo Std/Pacfish minate and Infish Rosgen Std. 20/mile Width Max Channe or to Min % Ave l Type Local data depth % <2m % Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile of 116/mile Ratio <2mm m <2mm Upper Beaver No/no

Creek Rager Creek 2000 11 9.4 29 Sugar Creek 2000 10.6 No/no 7.3 C 24 24 27 Powell No/no

Creek 2001 0.0 4 4 4 Tamarack No/no B Creek 2001 21 20.2 5.6 Beaverdam Yes/no

Creek 2005 40.6 19.7 19 67 46

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk - In Rager Creek large woody debris was lacking and remained below the required RMO. In Sugar Creek wood debris density was below forest standards at 10 per mile, while Tamarack Creek had woody debris ranging from 0 to 81 pieces per mile. Beaverdam Creek has woody debris ranging from 28 to 50 pieces per mile. .

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning at Risk - Rager Creek had a narrow and well defined stream channel as did Sugar Creek that had width to depth ratio’s that are low at 7.3 in the lower reach. In 2001 Powell Creek was above the RMO of <10 for its width to depth ratio (average of 21.1), suggesting the stream is wider and shallower than it possibly was historically. Tamarack Creeks data from the 2001 and 2007 Level II Survey’s had width to depth ratio that ranged from 16 to 24.6. In Beaverdam Creek the three reaches that were surveyed averaged 19.8 in width to depth ratio.

Sediment: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk - In Rager Creek fine sediment less than 2mm was high in all reaches. Sugar Creek bank stability did not meet the RMO of <20% and fine sediment was above 20% of particles less than 2mm in diameter. Powell Creek’s fine sediment appears to not be an issue with less than 2mm particles making up 7% or less of the bed. Tamarack Creek’s fine sediment in the bed ranged from 0.8 to 14%. Beaverdam Creek had fine sediment in the bed that was between 25 and 67%.

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk - In Rager Creek the stream channel in Reach 1 was narrow and well defined, with 55% total shade coverage mainly from small diameter conifers (14% hardwood shade, shade data from 2008). For Sugar Creek shade was below the RMO of > 80% at 79% for total shade and 16 % for hardwood. Some alder and willow were present along the riparian area where there was minimal conifer cover. Powell Creek had total shade (55.3%) which is 25 % below the

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

RMO and hardwoods were mainly only present in the open areas along the stream. In Tamarack Creek most shade was provided by smaller diameter conifers within the RHCA, as the hardwood component (15%) remained well below the forest standard, while in Beaverdam Creek the average total shade was 50.3%.

Temperature: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk – Temperatures routinely exceed state standards in all tributaries.

Beaverdam Creek 1707030307 64.2 1995 Beaverdam Creek 1707030307 66.2 1996 Beaverdam Creek 1707030307 81.7 1999 Beaverdam Creek 1707030307 71.2 2002 Beaverdam Creek 1707030307 63.2 2005

Powell Creek 1707030307 76.5 1995 Powell Creek 1707030307 63.8 1997 Powell Creek 1707030307 74.2 2003 Powell Creek 1707030307 70.3 2005 Powell Creek 1707030307 76.4 2005

Rager Creek 1707030307 71.2 1996 Rager Creek 1707030307 68.1 1997 Rager Creek 1707030307 70.7 1998 Rager Creek 1707030307 67.8 1999 Rager Creek 1707030307 70.4 2000 Rager Creek 1707030307 71.9 2003 Rager Creek 1707030307 66.4 2004 Rager Creek 1707030307 62.8 2005 Rager Creek 1707030307 83.9 2005

Sugar Creek 1707030307 65.0 1996 Sugar Creek 1707030307 63.6 1997 Sugar Creek 1707030307 65.6 1998 Sugar Creek 1707030307 74.1 2003 Sugar Creek 1707030307 73.5 2004 Sugar Creek 1707030307 62.9 2005 Sugar Creek 1707030307 70.3 2006 Sugar Creek 1707030307 69.5 2007 Sugar Creek 1707030307 67.8 2008

Tamarack Creek 1707030307 68.3 1995 Tamarack Creek 1707030307 67.5 1997 Thornton Creek 1707030307 71.5 1998 Tamarack Creek 1707030307 67.5 1999 Thornton Creek 1707030307 70.6 1999

Habitat Trend: PIBO trend data was collected on Sugar Creek between 2001 and 2010 and there have been no changes in pools, width to depth ratio’s, or woody debris. 31

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Beaverdam 8.7 15 FAR 57,420 Powell 5.2 12 FAR 27,456 Rager 4.2 12 FAR 22,176 Suger 5.6 12 FAR 29,568 Tamarack 6.3 10 FAR 27,720 Bellworm 0.7 8 FAR 2,463 Unnamed 3.8 6 FAR 10,032

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Paulina Creek

Meets Forest Plan Predomi Std/Pacfish nate and Infish Rosgen Std. 20/mile Width Min Ave Channel or to % Max % Type Local data depth <2m % <2m Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile of 116/mile Ratio m <2mm m Yes/no

Paulina Creek Roba Creek 1991 48 8.9 Dipping Vat Yes/no

Creek 1991 73.1 15.3

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk - Large woody debris is generally lacking in these streams and habitat is known to be marginal in most areas.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning at Risk - Width to depth ratios are narrow, but bank erosion is high in many areas (Westside EA 2004).

Sediment: Functioning at Risk - Unknown

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning at Risk - Unknown

Temperature: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk – Tributaries are consistently above state standards.

Roba Creek 1707030308 77.2 1995 Roba Creek 1707030308 69.2 1995 Roba Creek 1707030308 71.4 1997 Roba Creek 1707030308 64.7 1997 Roba Creek 1707030308 68.0 1998 Roba Creek 1707030308 66.8 1999 Roba Creek 1707030308 70.9 2000 Roba Creek 1707030308 80.2 2003 Roba Creek 1707030308 69.6 2005

Dipping Vat Creek 1707030309 68.3 1995 Dipping Vat Creek 1707030309 73.6 1995 Dipping Vat Creek 1707030309 79.8 1998 Dipping Vat Creek 1707030309 68.7 1999 Dipping Vat Creek 1707030309 74.0 2001 Dipping Vat Creek 1707030309 79.6 2002 Dipping Vat Creek 1707030309 69.2 2004

Habitat Trend: PIBO trend data was collected on Roba Creek between 2001 and 2006. In that time width to depth ratio’s decreased from 30 to 20 and increase in large woody debris from 286 pieces per km to 441 pieces per km. 33

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Roba Creek 1.4 8 FAUR 3,285 Dipping Vat 1.6 8 FAUR 3,754 Creek Dry Paulina 2.0 8 FAUR 4,693 Hewed Log 1.1 8 FAUR 2,581 Unnamed 0.3 6 FAUR 528

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Lower Beaver Creek

Meets Forest Plan Predomi Std/Pacfish nate and Infish Rosgen Std. 20/mile Width Min Channel or to % Max Type Local data depth <2m % Ave % Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile of 116/mile Ratio m <2mm <2mm Lower Beaver North Wolf Yes/no

Creek Creek 1991 26.3 22.3 Wolf Creek 2005 43.4 Yes/no 20.5 9.7 22.7 16 East Wolf Yes/no

Creek 2006 90.5 44.7 Wolf Creek Yes/no B Trib 16 2009 52.1 17.0 13.8 53.5 38.5 Widow Yes/no B Creek 2009 56.3 16.2 19.0 66.6 37.8

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Risk - The large woody material goal of 20 pieces per mile (0.38/100’) is met but not the local data of 116 per mile.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning at Risk - Range from 16.2 on B channels to 44.7 on C type channels.

Sediment: Functioning at Risk - In Wolf Creek particles less than 6 mm compose 14% of the available substrate. Overall, this material ranged from 12 to 32% of available substrate, which indicates that spawning and rearing habitats are not impaired by fine sediments.

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning at Risk - Shade values of 23 to 55% occur throughout the mainstem, below Land Resource and Management Plan criteria of 80% or better.

Temperature: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk - Wolf Creek was placed on Oregon’s 303(d) list for temperature impairment in 2002 for exceeding summertime maximum stream temperatures (64oF) – see table below.

Wolf Creek 1707020109 71.4 1995 Wolf Creek 1707020109 83.2 2003 Wolf Creek 1707020109 73.8 2008

East Wolf Creek 1707030309 68.0 1995 East Wolf Creek 1707030309 57.4 2005

No Name 1707030309 69.8 1995 No Name 1707030309 72.6 1995

No Name North Wolf 1707030309 67.6 1995 Creek

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

North Wolf Creek 1707030309 77.5 1995 North Wolf Creek 1707030309 79.3 1997 North Wolf Creek 1707030309 80.6 1998 North Wolf Creek 1707030309 77.5 1999 North Wolf Creek 1707030309 67.6 2005

Wolf Creek 1707030309 73.9 1995 Wolf Creek 1707030309 75.8 1997 Wolf Creek 1707030309 77.4 2000 Wolf Creek 1707030309 70.0 2001 Wolf Creek 1707030309 78.5 2006 Wolf Creek 1707030309 83.3 2007 Wolf Creek 1707030309 73.9 2009

Habitat Trend: Wolf Creek PIBO trend data from 2001 to 2006 indicates that while pools frequency has decreased the percentage of pools has increased. Width to depth ratios have decreased as well from 34 to 14 and there has been an increase in woody debris from 23 to 54 pieces per km.

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Wolf Creek 8.9 15 FAR 58,740 North Wolf 5.4 10 FAR 23,760 Creek East Wolf Creek 3.3 10 FAR 14,520 Unnamed tribs 29.1 5 FAR 64,020

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Camp Creek

Meets Forest Plan Predomi Std/Pacfish nate and Infish Std. Rosgen Min 20/mile or Width Channel % Max Ave Local data of to depth Type <2m % % Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile 116/mile Ratio m <2mm <2mm Parrish No/no

Camp Creek Creek 2005 8.2 12.1

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk - Well below standards.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning Appropriately - Within expected ranges

Sediment: Functioning at Risk - Unknown

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning at Risk - Unknown

Temperature: Functioning at Risk - Unknown.

Habitat Trend: Unknown.

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Jackson 1.5 10 FAR 6,600 Double Cabin 0.9 10 FAR 3,960 Unnamed Tribs 0.5 6 FAR 1,320

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Watson Creek – Crooked River

Meets Forest Plan Predom Std/Pacfish inate and Infish Rosgen Std. 20/mile Width Min Ave Channel or to % Max % Type Local data depth <2m % <2m Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile of 116/mile Ratio m <2mm m Watson Creek- Maury Yes/no

Crooked River Creek 2003 25.5 14.5

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Risk - Meets Ochoco National Forest Plan standards but not what local data suggests would be in the stream naturally at 116 per mile.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning Appropriately - Appears to be in acceptable range for width to depth ratio’s.

Sediment: Functioning at Risk - Unknown

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning at Risk - Unknown

Temperature: Functioning at Risk - Unknown

Habitat Trend: Unknown.

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Maury Creek 2.6 10 FAR 11,439 Unnamed Tribs 2.0 6 FAR 5,280

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Upper North Fork Crooked River

Meets Forest Plan Predo Std/Pacfi minate sh and Rosge Infish n Std. 20/mile Chann or Width el Local to Type WD/ data of depth Min % Max % Ave % Watershed Stream Year Mile 116/mile Ratio <2mm <2mm <2mm Upper No/no North Fork Crooked North Fork River Crooked River 1991 0.5 38.4 East Fork Yes/yes

Howard Creek 1991 448.6 11.8 Howard Creek 1991 90.9Yes/no 14.7 West Fork Yes/yes

Howard Creek 1991 119.2 6.8 East Porter Yes/no

Creek 1992 26.4 8.9 EF Allen Yes/yes B Creek 2001 165.1 16.0 Lookout Yes/no

Creek 2002 49.4 13.5 17.7 29.8 23.0 Allen Creek 2002 96.3Yes/no 14.9 8.5 16.9 13.7 Brush Creek 2002 68.7Yes/no 14.7 12.8 14.6 13.9 Fox Creek 2002 83.0Yes/no 10.5 14.1 40 24.4 Polie Creek 2006 43.4Yes/no 11.7 12.8 38.3 24.1 Porter Creek 2006 38.3Yes/no 26.0 B 5.5 7.8 6.6 Porter Creek 2007 39.0Yes/no 22.0 B 6.3 29.5 15.6 Peterson Yes/no B Creek 2006 33.0 14.8 13.0 23.3 18.1 Peterson Yes/no C and G Creek 2007 53.6 11.8 (1reach) 11.5 52.1 33.0 Jungle Creek 2007 17.0No/no 13.9B 10.4 60.337.0 Jungle Creek 2008 44.3Yes/no Dudley Creek 2007 8.3No/no 7.8 E 100 100 100 Hickey Creek 2008 29.9Yes/no 11.5C 14.0 92.341.2

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Risk - Based on stream surveys, the watershed is deficient in the amount of large woody material in streams (Table 1 below). Approximately 55.2 miles of stream in the watershed have large wood survey information. Of the 55 reaches surveyed, the following streams meet

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

the standard for large woody debris: reach 1 Elliot Creek, reach 2 Stump Creek, reaches 1 and 2 East Fork Howard Creek, reach 1 West Fork Howard, reach 2 Cram Creek, reach 1 North Fork Cram and reach 3 Polie Creek. None of the stream reaches surveyed meet the standard for small or medium wood. Table 1. Large woody debris per mile by Sub-watershed in the Howard Elliot Johnson project area.

LWD Per Watershed Stream Name Source 100 ft*

Elliot Creek 73.9 1996 BLS

Fox Creek 79.2 2002 LII

Indian Creek 52.8 1996 BLS

Stump Creek 110.8 1994 BLS Elliot Creek Unnamed Tributaries to 31.7 1994 BLS Stump Creek

West Fork Fox Creek 89.7 1994 BLS

West Fork Stump Creek 73.9 1994 BLS

Brush Creek 21.1 2002 LII

Cram Creek 116.1 1994 BLS

Johnson Creek 184.8 1994 BLS

Unnamed Tributary to Johnson Creek 142.5 1994 BLS Johnson Creek (RM 6.7)

North Fork Cram Creek 110.8 1994 BLS

Polie Creek 89.7 2006 LII

Winter Creek 158.4 1994 BLS

East Fork Howard Creek 89.7 1994 BLS

Howard Creek 63.3 2001 BLS Howard Creek South Fork Howard Creek 126.7 1996 BLS

West Fork Howard Creek 73.9 1996 BLS

*LWD values are averages of stream reach values weighted by reach length.

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Large woody debris also plays an important role in pool formation. Within the watershed, the majority of pools within A and B-type channels are formed and maintained by large woody debris. In contrast, the C and E-type channels (with gentler gradients) can also form pools in association with lateral scour and sinuosity. In the project area large wood and lateral scour are both important component of the C and E- type channels for pool formation and maintenance. Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning at Risk - Currently, width/depth ratios exceed values reported by Rosgen in many areas based on channel type. Of the 55 surveyed stream reaches, width/depth ratio standard was met on: Fox Reaches 1 and 3 (A type channel segment; North Fox Canyon Reach 1; Elliot Reach 2; Cram Reaches 2 (A type channel segment), 3 and 4; Howard; East Fork Howard Reach 1, 2, and 3 (C type channel segment); South Fork Howard Reach 1; Johnson Reach 2; Indian; Polie Reach 2, and Stump Reaches 1, 2, and 4. INFISH (1995) directs that channel width/depth ratios in streams that support bull trout populations be less than 10. In this watershed project area, some of the A, B and C-type channels currently have width/depth ratios that are greater than 10. Since the streams in the project area support redband trout populations, not bull trout populations which are more sensitive to habitat disturbances, a more appropriate reference may be those based on channel type as defined by Rosgen (1996). Additional information on pools, entrenchment and width to depth ratio’s is presented in Table 1 below. Pools, Width-to-Depth Ratio, and Entrenchment for Howard Elliot Johnson Project Area Streams.

Average Pools Width to Depth Ratio Entrenchment Ratio Watershed Stream Name Per 100 ft

R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4

Elliot 0.9 1 6.2 5.4 10 3.6

Fox 0.7 0.5 0.5↓ 13 10.9 8.1 2.5 2 1.7

Indian 1.6 1.3 1.6 1 7.9 22 17 3.6 6.5 2.9 1.2 5.4

Stump .5 0.7 20 9.8 2.3 2.2 Elliot Creek Unnamed 7.6 9.5 10.3 4 1.9 2.5 Tribs to Stump

West Fork Fox 0.5 1.2 8 8.6 2.9 1.7

West Fork 7.7 2.7 Stump

Brush 0.8 0.6 0.5 14.1 12 15.3 2 1.8 1.5 Johnson Cram 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.7 2.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 Creek Johnson 1.3 2 1 7.3 12 8.3 2.4 2.1 1.9

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Unnamed Trib. to Johnson 0.9 2.3 1 (RM 6.7)

North Fk Cram 0.8 2.7 1.1

Polie 2.5 2.1 11.3 11.8 2.2 2.3↑

Winter 0.8 0.8 8 9.7 2.2 2.9

East Fk 2.5 1.6 1.1 6.5 11.2 11 2.5 2.2 3.2 Howard

Howard 1.3 1.4 1.7 11.8 12.2 12.5 2.9 1.4 1.9 Howard Creek South Fk 2.3 0.7 0.3 32.7 8.2 9.3 1.7 3.1 2.2 Howard

West Fk 3.6 2.3↓ 1.1↓ 5 12.4↓ 4.5↓ Howard ↓

Sediment: Functioning at Risk – Fine sediment values for the streams measured are variable on whether or not they meet the standard of <20% fines.

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning Appropriately - Within the Howard Elliot Johnson project area, the higher order streams generally have higher shade values because the channels are narrower, the valleys are more enclosed, and many channel reaches have greater abundance of riparian vegetation. Stream survey data (see table below) indicate that shade meets potential on Johnson, Unnamed tributary to Johnson Creek (RM 6.7), and Polie Creek. Streams moving toward meeting total stream shade (conifer and hardwoods) include North Fork Cram Creek and Winter Creek. Those that do not meet the shade standard vary from 37% to 68%. Average total shade and average hardwood shade for Howard Elliot Johnson Project Area Sub-watersheds.

Average Average Total Watershed Stream Name Hardwood Source Shade* (%) Shade (%)

Elliot Creek 63.0 0-50 1996 BLS

Fox Creek 62.0 0-25 2002 LII Elliot Creek Indian Creek 62.5 0-50 1996 BLS

Stump Creek 58.3 0-25 1994 BLS

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Unnamed Tributaries to 37.1 <0.1 1994 BLS Stump Creek

West Fork Fox Creek 68.7 25->50 1994 BLS

West Fork Stump Creek 53.3 <0.1 1994 BLS

Brush Creek 65.4 10->50 2002 LII

Cram Creek 61.5 <10->50 1994 BLS

Johnson Creek 81.2 10->50 1994 BLS

Unnamed Tributary to Johnson Creek 86.5 10-25 1994 BLS Johnson Creek (RM 6.7)

North Fork Cram Creek 76.5 >50 1994 BLS

Polie Creek 89.8 25->50 2006 LII

Winter Creek 76.3 0->50 1994 BLS

East Fork Howard Creek 59.9 10-50 1994 BLS

Howard Creek 60.1 25->50 2001 BLS Howard Creek South Fork Howard Creek 66.6 0->50 1996 BLS

West Fork Howard Creek 62.0 10->50 1996 BLS

Temperature: Functioning at Risk - Within the project area there are several streams with assessed water quality impairments related to summer water temperature. These include Fox Creek (RM 0.0 to 4.9), Howard Creek (RM 0.0 to 9.5), and Indian Creek (RM 0.0 to 19.1). These streams are on Oregon's 2004/2006 Section 303(d) List of "Water Quality Limited Waterbodies." The Oregon State Water Quality Standards state that the seven-day-average maximum temperature of a stream identified as having salmon and trout rearing and migration use including the streams within the planning area, may not exceed 18.0 degrees Celsius (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit). No measurable increase in water temperature from management practices is allowed in these streams. Table 2 summarizes the seven-day average maximum water temperatures measured between 1994 and 2005 using thermistors at multiple locations in streams within the Howard Elliot Johnson project area. Temperatures exceeded the state stream temperature threshold of 64.4 in the North Fork of the Crooked River, Johnson Creek, Elliot Creek, Indian Creek, Fox Creek, Howard Creek, and East Fork Howard Creek. Table 2. Seven-Day Average Maximum Water Temperatures* (1994-2005).

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Station* ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05

NFCR 81.9 74.8 abv prairie

NFCR 80.6 73.7 78.1 85.3 78.6 78.9 blw prairie

Johnson Cr 63.4 77.3 73.768.1 72.8 @ FS Brdy

Brush Cr 62.6 63.5 62.3 62.7 62.0 @ FS Bdry

Elliot Cr 83.9 80.3 @ FS Bdry

Indian Cr 71.4 70.1 81.2 68.05 67.64 68.6 77.9 74.5 @ FS Bdry

Fox Cr 78.1 73.3 72.0 71.1 72.074.5 74.6 @ FS Bdry

Howard Cr 69.3 69.6 71.8 69.8 71.3 69.0 72.9 71.6 @ FS Bdry

Howard Cr 68.6 4210 rd

SFk Hwrd 62.9 4210057 rd

WFk Hwrd 58.9 58.7 @ mouth

EFk Hwrd 67.4 65.9 @ mouth

EFk Hwrd 70.3 200 rd

EFk Hwrd 65.6 Helibore S

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Habitat Trend: Three streams in this watershed have PIBO trend data from 2001 to 2006. The three streams are Peterson Creek, Porter Creek and North Fork Crooked River. For Peterson Creek, the trend appears to be increasing habitat complexity with an increase in woody debris and a decrease in width to depth ratios. Pools were similar between the two years. Porter Creek has a decreasing trend in habitat with a decrease in pools, decrease in woody debris and a slight decrease in width to depth ratio’s, but still on the high end.

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Porter Creek 4.6 12 FAR 24,288 East Porter 4.5 12 FAR 23,760 Looney 1.2 10 FAR 5,280 Keys 0.6 8 FAR 2,112 Hickey 0.1 10 FAR 439 Beetle 1.9 8 FAR 6,687 Peterson 7.6 10 FAR 33,439 Ross 0.7 8 FAR 2,463 Allen 4.4 12 FAR 23,232 Indian 2.3 10 FAR 10,119 Elliot 1.6 10 FAR 7,039 Johnson 2.9 10 FAR 12,759 Howard 3.5 10 FAR 15,399 Dudley 0.8 10 FAR 3,519 Fox 3.7 8 FAR 13,023 Lookout 4.1 8 FAR 14,431 Cram 2.1 6 FAR 5,544 Gray 5.3 8 FAR 18,655 Brush 5.4 10 FAR 23,760 Jungle 0.8 8 FAR 2,815 North Fork 8.1 10 FAR 35,640 Crooked River Lytle 4.5 10 FAR 19,800 Polie 1.1 10 FAR 4,839 SF Howard 1.7 10 FAR 7,479 EF Howard 2.9 10 FAR 12,759 WF Howard 1.4 10 FAR 6,159 Winter 1.9 8 FAR 6,687 Short 0.6 8 FAR 2,112 Unnamed Tribs 7.6 6 FAR 20,064

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Deep Creek

Meets Forest Plan Predomi Std/Pacfis nate h and Rosgen Infish Std. Channel 20/mile or Width Type Local data to WD/ of depth Min % Max % Ave % Watershed Stream Year Mile 116/mile Ratio <2mm <2mm <2mm Happy Yes/no Camp Deep Creek Creek 1992 91.2 11.8 Little Yes/no Summit Creek 1992 109 22.3 Little Yes/no Summit B Creek 2010 35.4 17.3 5.4 73.9 27.1 Deep Yes/no C and A Creek 1999 21.4 34.7 Jackson Yes/no C Creek 2010 68.6 23.0 6.4 30.1 18.3 Crazy Yes/no A Creek 2010 27.4 31.7 2.6 24.1 14.95

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Risk - Currently, 73 percent of the surveyed stream reaches are attaining INFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs). No reaches meet the local data of 116 pieces per mile. Width/Depth Ratios: Functioning at Risk - The Deep Creek watershed has a significant amount of C and E stream types that occur throughout 60 percent of the planning area (upper channel reaches). These stream types are heavily dependent on riparian vegetation for bank stability due to higher sinuosity traits. Currently 41 percent of the historic C and E stream types (high quality fisheries habitat) have been converted to degraded D and G types that are typical of high bank erosion and lateral instability. Rosgen A and B stream types occur predominantly in the lower third of the watershed. Sediment: Functioning at Risk - Fine sediment varies tremendously across the watershed and even within streams. Lows of 5% fine sediment and highs of 75% show that variability. In Deep Creek bedload data shows fine sediment (particle sizes < 2 mm) making up 40 percent of the desired spawning material (gravels). Temperature and Shade: Functioning at Risk - In 1996 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) listed selected streams within the planning area as temperature impaired. The listing status evolves from data that shows stream temperatures regularly exceeding ODEQ standard of 64˚F between the months of June and September. Table 4 displays the stream temperature summary, as well as the listed water bodies. Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act mandates outcomes or Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these listed water bodies (Boyd and Sturdevant 1997). A draft Water Quality Restoration Plan has been completed for the planning area and includes TMDLs.

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Table 4: Deep Creek Watershed 303(d) Listed Streams and Temperature Summary (˚F)

303(d) Listed Stream 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Deep Creek 73.5 73.4 74.9 74 ND 73.9

Crazy Creek 64.5 ND ND ND ND 69.48

East Fork Crazy Creek 64.3 ND ND ND 61.3 ND

West Fork Crazy Creek 72.7 ND ND ND ND 71.85

Little Summit Creek 64.5 71.3 69.3 67.7 70.7 85.75

Happy Camp Creek 78.3 ND ND 74.1 73.66 ND Jackson Creek 76.7 ND ND ND 77.02 ND Double Corral Creek 71.3 ND ND ND 75.8 ND Toggle Creek 72 ND ND 66.4 73.19 ND Derr Creek 78 ND ND ND 71.98 ND 1994: This is the average high for the entire period of record.

1995-1999: This is the average 7 day floating for the period of record.

ND: No data available.

In open meadow systems influxes of cold water from discrete spring sources have historically had a dampening effect on stream temperature. Decreases in water table interaction (loss of floodplains) have reduced these streams ability to maintain lower more consistent temperatures during dry summer months. Vegetation providing stream shading is predominantly produced from conifer and hardwood stands. The Forest standard of > 80 percent surface shade is not being met in 94 percent of the planning area. Contributors to this condition are increases in bankfull width, road development adjacent to stream channels, past harvest activity along portions of stream channels, livestock utilization in riparian areas, and natural openings along stream courses. Currently only 2 - 10 percent of the existing riparian shade is contributed by deciduous shrubs. The present conditions of degraded water quality have resulted from impacts on the forest during more than a century of use. Amount of shade in the riparian areas contributed by deciduous shrubs is presented below.

Deep Creek No Name streams 4.0 Dicer Meadow 1.6 Derr Creek 2.1 WF Thortan Creek 2.0 Toggle Creek 3.0 47

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Thortan Creek 3.7 Haypress Creek 0.4 Jackson Creek 6.6 Double Corral Creek 3.9 Happy Camp Creek 6.0 Cabbage Creek 1.3 Little Summit Creek 6.6 Big Spring Creek 1.2 Crazy Creek 3.6 WF Crazy Creek 0.9 EF Crazy Creek 0.6 Buck Hollow 2.2 Deep Creek 9.8 NF Crooked River 0.1 59.6

Habitat Trend: Unknown – no PIBO sites.

Summary/Population Estimates

Deep Creek has 59.6 miles of occupied redband trout habitat Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Dicer Meadow 1.6 8 FAR 5,631 Derr 2.1 8 FAR 7,392 WF Thorton 2.0 8 FAR 7,039 Toggle 3.0 8 FAR 10,560 Haypress 3.7 8 FAR 13,023 Jackson 6.6 12 FAR 34,848 Double Corral 3.9 10 FAR 17,160 Happy Camp 6.0 12 FAR 31,680 Cabbage 1.3 8 FAR 4,575 Little Summit 6.6 15 FAR 43,560 Big Spring 1.2 10 FAR 5,280 Crazy 3.6 14 FAR 22,176 WF Crazy 0.9 8 FAR 3,168 EF Crazy 0.6 8 FAR 2,112 Buck Hollow 2.2 8 FAR 7,743 Deep 9.8 20 FAR 86,239 Unnamed Tribs 4.1 8 FAR 14,431

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Lower North Fork Crooked River

Meets Forest Plan Predomin Std/Pacfish ate and Infish Rosgen Std. 20/mile Min Max Ave or Width Channel % % % WD/M Local data to depth Type <2m <2m <2m Watershed Stream Year ile of 116/mile Ratio m m m Lower North Fork Fox Crooked Canyon River Creek 1991 31.9 Yes/no 7.5 North Fox

Canyon Creek 1991 45.1 Yes/no 6.5 North Fork

Crooked River 2002 5.9 No/no 47.9 0.9 15.1 4.5 Donnell C and E y Creek 2008 54.1 Yes/no 13.1 9 100 45.8 Indian Trail Creek 2008 124.7 Yes/yes 2.7 19.1 9.9 Rough Canyon Creek 2008 61.4 Yes/no 0 10.2 5.1 Sherwo od Creek 1991 21.1 Yes/no 9.2

Large woody debris: Functioning at Risk - While the majority of streams in this 5th field meeting InFish standards for woody debris of 20 pieces per mile, only one stream, Indian Trail, meets what is thought to be the natural amounts of woody debris in unmanaged areas of 116 pieces per mile. The North Fork Crooked River is severely devoid of woody debris with only 5.9 per mile. Width to depth ratio: Functioning at Risk - In general width to depth ratio’s appear to be reasonably narrow except for the North Fork of the Crooked River that is very wide and shallow. This section of the North Fork has been intensively grazed by cattle and has limited water in mid to late summer due, in part to water withdrawals upstream in Big Summit Prairie. Fine sediment: Functioning Appropriately - Where data exists fine sediment in this 5th field does not appear to be an issue except in one reach of Donnelly Creek that was 100 percent. However, this reach was also an Rosgen E type that could potentially be a fine grained reach in a wet meadow. Riparian vegetation: Functioning at Risk - Unknown at this time Temperature: Functioning at Risk - Unknown at this time

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Habitat Trend: Fox Canyon had trend data from 2001 to 2006 collected by PIBO. Pools and width to depth ratios were the same over that time, but woody debris increased from 33 to 115 pieces per km. Unknown overall trend for the watershed as a whole. Populations: There are 14 miles of occupied redband trout habitat in this 5th field watershed. Based on the available data of 0.1 miles of good quality habitat in Indian Trail Creek, 7.7 miles of poor habitat in North Fork Crooked River and the remaining 6.2 miles of moderate habitat, the Stewart et al (2007) study would indicate that the population estimate would be the following. Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Indian Trail 0.1 10 FAUR 293 Fox Canyon 3.8 10 FAUR 11,114 N Fox Canyon 2.4 10 FAUR 7,040 NF Crooked 7.7 40 FAUR 90,346 River

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Horse Heaven Creek-Crooked River

Meets Forest Plan Std/Pacfish Predominate and Infish Rosgen Std. Channel 20/mile or Width Type Local data to Max of depth Min % % Ave % Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile 116/mile Ratio <2mm <2mm <2mm Horse Yes/no Heaven Creek- B Crooked Pine River Creek 2000 32.4 9.9 10.8 26 18.4 Pine No/no A Creek 2000 6.3 4.5 24.5 52.2 41.5 Gibson Yes/no

Creek 2002 26.2 9.9 90.5 97.4 94.0 Drake Yes/no

Creek 2003 55.9 12.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 Drake Yes/no

Creek 2005 37.3 12.6 1.9 100 67.8 Horse Yes/no Heaven G Creek 2008 32.8 12.5 9.0 38.3 24.1 NW Yes/n o Fork Horse G Heaven Creek 2008 62.1 9.1 51.6 79.8 65.7 Little No/no Horse E Heaven Creek 2008 5.8 7.9 13.2 16.9 15.0 Little Yes/no Horse A Heaven Creek 2008 36.0 10.3 0 53.8 26.9

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Subwatersh LW ed D Len Creek Total Hard- Per Width/ Cl gth Cut Pools Bankfull Entrench Name Reac Shad wood mile Channel Depth as sur bank Per Width ment Survey h e Shade Type Ratio s vey (%) 100’ (ft) Ratio Year (%) (%) ed Survey Type Drake Drake 1 II 1.0 93.9 66 31.7 47.7 1.0 A/B/E 10.8 4.7 (2003) LII 0 2 II 1.1 79 0 79.2 9.6 0.9 B 17.4 2.1 0 3 II 0.5 84.7 0 58.1 13.6 0.6 E 14.0 14 43.8 0 Drake 1 II 1 85 32.3 3.5 13.7 1.6 B 6.2 4 (1998) BLS 2 II 1.1 73 0 10.5 0.9 1.3 E 8.8 2 3 II 0.5 79 0 3.5 1.3 2.1 E 10.2 4.1 4 II 1.1 76 0 8.8 0.7 0.8 E Drake 1 II 0.2 63.3 0.7 (1991) 5 2 II 2.0 163. 0.8 7 3 II 2.2 227. 0.6 0 Drake 1 II 4.0 22 <20 (1979) BP Pine Pine 1 II 2.5 64 1 35.2 7.3 1.5 B4 9.3 9.3 2.1 2 II 0.6 82 4.2 3.5 1 0.9 B4/A4 6.6 9.4 2.6 4 3 II 0.7 82 0 1.7 >1 0.9 A6a 3.5 5.0 2.7

Summary information for the elements below is derived from the tables above. Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Risk - While predominately meeting the Infish standard of >20 pieces per mile no stream meets the local data of 116 pieces per mile. Pine Creek and Little Horse Heaven Creek are the notable exceptions to this with less than 10 pieces per mile in two different reaches. The area is dominated by pine and fir forests so the potential for future recruitment of large woody debris is high.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning at Risk – Ranging from 4.5 to 12.5 overall these ratios appear to indicate that channels are stable, however Horse Heaven Creek and NF Horse Heaven Creek are both Rosgen G channels which are very unstable even though width to depth ratios are low.

Sediment: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk - Ranging from 8.4% to 100% for fine sediment and in most all cases considerable over 20% fines this indicator is functioning at unacceptable risk.

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning at Risk – hardwood shade, while high in some reaches, is generally low in most areas. Grazing and channel incision are the main elements that are affecting hardwood riparian species.

Temperature: Functioning Appropriately – Temperatures, where taken, appear to be within state standards and have improved on Pine Creek.

Stream Attribute 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 2004

Gibson 7 Day max 52.0

Days>64.4 0

Pine #1 7 Day max 73.8 64.0 64.1 61.6 63.0 64.8*

Days>64.4 46 0 0 0 0 3

Pine #2 7 Day max 61.5 60.7

Days>64.4 00

Habitat Trend: In this watershed Newsome Creek is the only stream with PIBO trend data that was collected between 2001 and 2006. On Newsome Creek pools increased from 11% to 66% and woody debris increased from 109 to 294 pieces per km. Trend for this stream and associated fish habitat appears to be increasing.

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Lost 1.6 6 FAR 4,224 Drake 4.1 6 FAR 10,824 Shotgun 1.5 6 FAR 3,960 Buck 1.9 6 FAR 5,016 East Shotgun 0.8 6 FAR 2,112 Little Horse 2.1 6 FAR 5,544 Heaven Pine 2.5 6 FAR 6,600 Newsome 3.2 6 FAR 8,448 Hammer 0.4 6 FAR 1,056 Sherwood 0.8 6 FAR 2,112 Horse Heaven 2.1 6 FAR 5,544 Gibson 2.2 6 FAR 5,808 Unnamed 2.5 6 FAR 6,600

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Bear Creek Meets Forest Plan Predo Std/Pacfi minate sh and Rosge Infish n Std. Chann 20/mile el or Min Max Type Local Width % % WD/ data of /depth <2m <2m Ave % Watershed Stream Year Mile 116/mile Ratio m m <2mm Klootch Yes/no Bear man Creek Creek 2003 58.6 19.1 34.2 34.2 34.2 Klootch Yes/no man Creek 2005 45.5 13.5 45.0 100 62.0 Klootch Yes/no man

Creek Trib 1 2005 26.8 14.2 45.0 100 72.5 Hamer Yes/no

Creek 2005 39.1 2.7 41.1 75 58.0

Stream R C Length Total Hardwood LWD/mi Cut bank Pools Chan Bankful Width to Entre ea la (miles) Shade Shade le % per nel width depth nchm c ss 100 Type ratio ent h feet ratio 1 II 1.08 43 >1 44.3 1 1.06 C 6.3 3.3 3.7 Klootchman 2 II 0.9 43 0 37 2 1.3 B 5 6.1 4.7 Shearing Spr II 0.5 <40 0 53 Bear 1 II 1.0 19.3 0 8.1 1.3 0.2 B4a 4.9 7.0 3.3 2 II 0.7 45.4 0 58.1 0.6 0 B4a 4.9 14 1.75 Trib 1 1.05 39 0 105.6 0.7 0.8 B5a ------

Large Woody Debris: Functioning At Risk – most all reaches of streams meet the Infish standard of 20 pieces per mile but are well below the local information that indicates that natural amounts of woody debris should be closer to 116 pieces per mile.

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning Appropriately – Width to depth ratios appear to be in alignment with their respective channel types.

Sediment: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk – fine sediment is very high in all streams where it has been measured.

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning at Risk - Unknown

Temperature: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk – Temperatures are high in most areas and often exceed the state standards.

Stream Attribute 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 2004

Klootch #1 7 Day max 83.4 70.8 72.3 71.6 72.9 67.8 63.2 75.3 78.1 72.0

Days>64.4 4650 63 53 61 33 0 80 9351

Klootch #2 7 Day max 62.6 70.1 67.2

Days>64.4 0 45 21

Habitat Trend: Unknown – No PIBO data.

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Friday 0.8 6 FAR 2,112 Deer 2.3 6 FAR 6,072 Klootchman 3.6 6 FAR 9,504 Ferguson 0.4 6 FAR 1,056 Bear 2.5 6 FAR 6,600 Hamer 1.1 6 FAR 2,904 Unnamed Tribs 1.5 6 FAR 3,960

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Upper Ochoco Creek

Meets Forest Plan Std/Pacfish Predominate and Infish Rosgen Std. Channel 20/mile or Type Local data Width Max of /depth Min % % Ave % Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile 116/mile Ratio <2mm <2mm <2mm Upper No/no Ochoco Marks Creek Creek 1992 5.0 9.2 Marks No/no

Creek 1997 5.1 15.2 2.0 19.8 10.2 Marks No/no C Creek 1999 10.2 12.3 26.7 43.6 35.2 Marks No/no E Creek 2009 6.0 8.6 40 60.3 50.1 Marks No/no C Creek 2010 10.5 15.4 2.5 15.3 8.9 Canyon No/no C Creek 1999 2.3 11.1 11.0 21.6 16.9 Ochoco No/no C Creek 1999 9.0 11.9 4.0 15.3 9.5 Scissors No/no E Creek 2001 8.5 9.1 15.5 38 25.1 Judy No/no A Creek 2001 6.6 7.3 0.0 22.6 11.3 Duncan Yes/no E Creek 2001 38.7 10.1 5.2 50.4 32.3 Little No/no Hay E Creek 2001 0.8 4.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 Little Yes/no Hay Creek 2010 24.5 5.4 52.3 80.8 69.0 Coyle No/no B Creek 2001 6.5 8.2 2.8 8.8 5.1 Crystal No/no

Creek 2003 17.3 9.3 17.3 44.7 29.6 Wildcat Yes/no

Creek 2003 54.9 11.1 1.7 20.3 13.1 Peterson No/no

Creek 2003 19.5 10.7 14.9 39.6 25.7 Jim Yes/no Elliott Creek 2003 52.7 5.0 27.5 46.1 36.0

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Cady Yes/no

Creek 2005 36.4 10.1 11.1 50.0 26.5 Salmon Yes/no B and C Creek 2010 46.8 14.7 32.0 53.7 44.5 Sears Yes/no A Creek 2010 91.8 10.8 35.7 39.4 37.5

Channel morphology and condition for streams in the Canyon Project Area (ONF stream survey data).

Subwatershed Reach Class Length Total LWD Cut Pools Channel BF W/D Entr. Shade (miles) Per bank Per 100’ Type Width Ratio Ratio (%) Creek Name mile (%) (ft)

Headwaters Ochoco Creek

Ochoco-1999 1 I 0.67 7.4 <0.1 0.68 C 14.8 13.1 7.1

2 I 5.45 4.2 <0.1 0.22 C 7.5 10.7 8.2

Ochoco-1992/93 1 I 2.29 61.5 31.6 3.0 C3b 16 12.3 5.2

2 I 2.76 51.3 52.8 0.8 C3b 17.4 7 2.7

3 I 0.76 66.9 36.9 <0.1 C3b 7.5 4 12.6

4 I 1.12 69.0 84.5 0.1 E5b 3 3 1.7

Ochoco-1979 1 I 6.75 33 <20

Ahalt-1993 1 II 0.6 40 10.5 6.2 B3a 12 9 1.7

2 II 1.0 38 10.5 3.8 B2a 13 12 1.7

Judy-2001 1 II 0.62 7.9 3.0 0.74 A4 2.4 7.9 2.0

Judy-1993 1 II 0.62 67 31.7 0.9 A4 2.7 2.7 6.3

Judy-1979 1 II 0.50 45

Fisher-1979 1 II 0.50 10

2 II 0.50 50

3 II 0.50 80

4 II 0.50 85

5 II 0.50 55

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Subwatershed Reach Class Length Total LWD Cut Pools Channel BF W/D Entr. Shade (miles) Per bank Per 100’ Type Width Ratio Ratio (%) Creek Name mile (%) (ft)

Canyon-1999 1 I 1.21 0 1.3 0.41 C 8.5 14 2.88

2 II 0.83 0 1.3 0.16 C 8.1 9.9 2.53

3 II 2.43 21.6 1.3 0.15 C 6.3 9.3 5.12

Canyon-1993 1 I 1.21 65.4 5.2 2.2 C3b 25 13 1.6

2 II 0.83 62.4 5.2 1.4 C3b/B3a 13 10 2.7

3 II 2.43 50.6 10.5 2.8 C3b/B3 8 9 2.25

Canyon-1992 1 I 1.21 52 5.2 <5.0 C 8.8 7.4

Canyon-ctd. 2 II 0.83 68 5.2 <5.0 C 10.3 7.2

3 II 2.43 51 4.2 <5.0 C 6.8 5.1

Peaslee-2004 1 II 0.89 69 21.1 <5 A 2.6 3. 6.9

Duncan Creek

Duncan-2001 1 II 0.61 14.2 5.3 0.5 E4b 3.9 7.6 11.8

2 II 1.08 58.6 3.5 0.6 B4 3.9 16.5 3.4

Duncan-1993 1 II 0.91 53 5.2 6.8 B3-4/A3 5.7 6.3 Mod.

2 II 1.67 77 147.8 8.8 A4 5.0 2.6 Low

Douthit-1993 1 0.19 73 68.4 1.1 B4a 13 6.8 Low

2 0.34 66 26.4 4.5 B4a 3.5 1.7 Low

3 0.79 63 31.7 0.4 A3/4 20 13.3 Mod.

4 0.30 23 47.5 <0.1 A4a+ 16 8.9 Low

Douthit-S. Fork- 1 0.66 64 5.2 2.1 1993

Coyle-2001 1 II 0.35 <60 0 0.0 0.4

2 II 1.55 <60 13.2 10.8 0.9

Coyle-1993 1 II 3.0 30 32.7 6.9 E4b 10 8.3 Mod.

2 II 1.1 58 42.2 10.3 B5a 8 6.1 Low

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk - While many streams have more than the Infish standard of >20 pieces per mile, there is only one that meets local data of 116 pieces per mile and most do not even make the Infish standard. Overall this system is largely below the needed amount of wood to create and maintain good fish habitat.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning Appropriately – All width to depth ratios and therefore channel stability appear to be within the ranges for their respective channel types.

Sediment: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk - Fine sediment from measurements taken from stream surveys indicates that the bedload is composed of fines from 0 to 80%. The majority of streams are above the standard of 20% fines.

Riparian Vegetation: Unknown – Functioning at Risk – Ochoco Creek has a good component of alder and other hardwoods along most of its length (professional observation). However, other streams are unknown as far as the quality and quantity of riparian vegetation.

Temperature: Functioning at Risk – While many streams are within state standards there are also numerous streams that are well above the state standards (see table below)

Stream Name 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Blevins 63.0 61.8 59.1 Canyon 61.3 63.5 62.4 63.5 63.8 68.1 69.4 68.3 65.4 64.5 64.4 64.0 60.6 64.4 Canyon 73.9 Canyon 59.9 50.1 Canyon 55.5 Cady 63.3 Cline 58.6 Crystal 73.7 70.8 68.3 63.8 71.7 73.0 Coyle 64.0 63.1 66.2 Duncan 64.2 65.6 66.7 Dothit 64.7 Hamilton 66.5 64.7 61.8 62.2 Little Hay 65.3 59.3 67.2 63.3 61.5 60.9 64.7 66.7 60.6 64.5 64.5 59.3 McGinnis 64.2 63.1 62.2 62.9 Marks 86 72.8 73.5 72.8 72.5 70.7 73.0 72.5 73.7 74.3 72.5 72.5 72.5 Marks 71.9 69.6 67.1 69.4 73.0 75.5 74.8 70.8 Marks 65.3 Marks 71.0 70.7 Marks 72.8 Marks 65.6 73.5 Ochoco 70.1 71.2 Ochoco 68.0 68.1 68.5 Ochoco 68.9 71.6 68.7 73.2 68.0 69.4 71.0 70.1 65.8 69.0 Ochoco 64.7 Ochoco 66.3 68.5 Ochoco 66.5 Ochoco 60.4 71.6 60.0 60.8 Peterson (Marks trib) 75.0 74.8 77.1 69.8 80.9 Rush 63.8 66.5 Salmon 64.2 69.0 67.8 Salmon 61.3 64.0 70.5 59

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Salmon 71.4 Sears 72.5 74.8 Sears 71.6 66.3 69.9 Scissors 65.4

Habitat Trend: Trend data for this watershed is limited to two streams, Ochoco Creek and Marks Creek. Data is from the 2003 and 2008 years. Ochoco Creek decreased in pool percentage from 40 to 26%, but increased in woody debris from 60 to 73 pieces per km, and decreased in width to depth ratios from 24 to 16. Marks Creek had pools remain about the same but increase in depth, a slight increase in width to depth ratios and an increase in woody debris from 5 to 16 pieces per km. Overall it appears that streams and associated habitats are getting better.

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Thorson 0.3 8 FAR 1,056 Ahalt 0.9 10 FAR 3,960 Caddy 1.2 8 FAR 4,224 Cline 0.1 8 FAR 351 Peaslee 0.4 8 FAR 1,407 Kyle 1.8 8 FAR 6,336 Scissors 0.8 5 FAR 1,759 Judy 2.0 8 FAR 7,038 Hedgepath 0.1 8 FAR 351 Fisher 0.3 8 FAR 1,056 Crystal 3.0 8 FAR 10,557 Mcginnis 1.8 8 FAR 6,336 Canyon 4.8 8 FAR 16,896 Long Hollow 0.5 8 FAR 1,759 Coyle 2.8 8 FAR 9,855 Reilly 1.0 8 FAR 3,519 Corner 1.1 8 FAR 3,871 Deadman 1.7 8 FAR 5,983 Rush 1.1 8 FAR 3,871 Douhit 1.3 8 FAR 4,575 Buck 1.8 8 FAR 6,336 Blevins 1.9 8 FAR 6,687 Duncan 3.5 8 FAR 12,319 Little Hay 2.3 6 FAR 6,072 Wildcat 1.9 8 FAR 6,687 Sears 0.9 8 FAR 3,168 Jim Elliot 1.4 8 FAR 4,927 Peterson 1.7 8 FAR 5,983 Salmon 0.4 8 FAR 1,407 Marks 8.7 8 FAR 30,624 Ochoco 6.2 12 FAR 32,736 Unnamed Tribs 6.7 6 FAR 17,688

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Mill Creek Meets Forest Plan Predo Std/Pacfis minate h and Rosgen Infish Std. Channe 20/mile or Width Min Max Ave l Type Local data to % % % WD/M of depth <2m <2m <2m Watershed Stream Year ile 116/mile Ratio m m m Lemon Yes/no

Mill Creek Creek 1991 48.7 13.7 East Yes/no Fork

Mill Creek 1991 97.2 14.7 3.7 15.6 9.7 Brogan Yes/yes

Creek 1991 362.1 Desolat Yes/yes ion Creek 1991 188.4 Mill Yes/no

Creek 1992 33.0 Mill Yes/no

Creek 2002 38.6 28.0 9.2 11.3 10.2 West Yes/no Fork

Mill Creek 1992 117.0 9.0 West Yes/no Fork B Mill Creek 2000 25.2 11.2 3.9 9.9 6.9 West Yes/no Fork C Mill Creek 2009 44.9 9.4 42.2 47.6 44.9 West Yes/no Fork D Mill Creek 2009 93.4 14.0 12.1 35.7 23.9 Lemon Yes/no

Creek 2009 48.0 11.4 12.5 60.7 45.9 Harvey Yes/no C Creek 2009 63.3 10.6 35.5 58.0 45.2

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Risk - Woody debris in this watershed ranges from 38 to 93 pieces per mile. Surveys from before 1996 for woody debris are over estimates of actual wood in the 61

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

streams because of protocol issues. Based on local surveys of intact systems woody debris should be in the range of about 116 pieces per mile.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning Appropriately - Width to depth ratios range from 9 to 28 on Rosgen B, C and D type streams. These are all within the range of what is functioning appropriately based on Rosgen, so while they do not meet InFish standards of <10 they are reasonable for the current stream types.

Sediment: Functioning at Risk – Overall the mainstem of East and West Mill Creek and main Mill Creek have good bank stability but because of the Hash Rock Fire the mainstems of the East and West Fork and main Mill Creek’s are increasing in fine sediment. Other streams appear to be at or just below bank stability requirements which would indicate that fine sediment may be an issue. East Fork Mill Creek Bank stability was measured at or above 99% for all three reaches, well above the RMO (>80%). On West Fork Mill Creek in 2000 average bank stability for the three reaches measured at or above 96.9%, the lowest reach was at 94.8, well above the 80% minimum RMO. For Hash Rock Creek average bank stability for the two reaches measured at 63.5%, both reaches were below the 80% minimum RMO. Harvey Creek in 1992 average bank stability measured 63%, below the RMO (>80%). In the 2009 survey, average bank stability measured 53.4, indicating that bank stability decreased and still exceeds the RMO standard (80%). Reach 2 of Harvey Creek decreased only slightly, <1.5%. Lower Mill Creek in 2002 had an average bank stability measure of 89%. Lemon Creek in 1991 had an average bank stability of 94.4 but that decreased to 76.8% in 2009 indicating bank stability decreased over time. Lower Dry Creek average bank stability measured 98.6%. Fintcher Creek average bank stability measured 100%.

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning at Risk – East Fork Mill Creek average total shade varied (range 65% - 80%). Desolation Canyon total shade was collected during the 1991 survey (81%). Brogan Creek average total shade was documented at 72.2%. West Fork Mill Creek shade varied, measuring 72.7% and 53.5% in reaches 1 and 2 respectively. Hash Rock Creek average total shade varied, measuring 69% and 64% in reaches 1 and 2 respectively. Harvey Creek average total shade measured 45% but in 2009 average total shade measured 65.7 (range 56.2% - 74.2%), while hardwood shade averaged 29% (range: 17.4 - 44.3). Lower Mill Creek Average total shade measured 57% (13% hardwood component). Lemon Creek in 1992 average total shade measured 80%, reach 2 measured 66%, and in 2009 average total shade measured 73.9 (range: 52.7% - 85.8%); meeting standard in reach 1 and 2. Hardwood shade measured (range: 11.0 - 30.0%). Lower Dry Creek average total shade measured 62.8% and Fintcher Creek averaged 76.2%.

Temperature: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk – Temperatures in most streams are over the 18oC state standard (see table below – Temps in Celcius). 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Stream Benefield 15.6 Desolation Canyon 13.9 16.6 Desolation Canyon 15.1

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Dry 26.1 18.8 20 Dry 19.7 23.7 28.9 Harvey 20.5 21.1 20.7 East Fork Mill 25.2 23.5 22.4 21.9 22.5 22 24.7 24.5 24.7 22.7 22 23.8 24 21.7 24.3 East Fork Mill 20.3 East Fork Mill 19.2 19.6 23.3 24.2 24.8 22.5 Mill 24.4 24.6 24.1 25.7 23.5 26.1 24.6 24.9 25.5 26.2 24.6 West Fork Mill 27.6 21.2 24.5 24.7 26.4 26.1 24 23.6 25.4 24.9 22.9 24.9 West Fork Mill 22.4 21.5 21.6 20.9 20.8 21.8 22.5 22.2 21.2 22.6 West Fork Mill 16.7 16.3 19.4 20.2 West Fork Mill 16.3 22.3 22 23.4 20.2 18.1 20.2 19.3

Stream survey and riparian area monitoring data.

Total Average stable Average Total Hardwood Stream Name Bankfull banks/100' Shade (%) Shade (%) Width:Depth (%)

Upper Lytle - - - -

East Fork Mill 17.0 99.9 (1991=65%) -

28.0 99.6 (1991=80%) -

9.3 99.0 (1991=79%) -

Desolation Canyon - - 81.0

Brogan - - 72.2 -

Doe - 98.4 71.2 -

Belknap - - - -

West Fork Mill 10.6 97.0 - -

17.8 98.8 - -

16.6 94.8 - -

West Fork Mill

13.7 91.3 72.7 56.0

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

14.4 98.1 53.5 33.6

Hash Rock - 61.0 69.0 -

- 66.0 64.0 -

Harvey - 63.0 45.0

9.4 61.6 56.2 17.4

10.4 59.6 74.2 44.3

10.9 47.9 66.6 25.4

Schoolhouse - - - -

Lemon 13.8 95.9 89.0 -

- 96.4 66.0 -

- 90.8 85.0 -

Lemon 11.9 72.4 52.7 11.0

9.8 78.5 85.8 32.0

12.2 79.6 83.1 30.0

Dry - 95.9 58.2

- 99.9 66.1

- 99.9 64.1

Mill - - 65.0

Mill 26.5 88.5 57.0 13.0

Benefield - 100.0 87.0 0.0

Fintcher 6.5 100.0 76.2 0.0

Evans - 61.8 -

- 99.1 51.3 -

- 86.0 72.8 -

- 89.6 68.0 -

- 95.6 83.4 -

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

- 97.1 68.3 -

- 95.6 62.6 -

Habitat Trend: East Fork Mill Creek is the only stream in this watershed with trend data from PIBO. From 2003 to 2008 there has been a slight loss of pool habitat, a decrease in width to depth ratios from 33 to 22, and a large increase in woody debris per km from 51 to 144. The increase in woody debris is likely a result of the effects of the Hash Rock fire in 2000. Habitats appear to be improving over time.

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Desolation 3.6 10 FAR 15,840 Canyon Brogan 0.6 10 FAR 2,640 WF Mill 4.6 15 FAR 30,360 EF Mill 7.4 15 FAR 48,840 Harvey 1.2 8 FAR 4,224 Lemon 1.5 8 FAR 5,280 Evans 2.0 8 FAR 7,039 Mill 1.2 20 FAR 10,560 Dry 2.8 8 FAR 9,855 Unnamed Tribs 2.1 6 FAR 5,544

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

McKay Creek Meets Forest Plan Predomi Std/Pacfis nate h and Rosgen Infish Std. Channel 20/mile or Min Max Ave Type Local data Width % % % of to depth <2m <2m <2m Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile 116/mile Ratio m m m McKay McKay Yes/no B Creek Creek 1997 42.6 17.9 McKay Yes/no

Creek 2005 49.7 12.6489 11.6 55.0 33.3 Little Yes/no McKay B Creek 1997 29.2 10.1 McKay Yes/yes Creek Trib 5 2005 122.5 10.0 23.7 52.7 35.9 McKay Yes/yes Creek Trib 8 2005 154.1 15.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 McKay Yes/no Creek Trib 7 2005 60.7 10.6 50.8 64 57.4 McKay Yes/no Creek Trib 4 2005 71.5 14.3 20.7 20.9 20.8 McKay Yes/no Creek Trib 3 2005 45.2 9 29.5 32.0 31.0 Yes/no McKay Trib 3 2006 88.8 10.2 A 23.8 23.8 23.8 Deer Yes/no

Creek 2006 22.6 9.9 23.5 39.4 31.5

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Risk. Approximately 50 miles of stream in the watershed have been surveyed. In the most recent surveys, various years from 2001-2009, woody debris varied from 83 to 161 pieces per mile depending on the reach. Based on a surveys done in the 1990’s on undisturbed reaches of stream in the drainage large wood (>35 feet in length and > 12 inches in diameter) in the McKay Creek drainage should exceed 116 pieces per mile. Lower numbers in some reaches are likely a result of logging, firewood cutting, and residual effects of channel “cleaning” after the 1964 flood.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning at Risk. Because the stream cannot access the floodplain on private land because of agricultural practices and off road vehicle travel within RHCAs, wetted width/max depth

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

ratio is likely to be >12. On Forest the Rosgen B type channels which dominate the watershed (Rosgen C channels are mainly located in the lower 1.0 mile of McKay Creek above the Forest boundary) are narrowing as riparian vegetation is restored and dispersed camp sites and OHV access has been limited. Width to depth ratios from stream survey information (2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009), all indicate that ratio’s are within acceptable limits.

Sediment: Functioning at Risk. The most recent measurements from Little McKay (2007 ODFW survey) had bank stability at 87-93% for three reaches that totaled 5.3 miles of stream. McKay Creek, from surveys from the Forest Service and ODFW in 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009 had stable banks in 6.0 miles surveyed between 92 and 99%. In the late 1990’s cutbank measurements from tributaries varied substantially (from 1% to 65%), with 8 of 17 tributaries exceeding 20 percent cutbank predominately as a result of OHV use in these areas. In 2006 the district began implementation of defining and reducing in size dispersed camping areas, and in 2007 the district closed the watershed to off highway vehicle cross country travel use and. This dispersed camp site reduction work was finished in 2008. The work has been highly successful and has resulted in an increase in riparian vegetation, a visual decrease in fine sediment in tributaries, and an increase in stable banks in these tributary systems. In addition, stream restoration projects to reconnect floodplains with streams and to reduce bank erosion have occurred in the watershed in since 2000.

Vehicle access in dispersed sites has been reduced with boulders that define where vehicles can be and have pulled back sites from stream edges. In addition, culverts have been replaced that have been sediment sources

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning at Risk. RHCAs and meadows are currently favored by dispersed campers and off road vehicle travel within 150 feet of the active streams on the Ochoco National Forest. Work from 2006-2008 and continuing with road obliteration this year has focused on restoration of riparian vegetation associated with those areas adjacent to dispersed sites and areas where OHV’s have traditionally used RHCA’s for mud bogging. The 2009 PFC on McKay Creek indicated that overall condition was At Risk, but had diverse age-class distribution of riparian, woody and wetland vegetation with an upward trend in five of the six reaches surveyed and on the upper most reach surveyed it was properly functioning. Range Specialist Holly Myers indicates that woody species along streams appear to be a variety of age classes and 90% are at late seral and 10% at mid seral. On private land, the stream is disconnected with the floodplain resulting in less streambank vegetation.

Temperature: Functioning at Risk. McKay Creek and Little McKay Creek are on the DEQ 303(d) listed streams for stream temperature impairment. In late summer, both streams are spatially intermittent within the allotment for most of their length. This changes back to perennial for their lengths as soon as either deciduous woody vegetation loses their leaves or the first wetting rains in the fall. The seven day average temperature at the lower end of McKay Creek on forest ranges from 68-75oF (2005, 2007 and 2008 data). Above this point the stream gets progressively cooler with the exclosure area at 68oF and the road crossings at the 112 spur at 60oF. Increased shade due to a narrowing of the stream moving upstream over a distance of about 5 miles. The exclosure is about 3.5 miles upstream of the Forest boundary. On Little McKay the average is 68-low 70’s oF in the lower ends of the subwatershed and again the stream is cooler upstream as monitoring has shown at temperatures at the 050 spur to be only as high as 68oF. On both subwatersheds there has been an increase in riparian vegetation mainly in the form

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

of woody vegetation from alder over the past 20 years. Shade has been rated between 87% and 100% depending on reach for both McKay and Little McKay from the stream survey data gathered in 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009. Willows are not extensive in this subwatershed, mainly as function of stream type (Rosgen B), however, they are present in some locations as is some cottonwood in the upper McKay Creek mainstem.

Habitat Trend: Unknown – no PIBO data.

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Little McKay 6.8 10 FAR 29,919 Deer 2.3 8 FAR 8,095 Poppy 0.1 8 FAR 351 Fall 0.4 8 FAR 1,407 Allen 0.6 8 FAR 2,112 McKay 6.3 14 FAR 38,808 Unnamed Tribs 0.9 6 FAR 2,376

Physical Barriers: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk off Forest – Functioning Appropriately on Forest. Over allocation of water is a barrier in McKay Creek as is Allen Creek (trib to McKay) up to the Forest boundary. The Deschutes River Conservancy has been working on water issues and water rights within the McKay Creek watershed along with passage issues at diversions. Currently there are projects in the design phases to take care of all passage barriers off Forest. On Forest all culverts have been replaced that are or could be passage problems. PGE and CTWS have established fish passage over Pelton-Round Butte Dam, however passage at Opal Springs dam has not been addressed and continued passage issues off Forest on McKay mainstem are being addressed by the Crooked River Watershed Council and the Deschutes River Conservancy.

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Juniper Butte – Crooked River

Meets Forest Plan Std/Pacfish Predominate and Infish Rosgen Std. 20/mile Channel or Width to Type Min Max Ave Local data depth % % % Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile of 116/mile Ratio <2mm <2mm <2mm Juniper No/no Butte-

Crooked Crooked River River 2003 16.5 10.9 Crooked No/no

River 2004 6.7 11.4

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk - Lacking woody debris throughout the river.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning at Risk - Channel in many places is somewhat incised

Sediment: Functioning at Risk - Fine sediment is unknown but thought to be high in most cases.

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning at Risk - Unknown

Temperature: Functioning at Risk - Unknown

Habitat Trend: Unknown

Summary/Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate Crooked River 2.2 75 FAUR 48,400

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Trout Creek

Meets Forest Plan Std/Pacfish Predominate and Infish Rosgen Std. Channel 20/mile or Width Type Local data to Min Max Ave of depth % % % Watershed Stream Year WD/Mile 116/mile Ratio <2mm <2mm <2mm Upper Yes/no Trout Bull Creek Creek 1990 71.6 Auger No/no

Creek 1990 15.5 Big Log Yes/no

Creek 1991 196.3 6.1 Trout Yes/no

Creek 1995 74.2 Potlid Yes/no B Creek 1997 41.5 14.3 Cartwright Yes/no B Creek 1997 33.0 16.8 Dutchman Yes/no C Creek 1999 45.1 10.0 12.7 20 16.3

Large Woody Debris: Functioning at Risk. Sixty miles of streams have been surveyed within the Ochoco National Forest portion of Trout Headwaters. Of the reaches surveyed 40% had less than one piece of Large Woody Material (LWM) per 100 feet of channel and 80% had less than two pieces per 100 feet of channel. This meets the INFISH RMOs on the Ochoco NF but is low when to compared to similar streams within the Bridge Creek Wilderness, in which more than half of the reaches had more than three pieces of LWM per 100 feet.

Width/ Depth Ratio: Functioning at Risk. Eight percent of the sampled streams transects indicate channel alteration to an F and or G channel type. All F and G channel types indicate channel alteration and an increase in the W/D ratios. These channels will continue to evolve until new base levels have been achieved and either Rosgen C or B type channels have been created at the new base level. The rest of the channels are Rosgen B and C types with W:D ratios of 10-12 on most with some ranging up to 14. While overall conditions appear to be improving, either through direct restoration or change in grazing to sheep, there are still some locations where channel type alteration is still evolving and stabilizing.

Sediment: Functioning at Risk. Fine sediment maybe an issue in a number of streams in this watershed as evidenced by fine sediment measurement of 15-25% in stream survey pebble counts from the 1990’s. In some areas bank in-stability is contributing to this with Rosgen F and G channels in some reach sections as a result of historic headcuts from poor management both on and off forest. In the late 1990’s

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

stream survey information indicated that bank stability ranged from 75% to 99% in streams dependent on historic headcuts and gullying. Most surveys noted that there was little to no evidence of grazing along streams with the change to sheep grazing in 1990. Historic effects of roads, harvest and over grazing from the early 1900’s were still contributing fine sediment to the systems. Spawning and incubating habitats had been deteriorated by elevated sediment inputs that had filled interstitial spaces in the stream substrate. It is unknown what current conditions are besides anecdotal information that habitats are getting better, however at best this would be functioning at risk.

Riparian Vegetation: Functioning at Risk. Condition of RHCA’s, including the hardwood component is important for shade, bank stability, and terrestrial food base for salmonids. Professional judgment and observation indicates that the RHCAs are slowly improving with the changing of livestock grazing to sheep in 1990 and the implementation of PACFISH RHCAs in 1995.

Little McKay Creek: A large portion of the greenline is dominated by a mix of sedges and grasses. It has a conifer and hardwood overstory. There is a great deal of alder and willow along the stream banks. Ponderosa pine and true fir dominate the overstory where alder and willow is not present.

Dick Creek: A large portion of the greenline is dominated by sedges with a conifer and hardwood overstory. There is some alder along the stream banks. Ponderosa pine and true fir dominate the overstory where alder is not present.

Potlid Creek: A large portion of the greenline is dominated by sedges with a conifer and hardwood overstory. There is a great deal of alder along the stream banks. Ponderosa pine and larch dominate the overstory where alder is not present.

Temperature: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk. Trout Creek and seven tributaries are 303(d) listed streams for temperature on Forest. Off Forest in the lower portions of the Trout Creek 4th field HUC the Bureau of Land Management data (2 sites: at the mouth and at Ashwood) had an average of the 7-day daily maximum of 79°F/83°F and (no data/86°F), respectively above the standard (64°F) in 1993/94. USDA Forest Service data at the Ochoco National Forest boundary had a 7-day average daily maximum of 66°F/65.84°F/65.6°Fin 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively with the threshold of 64.4 oF. An unpublished study by Jim Seymour, Zone Hydrologist for the Ochoco NF, shows that the average daily temperature flux over the years from 1992 to 1998 has decreased with the changing of livestock management from cattle to sheep (in 1990) and the implementation of PACFISH standards in 1995. Trout Creek above the 2725 road crossing is below the threshold for temperature. Upper Auger Creek and upper Dutchman Creek are also below the threshold.

Habitat Trend: Unknown – no PIBO data.

Population Estimates

Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate WF Trout 0.7 8 FAR 2,463 Dick 0.2 8 FAR 703 Bull 0.7 8 FAR 2,463 Auger 3.2 8 FAR 11,263

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Potlid 3.7 8 FAR 13,023 Cartwright 2.0 10 FAR 8,799 Big Log 3.4 10 FAR 14,959 Dutchman 2.5 8 FAR 8,799 Trout 4.6 15 FAR 30,360 Unnamed Tribs 0.3 6 FAR 792

Physical Barriers: Functioning Appropriately on Forest – Functioning at Unacceptable Risk for 5th Field. The ability of fish to freely distribute throughout the watershed is being inhibited by fish passage barriers, low base flows, degraded riparian habitats, and degraded stream channels off Forest. Dewatering of Trout Creek downstream of the Ochoco National Forest boundary for irrigation and push up dams causes barriers for upstream migration. Fish populations within the Ochoco National Forest portions of the watershed are currently functioning appropriately due to culvert replacements throughout the watershed on Forest.

On the National Forest, since 1997, culverts are being designed and replaced to provide fish passage and have included twelve culverts that have been replaced or redesigned to provide steelhead passage. Currently all pipes located with critical habitat areas have been replaced to provide unobstructed passage for steelhead.

Pipe Location Year Replaced

Potlid Creek Arch 1997

Trout Creek Pipe Arch 1997

Upper Big Log Pipe 1999 Arch

Lower Big Log 1999 Bottomless Arch

Dutchman Bottomless 1999 Arch

Cartright Bottomless 1999 Arch

Bull Creek Culvert 1999

Trout Creek 2000 Bottomless Arch

Dick Creek Round 2005 with a reset for 2011 Pipe

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Dick Creek Bottomless 2010 Arch

Trout Creek Reset 2009

Auger Creek 2010 Bottomless Arch

Unsurveyed Watersheds: Population estimates for watersheds and streams with no habitat data, but with known populations of redband trout are presented in the table below. For the purposes of this analysis habitat is estimated to be Functioning At Risk. Trend is unknown on any of these streams or watersheds.

Watershed Stream Miles Average Width Overall Habitat Population Condition Estimate

Middle SF Sunflower 4.1 6 FAR 10,824 John Day

Wildcat 2.6 5 FAR 5,719

Porcupine 1.5 5 FAR 3,300

Cougar 2.2 5 FAR 4,839

Columbus 2.3 5 FAR 5,059

Watson Creek- Maury 2.6 5 FAR 5,719 Crooked River

Prineville Res– Sanford 0.7 5 FAR 1,539 Crooked River

Willow Creek Willow 9.9 10 FAR 43,560

VII. Limiting Factors/Threats/Risks

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Limiting factors and treats for redband trout are similar throughout their range on the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland. The predominate threats are increases in stream temperature due to channel degradation due to riparian area management issues and population fragmentation from upstream passage issues mostly related to culverts at stream crossings.

Causal factors include legacy impacts from over grazing, logging and road building in the 20th century. In most cases channels are currently recovering from these impacts, especially grazing and logging, however, road building issues that constricted floodplains continue to cause impacts to fish habitat. Road crossings on the Ochoco are being replaced on a yearly basis with over 60 culverts either removed or replaced in the last 16 years. This has increased the ability of redband trout to move freely within and between watersheds.

VIII. Viability Determination

The 1982 National Forest System Land Resource Management Planning Regulations (implementing the National Forest Management Act of 1976) directed that fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence and is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area. For the purpose of meeting the requirements of the National Forest Management Act for species viability, the planning area for this assessment and viability determination is the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland.

For this analysis, habitat has been used as a proxy for population monitoring. It has been determined by court decision that where population monitoring data are not available, due to lack of funding or feasibility of monitoring populations, the amount and quality of habitat can be used as a proxy for determining viability effects of projects on MIS (Lands Council v. McNair, 2010). In order to use habitat as a proxy the project analysis must at a minimum include: 1) a clear relationship between the species and its habitat based on habitat relationship models that utilize the best available science; 2) the amount of habitat available at the Forest scale; 3) species presence in the project area; 4) the amount of habitat being impacted at the project level in terms of both quality and quantity; and 5) a determination of the project impact on viability at the Forest scale.

The redband trout is widely distributed across the western portion of the North American continent. It occurs in both lake and stream habitats mainly to the east of the Cascade Mountains crest. It prefers clean, clear cold water, and clean gravel (minimum of fines) to spawn. Rearing in a variety of habitats for juvenile fish occurs along riffle margins and in pools where cover is abundant. The redband trout conservation status globally is secure, but is considered vulnerable in the state of Oregon (NatureServe). The redband trout has been petitioned for listing several times in the early and middle 1990s and at one time listed as a Candidate species but currently does not have any special federal listing status as

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Candidate, Threatened or Endangered, but is on the Forest Service Region 6, Regional Forester’s Sensitive species. It is listed on the State of Oregon Sensitive Species List as Vulnerable.

Population trend data from the Interior Columbia Basin Management Plan analysis indicate that there has been a significant decrease in habitat (10-30%) in the Columbia basin from historic levels. Stuart et al. (2007) indicated that while redband trout occupy 75% of their historic range their abundance is at a fraction of historic levels.

The decline in abundance has been attributed to increased water temperatures and habitat simplification (Stuart et al. 2007). On the Ochoco National Forest these factors have been further compounded by upstream migratory blockages at numerous road crossings which have isolated populations within and between watersheds. This has begun to be reversed on the Forest with over 60 pipes at road crossings in the last 16 years replaced or removed to facilitate upstream passage and reconnection of populations of redband trout.

Stuart et al. (2007) conducted a fine-scale analysis of source habitat and populations on National Forest lands in the Ochoco National Forest. This analysis indicated that populations of redband trout were tied directly to the quality of habitat with good habitat having >1 fish/m2 and poor habitat having <0.5 fish/m2. Currently, there are approximately 730 miles of occupied redband trout habitat on the Ochoco National Forest (includes current Forest boundaries and the Snow Mountain RD that is currently administered by the Malheur National Forest. Of this habitat the majority of the habitat is considered to be of moderate quality providing approximately 0.75 fish/m2.

There are no models developed to determine viability of the redband trout based on habitat. However, based on the local science from Stuart et al. (2007) and the estimated habitats from the Inter Columbia Basin Management Plan there appears to be appropriate habitat that is well distributed and available for redband trout across the Ochoco National Forest.

In conclusion, the viability assessment indicates that habitat of the redband trout is still available in adequate amounts, distribution, and quality to maintain redband trout viability on the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland.

IX. Literature Cited

Behnke, Robert J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America

Dambacher, J.M., and K.K. Jones. 2007. Benchmarks and patterns of abundance of redband trout in Oregon streams: a complilation of studies. Pages 47–55 in R.K. Schroeder and J.D. Hall, editors. Redband trout: resilience and challenge in a changing landscape. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.

Kunkel, C.M. 1976. Biology and production of the red-band trout (Salmo sp.) in four southeastern Oregon streams. Master’s thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Leary, R.F., F.W. Allendorf, and G.K. Sage. 1992. Genetic analysis of trout populations in the Yaak River drainage, Montana. Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Laboratory Report 91/3. University of Montana, Missoula.

Moffitt, C.M., and T.C. Bjornn. 1984. Fish abundance upstream from Dworshak Dam following exclusion of steelhead trout. Completion Report. Idaho Water and Energy Resources Research Institute. Project WRIP/371404. Moscow, Idaho.

Moyle, P.B., J.E. Williams, and E.D. Wikramanayake. 1989. Fish species of special concern of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Final Report, Sacramento. Muhlfeld, Clint C. , Bennett, David H. and Marotz, Brian(2001) 'Summer Habitat Use by Columbia River Redband Trout in the Kootenai River Drainage, Montana', North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21:1, 223 — 235, Muhlfeld, Clint C.(2002) 'Spawning Characteristics of Redband Trout in a Headwater Stream in Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 22: 4, 1314 — 1320, Mullan, J.W., K.R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T.W. Hillman, and J.D. McIntyre. 1992. Production and habitat of salmonids in mid- Columbia River tributary streams. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Monograph 1. NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: May 2, 2011). Nehlsen, W., J. Williams, J. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads: Stocks at Risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. AFS, Fisheries, Vol 16, No 2.

Ochoco National Forest. 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan -- part 1—Ochoco National Forest, Prineville, Oregon. Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Stuart, A.M., S.L. Thiesfeld, T.K. Nelson, and T.M. Shrader. 1996. Crooked River Basin Plan, Ochoco Fish District. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Stuart, A. M, Grover, D., Nelson, T.K., and S.L. Thesfeld. 2007. Redband Trout Investigations in the Crooked River Basin - In Schroeder, R.K., and J.D. Hall, editors. 2007. Redband Trout: resilience and challenge in a changing landscape. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.

Thurow, R.F., D.C. Lee, and B.E. Rieman 1997. Distribution and status of seven native salmonids in the interior Columbia River basin and portions of the Klamath River and Great basins. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:1094–1110.

Thurow, R.F., and B.E. Rieman, D.C. Lee, P.J. Howell, R.D. Perkinson. 2007. Distribution and Status of Redband Trout in the Interior Columbia River Basin and Portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins. In; Redband Trout: Resilience and Challenge in a Changing Landscape. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, 2007

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Appendix A

Stream data by 5th field watershed

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Forest Plan AVG_ Rosgen Std/Pacfish UseAs_ BF_W Min_ Max_ Channel LWD/Mil and Infish MostRec _D_R PctLT PctLT Ave_PctLT2 Type Watershed Stream Year e Std. 20/mile ent ATIO 2mm 2mm mm Lower South Yes Fork John Day North Fork 11.05 River Wind Creek 1992 177.0 24 North Fork Yes 24.89

Wind Creek 2006 138.4 Yes 79 North Fork yes 13.99

Wind Creek 2006 103.4 Yes 74 Yes 11.21

Wind Creek 1994 75.9 16 Yes 18.81

Wind Creek 1994 62.8 31 SF Wind Yes 14.11

Creek 1994 50.3 54 SF Wind Yes 16.66

Creek 1994 36.1 79 Black No Canyon 14.89 B 16.34 73.24 Creek 2003 18.8 Yes 27 615 841 44.79728 Black Yes Canyon 14.24 A 11.96 11.96 Creek 2003 43.4 Yes 46 911 911 11.96911 Black Yes Canyon 10.49 17.14 22.33 Creek 2003 28.0 Yes 5 286 01 19.73648 Black Yes Canyon 8.196 59.43 59.43 Creek 2003 60.1 Yes 4 396 396 59.43396 Frazier Yes 15.89

Creek 2004 33.5 58 Mountain Keeton yes 11.62 B Creek Creek 1997 78.9 75 Badger 2002 15.0 no Yes 9.587 21.35 21.42 21.3939 78

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Creek 5 922 857 Badger yes 13.56 19.62

Creek 2002 96.4 Yes 47 1.6 617 10.61308 Badger yes 7.619 67.59 80.95

Creek 2002 21.1 Yes 7 259 238 74.27249 yes 29.20 56.07

Bug Creek 2002 61.0 Yes 8.004 354 477 42.63915 yes 12.71

Rock Creek Baldy Creek 1991 293.7 47 yes

Baldy Creek 1991 272.7 Windy yes

Creek 1991 375.5 Little Windy yes

Creek 1991 355.4 yes 22.40 0.884 0.925

Rock Creek 2004 131.4 Yes 53 956 926 0.905441 yes 16.76

Rock Creek 2004 124.9 Yes 66 yes 10.78

Rock Creek 2006 260.2 Yes 11 yes 10.07

Rock Creek 2006 147.5 Yes 53 Dodds yes 4.028

Bridge Creek Creek 1989 59.4 6 Cougar yes 14.62

Creek 1989 159.7 62 yes MR_But 17.77

Bear Creek 1992 112.9 Pre96 82 yes 21.27 C Bear Creek 1997 41.1 Yes 57 yes 17.87 B Bear Creek 1997 22.7 Yes 23 Bridge no MR_But 2.523

Creek 1993 14.4 Pre96 4

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Bridge yes MR_But 7.263

Creek 1993 174.0 Pre96 8 Bridge yes MR_But 7.135

Creek 1993 139.3 Pre96 8 Bridge yes MR_But 7.500

Creek 1993 221.3 Pre96 4 Bridge yes 11.77 A Creek 2000 42.6 Yes 53 Bridge no 9.503 A Creek 2000 18.1 Yes 4 Lower no 16.70 52.13 56.60

Metolius River 4.4 5 27 377 54.36824 Upper Beaver no 9.452 27.45 29.80

Creek Rager Creek 2000 4.8 2 098 769 28.62934 no 23.76 37.27 B Rager Creek 2000 17.1 238 273 30.51755 no 24.27 24.29 C Sugar Creek 2000 10.6 7.391 184 907 24.28546 23.30 36.53

Sugar Creek 2000 0.0 097 846 29.91972 Powell 4.587 4.901

Creek 2001 0.0 156 961 4.744558 Powell 25.98 0.970 B Creek 2001 0.0 02 0 874 0.485437 Powell 6.930 7.766

Creek 2001 0.0 693 99 7.348842 Powell

Creek 2001 0.0 00 0 Tamarack no 20.93 B Creek 2001 2.6 49 Tamarack no 18.07 0.980 0.980 B Creek 2001 2.2 24 392 392 0.980392 Tamarack no 21.55 1.869 3.738 B Creek 2001 0.0 98 159 318 2.803738 Tamarack yes

Creek 2007 51.0 24.67 80

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Tamarack yes 16.02 14.81 14.81

Creek 2007 50.1 91 481 481 14.81481 Beaverdam yes 13.07

Creek 2005 44.0 8 Beaverdam yes 22.79 19.37 32.03

Creek 2005 50.1 Yes 13 984 883 25.70934 Beaverdam yes 23.41 67.59 67.59

Creek 2005 27.9 Yes 8 259 259 67.59259 yes 11.20

Paulina Creek Roba Creek 1991 56.6 23 yes 6.665

Roba Creek 1991 39.1 9 Dipping Vat yes 15.36

Creek 1991 73.1 4 Lower Beaver North Wolf yes 22.33

Creek Creek 1991 26.3 47 no 22.97 16.66 22.76

Wolf Creek 2005 11.6 Yes 12 667 423 19.71545 yes 17.45 9.708 14.28

Wolf Creek 2005 43.8 Yes 12 738 571 11.99723 yes 21.93 16.21 16.21

Wolf Creek 2005 40.3 Yes 81 622 622 16.21622 yes 24.73

Wolf Creek 2006 29.7 Yes 07 yes 20.83

Wolf Creek 2006 52.5 Yes 34 yes 15.28

Wolf Creek 2006 82.6 Yes 58 East Wolf yes 11.76

Creek 2006 126.5 23 East Wolf yes 25.25

Creek 2006 73.5 22 yes 7.834

2006 71.4 9 Wolf Creek yes 20.19 13.88 36.42 B Trib 16 2009 50.7 01 889 857 25.15873 81

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Wolf Creek yes 13.95 50.46 53.53 B Trib 16 2009 53.6 7 729 535 52.00132 Widow yes 18.75 19.64 30.64 B Creek 2009 50.0 87 286 516 25.14401 Widow yes 19.05 19.04 55.73 B Creek 2009 62.3 73 762 77 37.39266 Widow yes 11.16 35.43 66.66 B Creek 2009 56.6 57 307 667 51.04987 Parrish no 12.14

Camp Creek Creek 2005 8.2 08 Watson Creek- Maury yes 14.56

Crooked River Creek 2003 25.5 38 Upper North North Fork no Fork Crooked Crooked 38.45 River River 1991 0.5 13 East Fork yes Howard Creek 1991 824.5 East Fork yes Howard Creek 1991 90.5 East Fork yes Howard 17.85 Creek 1991 778.4 8 East Fork yes Howard 5.832 Creek 1991 101.2 7 Howard yes 15.88

Creek 1991 49.6 01 Howard yes 15.71

Creek 1991 106.3 6 Howard yes 12.80

Creek 1991 117.0 78 West Fork yes Howard 6.817 Creek 1991 119.2 8 82

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

East Porter yes 8.995

Creek 1992 26.4 9 EF Allen yes 12.60 B Creek 2001 207.7 18 EF Allen yes 12.42 B Creek 2001 159.0 27 EF Allen yes 23.23 B Creek 2001 128.6 13 Lookout yes 9.790 29.09 29.82

Creek 2002 33.1 9 091 456 29.45774 Lookout yes 17.45 17.75 20.38

Creek 2002 65.7 19 701 835 19.07268 Lookout yes 13.81 26.66

Creek 2002 64.5 52 25 667 25.83333 yes 14.62 16.92 16.92

Allen Creek 2002 124.6 04 308 308 16.92308 yes 8.547 17.24

Allen Creek 2002 41.2 Yes 14.57 009 138 12.89419 yes 17.88

Allen Creek 2002 133.4 41 yes 12.79 11.60 11.60

Allen Creek 2002 86.0 77 714 714 11.60714 yes 14.26 12.84 13.72

Brush Creek 2002 50.3 42 404 549 13.28476 yes 13.97

Brush Creek 2002 67.7 37 yes 16.06 14.65 14.65

Brush Creek 2002 88.3 01 517 517 14.65517 yes 12.71 20.83

Fox Creek 2002 104.4 Yes 15 333 40 30.41667 yes 11.10 20.75 32.67

Fox Creek 2002 86.6 Yes 1 472 327 26.71399 yes 7.783 14.15

Fox Creek 2002 57.7 Yes 7 929 18 16.07965 no 11.29 26.66 38.34

Polie Creek 2006 11.9 53 667 586 32.50627 83

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

yes 12.27 12.80 18.64

Polie Creek 2006 74.9 45 488 407 15.72447 yes 26.08 5.555 7.843 B Porter Creek 2006 38.3 Yes 1 556 137 6.699346 yes 18.35 6.363 29.56 B Porter Creek 2007 51.6 Yes 16 636 522 17.96443 yes 25.78 7.843 19.09 B Porter Creek 2007 26.5 Yes 42 137 091 13.46702 Peterson yes 14.81 13.04 23.30 B Creek 2006 33.0 Yes 87 348 097 18.17222 Peterson yes 13.41 28.57 50.48 C Creek 2007 71.8 Yes 96 143 544 39.52843 Peterson yes 8.250 40.19 C Creek 2007 85.4 Yes 6 608 42 41.09804 Peterson yes 14.95 11.53 C Creek 2007 54.2 Yes 09 846 12.5 12.01923 Peterson yes 12.75 27.19 52.17 C Creek 2007 40.6 Yes 93 298 391 39.68345 Peterson no 10.18 G Creek 2007 16.0 51 00 0 Jungle no 60.17 60.33 B Creek 2007 3.9 Yes 13.4 699 058 60.25378 Jungle yes 12.32 10.43 17.07 B Creek 2007 30.2 Yes 29 478 317 13.75398 Jungle yes

Creek 2008 44.3 Yes Dudley no 7.896 E Creek 2007 8.3 4 100 100 100 yes 4.545

2007 24.6 2 Hickey no 12.16 23.84 85.96 C Creek 2008 15.0 97 615 491 54.90553 Hickey no 10.90 14.08 30.50 C Creek 2008 9.6 52 451 847 22.29649 Hickey no 33.33 92.30

Creek 2008 10.0 333 769 62.82051 84

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Hickey yes 24.71 31.29

Creek 2008 21.4 91 771 28.00841 yes

2008 75.2 yes 48.17 48.17

2008 58.7 Yes 518 518 48.17518 no 31.29 31.29

2008 19.5 771 771 31.29771 Happy yes 11.46

Deep Creek Camp Creek 1992 94.4 91 Happy yes 14.47

Camp Creek 1992 72.3 84 Happy yes 9.464

Camp Creek 1992 106.8 7 Little no Summit 43.75 Creek 1992 3.0 56 Little yes Summit 13.46 Creek 1992 158.5 27 Little yes Summit 9.809 Creek 1992 166.6 6 Little yes Summit 23.63 B 5.691 23.38 Creek 2010 28.9 Yes 94 057 71 14.53908 Little yes Summit 11.13 C 5.454 73.98 Creek 2010 41.9 Yes 09 545 374 39.71914 yes 44.41 C Deep Creek 1999 21.4 68 no 32.45 C Deep Creek 1999 8.0 8 yes 38.60 C Deep Creek 1999 23.2 11

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

yes 23.42 A Deep Creek 1999 33.1 48 Jackson yes 33.36 6.474 30.17 C Creek 2010 74.5 Yes 33 82 241 18.32362 Jackson yes 28.84 13.67 21.35 C Creek 2010 84.2 Yes 81 521 922 17.51722 Jackson yes 18.50 C Creek 2010 88.5 Yes 38 Jackson yes 11.47

Creek 2010 27.5 Yes 92 yes 40.62 2.678 11.51 A Crazy Creek 2010 33.5 33 571 515 7.096861 yes 22.86 21.48 24.19 A Crazy Creek 2010 21.4 05 148 355 22.83751 Lower North yes Fork Crooked Fox Canyon 3.645 River Creek 1991 30.9 7 Fox Canyon yes 7.520

Creek 1991 32.9 1 North Fox yes Canyon 6.339 Creek 1991 43.5 2 North Fox yes Canyon 6.865 Creek 1991 46.7 9 North Fork yes Crooked 48.58 1.785 8.108 River 2002 2.6 47 714 108 4.946911 North Fork yes Crooked 46.10 0.961 0.961 River 2002 4.8 83 538 538 0.961538 North Fork yes Crooked 49.33 2.803 15.09 River 2002 10.3 5 738 434 7.943427 Donnelly yes 14.75 14.40 C Creek 2008 73.6 65 9 678 11.70339 86

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Donnelly yes 11.66 61.24 C Creek 2008 34.6 21 031 100 80.62016 Indian Trail yes 2.777 6.976

Creek 2008 66.6 778 744 4.877261 Indian Trail yes 11.11 19.08

Creek 2008 178.6 111 397 15.09754 Indian Trail yes

Creek 2008 128.9 00 0 Rough yes Canyon Creek 2008 70.3 00 0 Rough yes Canyon 10.23 Creek 2008 55.9 0 622 5.11811 Rough yes Canyon 0.751 Creek 2008 58.1 0 88 0.37594 Sherwood yes 9.165

Creek 1991 21.1 7 Horse Heaven yes Creek-Crooked 9.933 B 10.83 River Pine Creek 2000 32.4 2 333 26 18.41667 no 4.532 39.25 A Pine Creek 2000 8.5 1 234 50 44.62617 no 2.970 24.50 52.29 A Pine Creek 2000 4.2 8 98 358 38.40169 Gibson yes 9.894

Creek 2002 27.0 6 Gibson yes 10.04 90.56 97.47

Creek 2002 25.4 98 604 899 94.02251 yes 10.82

Drake Creek 2003 33.5 Yes 49 yes 12.40 8.490 8.490

Drake Creek 2003 76.2 Yes 67 566 566 8.490566 yes 13.98

Drake Creek 2003 58.1 Yes 08 87

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

yes 9.372

Drake Creek 2005 39.2 Yes 7 100 100 100 yes 9.416 1.923 5.555

Drake Creek 2005 59.5 Yes 1 077 556 3.739316 yes 16.34

Drake Creek 2005 28.2 Yes 14 yes 9.372

2005 39.2 Yes 7 100 100 100 yes 18.91 54.19 81.18

2005 20.4 Yes 65 847 812 67.6933 Horse yes Heaven 17.23 G 38.36 Creek 2008 39.1 Yes 39 19.2 478 28.78239 Horse no Heaven 10.18 G 9.090 15.74 Creek 2008 15.7 Yes 29 909 803 12.41947 Horse yes Heaven 10.32 G Creek 2008 43.6 Yes 92 31.25 31.25 31.25 NW Fork yes Horse G Heaven 9.182 51.61 79.83 Creek 2008 62.1 Yes 6 29 871 65.72581 Little Horse no Heaven 7.952 E 13.20 16.93 Creek 2008 5.8 Yes 5 755 548 15.07152 Little Horse yes Heaven 10.36 A 53.84 Creek 2008 36.0 97 0 615 26.92308 Klootchman yes 19.16 34.28 34.28

Bear Creek Creek 2003 58.6 Yes 68 571 571 34.28571 Klootchman no 14.68 45.04

Creek 2005 18.9 Yes 64 505 100 72.52252 Klootchman yes 13.01 57.00

Creek 2005 36.5 Yes 05 56.25 935 56.62967

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Klootchman yes 13.01 57.00 57.00

Creek 2005 81.1 Yes 05 935 935 57.00935 Klootchman no 14.68 45.04

Creek Trib 1 2005 18.9 Yes 64 505 100 72.52252 yes 15.88 91.08 91.50

2005 34.7 Yes 44 911 943 91.29927 Hamer yes 2.790 41.17

Creek 2005 39.1 6 647 75 58.08824 Upper Ochoco Marks no 10.51

Creek Creek 1992 8.3 19 Marks no 9.122

Creek 1992 3.1 5 Marks no 8.250

Creek 1992 3.7 1 Marks no 17.81 13.08 19.81

Creek 1997 0.0 Yes 09 411 982 16.45197 Marks no 18.25 9.821

Creek 1997 2.3 Yes 49 429 13 11.41071 Marks no 17.37 13.59

Creek 1997 3.2 Yes 17 2 223 7.796117 Marks no 7.603 2.631 8.653

Creek 1997 15.1 Yes 3 579 846 5.642713 Marks no 12.39 26.73 43.68 C Creek 1999 10.2 Yes 41 267 932 35.211 Marks no 8.645 60.33 E Creek 2009 6.0 Yes 1 40 058 50.16529 Canyon no 14.05 15.53 21.69 C Creek 1999 4.1 Yes 18 398 811 18.61605 Canyon no 9.966 16.19 16.81 C Creek 1999 1.2 Yes 9 048 416 16.50232 Canyon no 9.328 11.00 20.56 C Creek 1999 1.6 Yes 2 917 075 15.78496 Ochoco no 13.12 6.140 12.74 C Creek 1999 7.5 Yes 35 351 51 9.442724 Ochoco no 10.73 15.38 C Creek 1999 10.6 Yes 05 4 462 9.692308 89

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Scissors no 15.53 E Creek 2001 1.4 6.922 398 38 26.76699 Scissors no 11.38 23.14 23.14 E Creek 2001 14.3 62 815 815 23.14815 Scissors no

Creek 2001 9.8 no 7.754 6.730 16.03 A Judy Creek 2001 8.4 9 769 774 11.38425 no 7.061 22.64 A Judy Creek 2001 4.9 9 0 151 11.32075 Duncan yes 18.51 5.217 15.51 E Creek 2001 63.3 44 391 724 10.36732 Duncan no 7.549 40.77 50.46 E Creek 2001 14.0 1 67 729 45.62199 Duncan yes 38.18 46.84 E Creek 2001 38.9 4.2 182 685 42.51433 Little Hay no 4.636 3.773 3.773 E Creek 2001 0.8 3 585 585 3.773585 no 8.257 2.803 3.883 B Coyle Creek 2001 12.9 Yes 9 738 495 3.343617 no 5.084 8.823

Coyle Creek 2001 0.0 Yes 746 529 6.954138 Crystal no 9.339 17.32 44.76

Creek 2003 18.2 4 283 19 29.68011 Crystal no

Creek 2003 16.5 Wildcat yes 13.62 1.769 15.68

Creek 2003 64.8 5 912 627 8.728093 Peterson no 9.546 14.95 18.62

Creek 2003 0.0 3 327 745 16.79036 Peterson yes 12.02 29.80 39.60

Creek 2003 39.5 64 769 396 34.70583 Wildcat yes 8.681 20.37

Creek 2003 45.0 1 15 037 17.68519 Jim Elliott no 4.392 27.52 37.28

Creek 2003 17.1 8 294 814 32.40554 90

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Jim Elliott yes 5.794 35.51 46.07

Creek 2003 88.4 7 402 843 40.79623 yes 8.420 11.11 14.42

Cady Creek 2005 44.4 5 111 308 12.76709 yes 11.86 30.70

Cady Creek 2005 28.4 84 175 50 40.35088 Salmon yes 12.63 32.25 B Creek 2010 57.7 88 32 806 32.12903 Little Hay yes 5.094 52.38 76.36

Creek 2010 28.7 Yes 1 095 364 64.37229 Salmon yes 16.80 33.96 53.70 C Creek 2010 35.9 78 226 37 43.83298 Little Hay yes 5.659 66.98 80.86

Creek 2010 20.3 Yes 4 113 957 73.92535 Marks no 15.48 2.597 15.31 C Creek 2010 10.5 Yes 47 403 532 8.956359 yes 10.87 35.71 39.45 A Sears Creek 2010 91.8 04 429 578 37.58503 Lemon yes 13.75

Mill Creek Creek 1991 48.7 23 East Fork yes 14.75 3.773 15.68

Mill Creek 1991 47.2 12 585 627 9.72993 East Fork yes 21.21

Mill Creek 1991 115.6 49 East Fork yes

Mill Creek 1991 195.5 East Fork yes

Mill Creek 1991 30.4 Brogan yes

Creek 1991 362.1 Desolation yes

Creek 1991 188.4 yes

Mill Creek 1992 33.0 yes 28.09 9.259 11.32

Mill Creek 2002 38.6 Yes 12 259 075 10.29001 91

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

West Fork yes MR_But 9.047

Mill Creek 1992 117.0 Pre96 3 West Fork yes 11.25 3.960 9.900 B Mill Creek 2000 25.2 Yes 16 396 99 6.930693 West Fork yes 9.406 42.20 47.61 C Mill Creek 2009 44.9 Yes 1 183 905 West Fork yes 13.70 21.10 21.21 D Mill Creek 2009 82.6 Yes 8 092 212 21.15652 West Fork yes 14.46 12.14 35.77 D Mill Creek 2009 104.2 Yes 24 953 982 23.96467 Lemon no 12.20 60.74

Creek 2009 16.1 59 31.2 766 45.97383 Lemon yes 12.29 22.41 30.09 A Creek 2009 29.7 44 379 709 26.25544 Lemon yes 9.841 28.44 A Creek 2009 98.4 3 12.5 828 20.47414 Harvey yes 10.42 35.59 50.98 C Creek 2009 98.1 04 322 039 43.28681 Harvey yes 10.87 57.03 58.08 C Creek 2009 28.5 8 125 824 57.55974 McKay no 16.66 B McKay Creek Creek 1997 11.4 94 McKay yes B Creek 1997 72.1 22.5 McKay yes 16.48 B Creek 1997 26.8 5 McKay yes 26.25 B Creek 1997 62.4 43 McKay yes 8.187 B Creek 1997 40.6 2 McKay yes 12.64 11.66 55.04

Creek 2005 49.7 89 667 587 33.35627 Little no McKay 13.46 B Creek 1997 10.2 96

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Little yes McKay 10.24 B Creek 1997 50.6 29 Little yes McKay 14.68 B Creek 1997 24.7 95 Little yes McKay 9.589 B Creek 1997 43.8 3 Little yes McKay 6.315 B Creek 1997 28.8 5 Little no McKay 6.428 B Creek 1997 17.2 1 McKay yes 11.45 24.54 52.77

Creek Trib 5 2005 110.1 92 545 778 38.66162 McKay yes 15.67 5.882 5.882

Creek Trib 8 2005 154.1 91 353 353 5.882353 McKay yes 8.788 23.72 42.85

Creek Trib 5 2005 134.9 1 881 714 33.29298 McKay yes 10.57 50.89

Creek Trib 7 2005 109.1 61 286 64 57.44643 no 10.72

2005 12.3 69 McKay yes 11.13 20.79 20.79

Creek Trib 4 2005 61.3 88 208 208 20.79208 McKay no 29.52 29.52

Creek Trib 3 2005 6.4 9 381 381 29.52381 McKay yes 17.49 20.96 20.96

Creek Trib 4 2005 81.7 74 774 774 20.96774 McKay yes 8.667 32.03 32.03

Creek Trib 3 2005 84.0 8 883 883 32.03883 yes 13.02

2006 91.0 Yes 94

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

yes 11.41

2006 46.7 Yes 69 yes 6.259 23.80 23.80 A 2006 128.7 2 952 952 23.80952 yes 10.41

Deer Creek 2006 24.2 Yes 08 yes 9.496 23.58 39.44

Deer Creek 2006 21.0 Yes 1 491 954 31.51722 Juniper Butte- Crooked no

Crooked River River 2003 0.0 Yes Crooked no

River 2003 14.6 Crooked yes 10.95

River 2003 35.1 Yes 96 Crooked no 11.42

River 2004 6.7 Yes 86 Upper Trout yes

Creek Bull Creek 1990 71.6 Auger Creek 1990 15.5 no Big Log yes 6.154

Creek 1991 196.3 5 yes

Trout Creek 1995 27.7 yes

Trout Creek 1995 120.7 yes 14.32 B Potlid Creek 1997 41.5 Yes 21 Cartwright yes 16.81 B Creek 1997 33.0 Yes 8 Dutchman yes 10.87 C Creek 1999 42.4 94 18 20 19 Dutchman yes 9.325 12.74 13.88 B Creek 1999 47.8 3 51 889 13.31699 Upper Beaver Unnamed

Creek Trib 2007 12.5 12.5 12.5

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Lower North Rough Fork Crooked Canyon River Creek 2008 14.5 16.1 15.3 Rough Canyon Creek 2008 0.0 0.0 0.0 Upper Ochoco Unnamed

Creek Trib 2005 52.9 52.9 52.9 Unnamed

Trib 2005 52.9 52.9 52.9 Unnamed

Trib 2005 37.3 76.2 56.8 Thronson

Creek 2005 24.4 43.4 33.9 Thronson

Creek 2005 46.2 58.2 52.2 Upper North Fork Crooked Dry Porter 9.330 B River Creek 1994 7 East Porter 10.35 B Creek 1995 Yes 18 South Fork Howard 16.71 B Creek 1995 28 Upper Ochoco 8.836

Creek Buck Creek 2003 3

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Appendix B:

Miles of Occupied Redband Habitat by stream within 5th field watersheds

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

HUC10 Name Stream Name Miles of Redband Middle South Fork John Day Sunflower Creek 4.1 River Wildcat Creek 2.6 Porcupine Creek 1.5 Cougar Creek 2.2 Columbus Creek 2.3 12.7 Lower South Fork John Day River SF John Day River 0.6 Unnamed trib 1.5 Unnamed trib 1.3 Unnamed trib 1.0 Wind Creek 6.4 Unnamed trib 1.7 Black Canyon Creek 8.6 NF Wind Creek 4.3 Frazier Creek 2.9 Unnamed trib 0.6 Congleton Creek 3.3 South Prong Creek 6.0 Payton Creek 1.1 No Name 0.4 No Name 1.0 SF Wind Creek 3.1 No Name 1.9 Unnamed trib 1.8 SF Black Canyon Creek 2.9 Unnamed trib 2.3 52.1 Upper Middle John Day Unnamed trib 0.2 Cottonwood Creek 9.5 No Name 0.4 EF Cottonwood Creek 3.3 Back Creek 1.0 Cougar Creek 1.7 No Name 0.4 No Name 1.4 17.9 Mountain Creek Fort Creek 1.0 No Name 0.6 Mac Creek 0.3 98

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Keeton Creek 2.7 Fry Creek 1.7 No Name 0.9 Indian Creek 0.8 Badger Creek 2.7 Milk Creek 1.9 12.6 Rock Creek Rock Creek 8.6 Unnamed trib 0.8 Unnamed trib 0.3 No Name 0.6 No Name 0.7 Little Windy Creek 1.6 Windy Creek 0.8 Baldy Creek 3.5 Unnamed trib 1.5 Fir Creek 2.8 Unnamed trib 0.2 Bear Creek 2.7 Second Creek 0.9 No Name 0.5 Unnamed Trib 1.8 27.3 Bridge Creek West Branch Bridge 0.4 Creek Bear Creek 3.6 Bridge Creek 5.0 Heflin Creek 0.8 Dodds Creek 2.2 Unnamed Trib 1.6 NF Bear Creek 2.4 Grant Creek 0.7 Scotty Creek 0.7 Rail Creek 0.1 No Name 0.6 18.1 Upper Beaver Creek Beaverdam Creek 8.7 No Name 0.7 No Name 0.1 No Name 0.2 Powell Creek 5.2 Rager Creek 4.2 99

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

No Name 0.1 Tamarack Creek 6.3 Bellworm Canyon 0.7 No Name 0.9 No Name 0.8 No Name 0.7 No Name 1.3 Sugar Creek 5.6 35.5 Paulina Creek Dipping Vat Creek 1.6 No Name 0.3 Hewed Log Creek 1.1 Dry Paulina Creek 2.0 Roba Creek 1.4 6.4 Lower Beaver Creek No Name 1.5 East Wolf Creek 3.3 No Name 3.2 No Name 3.6 No Name 0.7 No Name 4.4 No Name 1.9 No Name 0.7 No Name 2.8 No Name 0.6 No Name 0.7 No Name 1.0 No Name 0.4 North Wolf Creek 5.4 No Name 4.9 No Name 2.7 Wolf Creek 8.9 46.7 Camp Creek Jackson Creek 1.5 Double Cabin Creek 0.9 No Name 0.5 2.9 Watson Creek-Crooked River Maury Creek 2.6 No Name 1.0 No Name 1.0 2.0

100

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Upper North Fork Crooked River No Name 0.2 No Name 0.1 Porter Creek 4.6 East Porter Creek 4.5 Looney Creek 1.2 No Name 0.2 Keys Creek 0.6 Hickey Creek 0.1 Beetle Creek 1.9 No Name 2.2 Peterson Creek 7.6 Ross Creek 0.7 Allen Creek 4.4 Indian Creek 2.3 Johnson Creek 1.6 Elliot Creek 2.9 Howard Creek 3.5 Dudley Creek 0.8 Fox Creek 3.7 Lookout Creek 4.1 Cram Creek 2.1 Gray Creek 5.3 Brush Creek 5.4 Jungle Creek 0.8 NF Crooked River 8.1 No Name 0.6 No Name 0.2 No Name 0.1 No Name 0.5 Lytle Creek 4.5 No Name 0.7 Polie Creek 1.1 SF Howard Creek 1.7 No Name 0.3 EF Howard Creek 2.9 No Name 0.6 WF Howard Creek 1.4 Winter Creek 1.9 No Name 0.8 Short Creek 0.6 No Name 0.9

101

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

No Name 0.2 87.9 Deep Creek No Name 0.6 Dicer Meadow 1.6 No Name 0.5 Derr Creek 2.1 WF Thortan Creek 2.0 Toggle Creek 3.0 Thortan Creek 3.7 No Name 0.2 Haypress Creek 0.4 No Name 0.1 No Name 0.5 No Name 0.4 Jackson Creek 6.6 Double Corral Creek 3.9 No Name 0.1 No Name 0.6 No Name 0.1 Happy Camp Creek 6.0 Cabbage Creek 1.3 No Name 0.9 Little Summit Creek 6.6 Big Spring Creek 1.2 Crazy Creek 3.6 WF Crazy Creek 0.9 EF Crazy Creek 0.6 Buck Hollow 2.2 Deep Creek 9.8 NF Crooked River 0.1 59.6 Lower North Fork Crooked River Indian Trail Creek 0.1 Fox Canyon Creek 3.8 N Fox Canyon Creek 2.4 NF Crooked River 7.7 14.0 Horse Heaven Creek-Crooked Lost Creek 1.6 River Drake Creek 4.1 Shotgun Creek 1.5 Buck Creek 0.2 East Shotgun Creek 0.8 102

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Buck Creek 1.7 No Name 1.0 Little Horse Heaven 2.1 Creek Pine Creek 2.5 Newsome Creek 3.2 Hammer Creek 0.4 Sherwood Creek 0.8 Horse Heaven Creek 2.1 Gibson Creek 2.2 No Name 1.5 25.7 Bear Creek Friday Creek 0.8 Deer Creek 2.3 Klootchman Creek 3.6 No Name 1.4 No Name 0.1 Ferguson Creek 0.4 Hamer Creek 1.1 Bear Creek 2.5 12.2 Prineville Reservoir-Crooked Sanford Creek 0.7 River 0.7 Upper Ochoco Creek Thorson Creek 0.3 Ahalt Creek 0.9 Caddy Creek 1.2 No Name 0.8 No Name 0.1 No Name 0.4 No Name 0.3 No Name 0.4 Cline Creek 0.1 Peaslee Creek 0.4 Kyle Creek 1.8 Scissors Creek 0.8 Judy Creek 2.0 No Name 0.1 Hedgepath Creek 0.1 No Name 0.4 Fisher Creek 0.3 No Name 0.7

103

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

No Name 0.4 Crystal Creek 3.0 McGinnis Creek 1.8 No Name 0.4 Canyon Creek 4.8 Long Hollow Creek 0.5 Coyle Creek 2.8 Reilly Creek 1.0 Corner Creek 1.1 Deadman Creek 1.7 Rush Creek 1.1 No Name 0.7 No Name 0.3 Douthit Creek 1.3 Buck Creek 1.8 No Name 0.4 Blevins Creek 1.9 No Name 0.5 Duncan Creek 3.5 Little Hay Creek 2.3 Wildcat Creek 1.9 No Name 0.4 No Name 0.5 Sears Creek 0.9 Jim Elliot Creek 1.4 Peterson Creek 1.7 Salmon Creek 0.4 Marks Creek 8.7 Ochoco Creek 6.2 64.5 Mill Creek Desolation Canyon 3.6 No Name 1.3 No Name 0.2 Brogan Creek 0.6 WF Mill Creek 4.6 EF Mill Creek 7.4 Harvey Creek 1.2 Lemon Creek 1.5 Evans Creek 2.0 Mill Creek 1.2 No Name 0.5

104

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

No Name 0.1 Dry Creek 2.8 27.0 McKay Creek No Name 0.9 Little Mckay Creek 6.8 Deer Creek 2.3 Poppy Creek 0.1 Fall Creek 0.4 Alllen Creek 0.6 Mckay Creek 6.3 16.5 Juniper Butte-Crooked River Crooked River 2.2 2.2 Willow Creek Willow Creek 9.9 9.9 Upper Trout Creek WF Trout Creek 0.7 No Name 0.3 Dick Creek 0.2 Bull Creek 0.7 Auger Creek 3.2 Potlid Creek 3.7 Cartwright Creek 2.0 Big Log Creek 3.4 Dutchman Creek 2.5 Trout Creek 4.6 21.3 Total 575.7

105

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Appendix C:

Snow Mountain RD redband trout viability analysis conducted by the Malheur National Forest.

Management Indicator Species Viability Analysis, Redband Trout

Snow Mountain RD – Administered by the Malheur National Forest

(For the purposes of this analysis the Snow Mountain RD redband trout populations are part of the Silver Creek populations identified below – other streams are part of the Malheur National Forest and do not contribute to viability on the Ochoco National Forest.)

The Ochoco (1989) Forest Plan identifies a number of fish species as Management Indicator Species (MIS) that help determine the effects of management activities on fish habitat. The habitat requirements of MIS are assumed to be similar for other fish species. If a selected species and its habitat are influenced significantly by management activities, like effects can be expected on other fish species with similar habitat requirements. Redband trout, steelhead, and eastern brook trout were selected as an indicator group because salmonids have a broad distribution across the Forest and are of economic importance resulting from recreational and downstream commercial harvest. The group generally has similar habitat requirements which are narrow enough to ensure viability of most other game fish. The habitat requirements make the group a good indicator of riparian habitat and aquatic habitat condition for the Ochoco National Forest. Although three fish species are identified as a MIS on the Ochoco NF, only redband trout occur on the former Snow Mountain District currently managed by the Malheur NF.

The Ochoco LRMP states that management of these species will occur through providing habitat by managing per riparian prescriptions (Management Area F-15 Riparian). Within the MA-15 Riparian description the LRMP states that “Fully functional riparian areas are essential for the maintenance of viable fish populations on the Forest. Riparian areas provide food, cover, and a source of large woody material for aquatic insects, fish and land animals. The vegetation of streamside areas filter sediment and shade the water surface to help maintain stable stream temperatures.”

Oregon Distribution

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

the Cascades, there is some agreement that at least two broad groups exist in Oregon: the Interior Columbia Basin redband trout and the Oregon Great Basin redband trout. In addition, redband trout in the upper Klamath Basin (e.g., Sprague and Williamson Rivers) represent a third evolutionary group within Oregon.”

Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland Distribution

On the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland distribution of redband include all areas across the Forest and grasslands including the former Snow Mountain Rd now managed by the Malheur NF. A total of 729.8 miles of stream have redband trout, while the Snow Mountain RD has 144 miles.

Table XX

Miles of stream occupied by Redband trout

on Ochoco NF and Crooked River National Grassland

107

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

South Fork Beaver Creek (Snow Mtn RD) 2.89

Total Miles of Redband Trout Habitat on the 729.86 Ochoco NF and Crooked River National Grassland

Threats to Redband Trout on Snow Mountain RD

Aquatic and riparian habitat attributes in the project area cover a wide range of condition ratings from poor to good. This wide range of ratings is the result of over 100 years of resource use on the Ochoco Forest, primarily timber harvest, livestock grazing and the 1990 and 2007 wildfires that and that significantly altered the landscape at the watershed level. The 2007 Egley wildfire burned across 140,000 acres of mixed pine, mountain mahogany, aspen and sagebrush steppe, re-burning 15,000 acres of the Pine Springs Complex fires in 1990 that burned 90,000 acres. Most of the ranger district has burned.

Aside from these management practices and fire events, current monitoring of streams and riparian areas indicate that management practices during the past 20 years and fire restoration activities have been effective in improving riparian and aquatic resources. The most significant change in riparian and stream management started with the implementation of INFISH/PACFISH in 1995 that provided specific long term riparian management direction. Other recent improvements in riparian and stream management resulted from Title II and wildfire restoration funding of about 1 million dollars to stabilize, maintain and improve aquatic and riparian habitat for redband trout and other species.

Currently there are high road densities, high fine sediment levels, and high stream temperatures in some sub-watersheds in the project area. Due to the climate and topography low water flows during the summer are a major limiting factor for aquatic species. The most common stream habitat deficiencies associated with INFISH/PACFISH RMOs across the project area are streambank stability, pool frequency/quality, instream wood levels, width depth ratios and water temperature. Culverts acting as fish barriers are also a limiting factor for fish distribution.

Current MIS Assessment for Snow Mountain RD

In addition to fish assessments by ODFW discussed below, the following restoration projects, forest strategies, and monitoring programs occurring on the Snow Mountain Rd and the rest of the Ochoco NF indicate that current forest aquatic and riparian management activities are providing for resident fish population viability on the Ochoco National Forest.

 The Malheur Forest Aquatic Restoration Strategy served as the basis for development of key watershed process being developed in the Forest Plan Revision, further strengthening the key watershed network for directing protection and restoration of aquatic species on the Malheur Forest and the former Snow Mountain Ranger District for all MIS.

108

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

 A summary of 10 years of PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring (PIBO) data on the Malheur Forest (about 105 sites) and the former Snow Mountain Ranger District (20 sites) indicates that management practices have been effective in maintaining or in some cases improving the structure and function of riparian and aquatic conditions for all MIS (pers. comm. T. Friedrichsen, USFS, 2011).

 During the past 20 years on the former Snow Mountain RD 12 fish barrier culverts have been replaced restoring fish passage to about 64 miles of streams. Stream restoration activities over the same time period improved about 48.5 miles and over 105 acres of stream habitat improving conditions for redband trout.

ODFW Risk Assessments for MIS at the Species Management Unit

ODFW conducted risk assessments for fish populations across Oregon that included streams on the Malheur and Ochoco National Forests which included drainages on other lands, usually at a lower elevation. These assessments focus on groups of populations from a common geographic area, genetic, and life history characteristics called Species Management Units (SMUs). SMUs are the level at which native fish will be managed in Oregon, as directed in the Oregon’s Native Fish Conservation Policy. Since ODFW risk assessments address fish species at a larger geographical scope than the forest level, habitat beyond the Ochoco NF may be included in the assessment. In most cases ODFW breaks the SMU into individual populations and in some cases the entire population is in the project area, especially with non anadromous species. Forest MIS are summarized below as they pertain to the project area and their larger geographic scope as an SMU.

Risk assessments by ODFW were selected as part of the analysis for the status of viable MIS on the Forest because they covered all species and populations across the forest in a consistent manner with common methods.

ODFW completed preliminary risk assessments for native salmon and steelhead, most native trout, and other selected native species using interim criteria that are based on biological attributes related to species performance. These are described in the 2005 Oregon Native Fish Report. The interim criteria provide temporary guidance to ensure the sustainability or “viability” of native fish prior to completion of conservation plans. Unique groups of populations or Species Management Units (SMUs), of each species are classified as “not at risk”, “potentially at risk”, or “at risk”. Risk, as used in this report, refers to the threat to the conservation of a unique group of populations (e.g. SMU) in the near-term (5-10 years).

The reports are comprised of two volumes, an SMU summary, and a Methods and Data report. The SMU summary briefly describes the results of the assessment for each species management unit, described below. The second volume documents data and methods used to evaluate individual populations and include detailed explanations of how each salmon and steelhead population fared in the assessment. The full report and data and methods part is available either on line at the ODFW website (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/ONFSR/report.asp) or as a written publication from ODFW.

Oregon’s Native Fish Conservation Policy calls for fish to be managed at the Species Management Unit, or SMU, level. SMUs are groups of populations from a common geographic area that share similar life

109

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

history, genetic, and ecological characteristics. Populations within an SMU are locally adapted to the specific conditions encountered in their native streams. Because of their shared characteristics, fish from one population within an SMU may be generally representative of other populations in that SMU and respond in a similar manner to conditions encountered throughout the life cycle. Fish trying to inhabit areas outside their own SMU do not typically fare as well as the native inhabitants in any given area. The greater the difference in characteristics between fish from different geographic areas, the greater the average disparity in survival, growth, and productivity. Thus, long-term sustainability depends on preservation of the native characteristics and diversity of each unique group of populations.

Species Management Units are similar in concept to Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) or Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) upon which Endangered Species Act listing decisions by NOAA Fisheries or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are based. ESUs and DPSs include Oregon and non-Oregon stocks, whereas, SMUs are limited to Oregon stocks. Oregon’s SMUs generally reflect finer breakdowns of ESU’s where ESU’s include multiple stocks (e.g. lower Columbia River spring and fall Chinook) or broad geographical regions (e.g. bull trout). Salmon, steelhead and trout populations identified by ODFW within this report are consistent with Biological Reviews prepared by NOAA Fisheries Technical Recovery Teams and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their listing decisions and recovery planning processes. It is ODFW’s intention to re-evaluate the SMU boundaries and population structure used in this report when conservation plans are developed for each SMU.

Risk Classification

This is an interim assessment intended to flag acute problems and help identify priorities for more detailed conservation planning evaluations. Risk, as used in this report, refers to the risk to the conservation of a unique group of populations (e.g. SMU), not the risk of extinction. It does not consider long-term risks. For instance, better-than-average ocean conditions might temporarily increase numbers of salmon, but have little effect on long-term risks where other threats remain significant and a species has exhibited a long-term declining trend. Nor does the interim assessment weigh the projected future benefits of recent conservation actions that are not yet fully reflected in recent fish numbers.

Interim criteria were based on six biological characteristics related to species performance. These include existing populations, habitat use distribution, abundance, productivity, reproductive independence, and hybridization. The six criteria are described in more detail below. 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. In some instances, data were not available to evaluate against a numerical benchmark and inferences from other information were used to determine whether or not the criteria were met. Risk categories were assigned based on the number of interim criteria met by each SMU.

SMUs that met six of the six criteria were classified as “not at risk”. SMUs that met only four or five criteria were “potentially at risk”. SMUs that met three or fewer criteria were classified as “at risk”.

110

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Assessments for each population were based on the best available scientific data which included direct empirical estimates and inferences from other evidence, including the U.S. Forest Service. In most cases where specific point estimates were not available for all criteria, population values could be determined based on inferences from other evidence or values in other representative populations. For instance, habitat use distribution could be inferred from stream accessibility where annual habitat use information was unavailable. Similarly, reproductive independence could be inferred from the size and location of hatchery releases where hatchery spawner data were incomplete. In some cases, those populations that had data available were assumed to be representative of the SMU. In a few populations, information was not adequate to assess a criterion. Treating these missing values the same as criteria failures provided a conservative assessment of risk consistent with the precautionary principles of the Native Fish Conservation Policy. At least some information was available for most populations and so missing values were rare and ultimately did not affect the risk category assigned to an SMU.

The risk assessment for each SMU includes a qualitative evaluation of the uncertainty in the data used to infer risk based on interim criteria. A high level of confidence was identified where extensive and detailed data was available for populations throughout the SMU. A moderate level of confidence was identified where data and other information were generally suitable for assessments of interim criteria for many or most representative populations throughout the SMU. A qualified level of confidence was identified where the assessment was based on limited data sets and inferences from other information for significant populations within an SMU. Qualitative descriptions of uncertainty and detailed descriptions in Volume II of the methodology, inferences, and assumptions for each SMU and population provide the basis for independent evaluation of the accuracy of each risk assessment by the reader.

Interim Criteria are designed to flag near term conservation risks. Indicators are highly interrelated and provide for redundant detection of problems. For instance, declining abundance occurs coincident with reduced productivity and distribution. Significant conservation problems invariably trigger multiple indicators. Thus, while each indicator might suffer from specific limitations of information or interpretation, the suite of indicators provides a robust basis for identifying relative priorities for detailed conservation plans.

Redband Trout Existing Conditions and Population Viability Assessment

Redband trout on NFS lands in the Closed Basins exist for the most part in small individual headwater streams which may or may not form drainage networks with most connectivity downstream of the forest boundary if it exists at all. Connectivity off-Forest in the Closed Basins is highly affected by water withdrawals for irrigation as well as by natural drought cycles and natural watershed characteristics. The Closed Basins drain into what is termed the Northern Great Basin, and are characterized by some of the lowest levels of precipitation in the project area, which is reflected in the Dry Forest (Ponderosa Pine) vegetation types characteristic of NFS lands in the Closed Basins.

There are two different populations of redband trout on the Ochoco NF; sympatric populations with steelhead, (Deschutes Basin) and allopatric populations in the Closed Basins (Silver Creek) populations in the Great Basin portion of the Blue Mountains (Snow Mountain RD).

111

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS OF REDBAND TROUT

112

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Figure 1.—The potential historical range, known and predicted current range, and known and predicted strong populations of sympatric redband trout (top) and allopatric redband trout (bottom) within the interior Columbia River Basin in the U.S. and portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins.

There is little data on current population trends of the redband trout, however, the four population types do not face the same level of threats from management activities

Native trout found in the internal basins of Oregon are redband trout derived from the Columbia River system. Malheur Lake Basin is the largest of the Oregon desert basins and contains the greatest amount of trout habitat associated with the Great Basin population. The Silvies River is one of six sub-basins feeding into the lake. Basin fish fauna show little difference from the Columbia River fauna, suggesting a rather broad and geologically recent connection between Malheur Lake and Malheur River; which flows east into the Snake River system. The last connection between these drainages was 1050 years ago, although it is unknown if fish movement occurred (pers. Comm. C Burnside, 2011). Currens (1997) noted a genetic likeness between the Silvies River and the Columbia River sub-groups. It is not known if pure native trout populations exist in the Malheur basin (Behnke 1992). The last specimen collected that appeared to be pure came from Smyth Creek in 1968. Hatchery introduction has occurred across the basin in years past and native redband trout face constant hazards in the high desert environment. Malheur redband trout are a genotypic sub-species adapted to unstable, harsh, environments and because they are more adapted to variable water conditions, they probably have resisted hybridization with hatchery fish or native cutthroat. Observations in the Silvies and Upper Malheur watersheds have verified this adaptive nature by finding redband trout in some very marginal waters late in the summer. They tend to be small in size and are better suited for the microhabitats being maintained by base flows of less the 0.3 cfs. Hatchery rainbows would not be able to tolerate the harsh water conditions.

Interior redband trout are assumed to be the resident form of the anadromous steelhead. Most redband trout spawning and rearing occurs in the second to fourth order streams in the forested environment. Even when small streams are not accessible to migrating fish because of barriers or steep gradients, they are vitally important to the quality of downstream habitats.

Redband trout of the interior Oregon basins inhabit isolated desert watersheds that vary widely in size. Populations residing in small isolated streams are vulnerable to climatic fluctuations and habitat disturbance due to their isolation from neighboring streams. During wet years, marshes and lakes can provide connections between populations of adjacent streams.

Redband trout are sensitive to changes in water quality and habitat. Redband trout of interior Oregon basins are believed to be best adapted to cold (<21° C), clean water, but possess a hereditary basis to function at high temperatures (Behnke 1992). Adult redband trout are generally associated with pool habitats, although various life stages require a wide array of habitats for rearing, hiding, feeding, and resting. Pool habitat is important refugia during low water periods. An increase in sediment lowers spawning success and reduces the quantity and quality of pool and intersticial habitat. Other important habitat features include healthy riparian vegetation, undercut banks and LWD (large woody debris).

113

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Spawning occurs during the spring, generally from March to June. Redds tend to be located where velocity, depth and bottom configuration induce water flow through the stream substrate, generally in gravels at the tailouts of pools. Water temperatures influence emergence of fry, which is typically from June through July.

Interior redband trout are widely distributed across Oregon east of the Cascade Mountains and in the Klamath Basin (Behnke 1992). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has classified the populations of redband trout inhabiting the Great Basin as a single distinct population segment (DPS) (USFWS 2000). This DPS is referred to as the “Great Basin redband trout DPS”. The range of Great Basin redband trout in Oregon includes the Warner, Catlow, Goose Lake, Fort Rock, Chewaucan, and Harney basins.

Great Basin redband trout are widely distributed in the Silver Creek watershed. This species is widely distributed in the project area, occupying the majority of perennial streams found within the watershed. They also move seasonally in the spring into many of the intermittent streams.

ODFW Risk Assessment for Redband Trout

State Status: Vulnerable Interim Assessment: Potentially At Risk

The Malheur Lakes basin is the largest of the Oregon desert basins and contains the most diverse and greatest amount of trout habitat (Behnke 1992). Malheur and Harney lakes are remnants of pluvial Lake Malheur, which dried approximately 8,000 years ago. Three major stream systems flow into Harney and Malheur lakes. The Silvies River, from the north, drains into Malheur Lake from the Malheur National Forest and the Southern Blue Mountains. The Silver Creek system originates at lower elevations on Mowich Mountain near Delintment Lake on the former Snow Mountain RD and drains into the highly alkaline Harney Lake. There are 144 miles of occupied redband trout habitat on the former Snow Mountain Rd. Irrigation structures, habitat modification, overgrazing, and introduction of non-native species have all contributed to declines in abundance of redband trout (Bowers et al. 1999, Hosford and Pribyl 1983).

Table 1 Population, Description, Major Land Ownership and life history of redband trout populations in the Malheur Lakes SMU.

Population Description Life History Silver Silver Creek Basin, USFS Resident Silvies Silvies River Basin, USFS Resident Poison Poison Creek and tributaries, USFS Resident Prater Prater Creek, USFS Resident Coffeepot Coffeepot Creek, USFS Resident Rattlesnake Rattlesnake Creek, USFS Resident Cow Cow Creek USFS Resident Riddle Riddle and Smyth Creeks, BLM Resident

114

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

McCoy McCoy, Cucamonga, & Kiger Creeks, BLM Resident Blitzen Donner und Blitzen Mud and Bridge, BLM Resident/Migratory

The Malheur Lakes Redband Trout SMU is comprised of ten populations (Table 1). One exists in each of the three major stream systems, Silver, Silvies, and Blitzen. Six small populations exist in isolated creeks that dissipate onto the valley floor in the northeast (Malheur NF) and southeast Steens Mountain, BLM) regions of the basin. Rattlesnake, Cow, Coffeepot, Prater and Poison creeks drain King Mountain on the Malheur NF and Riddle Creek drains the North Steens Mountain. McCoy Creek contains a small population that has a one way connection to the Donner und Blitzen River. Populations are identified based on Bowers et al. (1999) and reviewed by ODFW staff biologists.

Historically, all streams were interconnected and fish could move to the lakes and among populations. Currently, populations are isolated by natural and manmade barriers. Only the Blitzen population is known to express a migratory life history. Redband trout in the SMU are widely distributed in small and medium sized streams and moderately abundant during high water years. The SMU meets five of the six interim criteria and is classified as ‘potentially at risk Figure XX.

Figure XX Local Populations and Interim Criteria Ratings

Population Exist Distribution Abundance Production Independence Hybridization Silver** Pass Pass Pass Fail* Pass Pass Silvies** Pass Pass Pass Fail* Pass Pass Poison** Pass Pass Pass Fail* Pass Pass Prater** Pass Fail* Fail* Fail* Pass Pass Coffeepot** Pass Fail* Pass Fail* Pass Pass Rattlesnake** Pass Pass Pass Fail* Pass Pass Cow** Pass Pass Fail* Fail* Pass Pass Riddle Pass Pass Pass Fail* Pass Pass McCoy Pass Pass Pass Fail* Pass Pass Blitzen Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass * Criteria evaluated based on inference from qualitative or incomplete information are distinguished with an asterisk Where information was inconclusive or insufficient for assessment, the outcome was treated as a failure in assessment of risks to the SMU. **part or all of the population occurs on the Malheur National Forest

Distribution Redband trout in the Malheur Lakes Basin are widely distributed in small and medium size streams. Many of the mainstem habitats are not within the year around distribution of redband trout (Dambacher et al. 2001). Movement of fish between populations is severely limited by warm water temperatures, barriers, and low flow conditions particularly in the summer. Redband trout in eight of the ten populations do not have access to other populations (Table XX) and, as a result, are considered to be at a greater risk of extinction due to stochastic events and lack of genetic mixing. During low water years fish

115

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

in Silvies River are unable to access Malheur Lake and other populations due to diversion dams and periodic drying of stream sections due to irrigation withdrawal (Bowers et al. 1999). The Silver population is isolated by the dam at Moon Reservoir (Bowers et al. 1999). Populations in Poison, Prater, Coffeepot, Rattlesnake, Cow creeks on the Malheur Forest and Riddle creek on BLM are naturally isolated from other populations. These streams are not connected to other systems and dissipate onto the valley floor. An unusually long wet cycle or change in climate may be necessary to reestablish connectivity between these populations.

Abundance Data describing the abundance of constituent populations of the Malheur Lakes Redband Trout SMU do not exist. Instead, mean density of a given population serves as a surrogate criterion. Mean density estimates are compared to density benchmarks for redband trout populations in eastern Oregon streams (Dambacher and Jones In press). A population passes the abundance criterion if average density is classified as ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ in three of the previous five years. Populations with a ‘low’ rating fail the criterion and are warranted for further investigation. When density estimates for the last five years are not available, the criterion was applied to those years for which data are present. Of the ten populations, Prater and Cow populations fail the abundance criterion (Table 3).

Density measures are not available for Prater, Cow and Coffeepot populations. A 1994 survey targeting Malheur mottled sculpin in Prater and Cow creeks did not find redband trout (ODFW, Aquatic Inventory Project, unpublished data). Other anecdotal observations indicate redband trout abundance in these forest streams is depressed (T. Walters, ODFW Hines field office, pers. comm.). Based on these few observations both populations fail the abundance criterion until abundance can be assessed (Table 148).

Sampling of redband trout in Coffeepot Creek was conducted in 2001 (ODFW, Hines field office, unpublished data), but efforts failed to produce a density estimate. However, the number and size distribution of fish captured were similar to that of nearby sample sites in Poison and Rattlesnake creeks. Based on these similarities we assume density and abundance in Coffeepot Creek reflects that of Poison and Rattlesnake, and therefore the Coffeepot population passes the abundance criterion. Further field investigation is necessary to better assess status of this population.

Using a probability sample design, ODFW conducted an SMU level population estimate of redband trout in 1999 in the Malheur Lakes basin (Dambacher et al. 1999). Population and density estimates were conducted at 30 randomly selected, spatially balanced sample sites throughout the SMU. Redband trout were estimated at 414,551 +/- 43% (95% CI) age 1+ individuals. The large confidence interval suggests a wide range of fish densities were sampled and reflects the variable status among populations in the SMU. Overall mean density (0.156 age fish/m2) is moderate relative to densities through out eastern Oregon, though half of the Malheur Lake populations exhibited high densities. These estimates were made during high water years and are expected to fluctuate with habitat quality and instream flows.

116

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Productivity Data are not available to quantitatively assess productivity and the intrinsic potential population increase for redband trout in the Malheur Lakes SMU. In the absence of these data a qualitative assessment of the productivity criterion is based on distribution and abundance, connectivity, life history, habitat quality, and presence of non-native species. A population that is widely distributed and exhibits high densities is assumed to have minimally rebounded from past drought or disturbance events. Connectivity to high quality refuge habitats capable of supporting multiple life history types during periods of extreme environmental conditions enables populations to rebound quickly. Thus, a population passes the criterion if it: 1) is connected to habitat capable of supporting multiple life histories and/or serving as refuge during periods of environmental constraint, 2) expresses multiple life history strategies, 3) is widely distributed, and 4) relatively abundant. A population may also pass the criterion if data indicate an increasing or stable trend in abundance. These qualities suggest populations are resilient and minimally able to rebound rapidly after periods of low abundance. Only the Blitzen population exhibits a migratory life history and passes the productivity criterion (Table 4).

Table 4. Factors influencing productivity of the Malheur Lakes SMU redband trout populations.

Population Factors Pass/Fail Silver Widely distributed and moderately abundant; migratory life history Fail appears to be absent movement to and from Moon Reservoir has not been documented; poor habitat conditions in portions of the basin (Bowers et al. 1999); presence of non-native species.

Silvies Widely distributed; moderately abundant; migratory life history Fail not documented and connection to Malheur Lake is assumed not possible due to impassable irrigation diversions (Bowers et al. 1999); although large fish have been observed in this population the fluvial component is not considered large enough to significantly enhance productivity; mainstem habitats inhospitable during summer months Bowers et al. 1999); presence of non-native species.

Poison Exhibits high density; small to moderate distribution; resident life Fail history; although large fish have been observed in this population the migratory component is not considered large enough to significantly enhance productivity.

Prater Abundance and distribution not documented but assumed to be Fail

extremely limited; not connected to other populations and habitats capable of producing large migratory individuals.

Coffeepot Limited distribution; undocumented abundance; no connection to Fail habitats capable of producing large migratory individuals.

117

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

Rattlesnake Exhibits high density; small to moderate distribution; resident life Fail history; although large fish have been observed in this population the fluvial component is not considered large enough to significantly enhance productivity.

Cow Small distribution; abundance undocumented; not connected to other Fail populations and habitats capable of producing large migratory individuals.

Riddle Moderate distribution and abundance; not connected to other populations Fail or habitats capable of supporting a migratory life history.

McCoy Adequate distribution and abundance; isolated from the Blitzen River Fail by an impassable culvert; a few unconfirmed anecdotal reports of large fluvial individuals have been reported in this population but the fluvial component is not considered large enough to significantly enhance productivity

Blitzen Wide distribution among diverse habitats; moderate densities; migratory Pass life history with connection to Malheur Lake and large rivers; potential mixing with the McCoy population.

Reproductive Independence Data specific to reproductive independence are not available for the Malheur Lakes Redband Trout SMU. Instead this review uses current and historical stocking records to evaluate risk of introgression of native redband trout with hatchery origin rainbow trout. A population passes the criterion if hatchery origin rainbow trout are not currently stocked within the population, and if genetic analyses, when available, reveal evidence of minimal genetic mixing between hatchery and wild species.

Extensive planting of a non-native rainbow stock occurred historically throughout the Malheur Lakes basin. However, planting of hatchery rainbow in rivers and streams has been discontinued. The stocking program ceased in 1973 in the Silver, 1992 in the Blitzen, and 1993 in the Silvies basins. Water bodies currently planted with a coastal rainbow stock are Krumbo Reservoir, Fish Lake and BLM stock ponds in the Blitzen River Basin, Yellowjacket Lake in the Silvies River, and Delinament Lake, and Moon and Chickahominy reservoirs in the Silver Creek basin. Few fish are thought to be able to escape from these water bodies.

Evidence of introgression of wild redband trout with hatchery rainbow trout (coastal lineage) in populations of the Malheur Lakes SMU appears to be minimal. Genetic studies have occurred in streams of the Blitzen, McCoy, and Silvies populations. No strong evidence of introgression appears in the Blitzen population, specifically in Bridge and Mud creeks (Currens et al. 1990a). Moderate levels of introgression with hatchery fish was noted in genetic studies in Emigrant and Nicol creeks on the Malheur NF (Williams and Shiozawa 1992) and on the mainstem Silvies near historical

118

Redband Trout Forest Wide Viability Analysis

stocking sites (Hosford and Prybil 1991). Because hatchery fish are no longer stocked into moving waters in the SMU and only minimal evidence of introgression exists, all populations pass the reproductive independence criterion.

Hybridization Cutthroat trout are not present in the Malheur Lakes SMU and therefore are not a threat to redband trout populations. All populations pass the hybridization criterion.

119