Status and Conservation of Oregon’s Interior Redband Trout
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Native Fish Investigations Project OregonOregon ’’ss InlandInland RedbandRedband TroutTrout
Legend
Lakes Streams Klamath Great Basin Snake Great Basin Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss newberrii
Rainbow trout and cutthroat trout diverge: late Pliocene (~2,000,000 ya)
Rainbow trout invade the Great Basin: Pleistocene (~70,000 ya)
Warming and drying of the Great Basin isolates rainbow trout
Great Basin redband trout occur in 6 isolated basins with no connectivity
Redband Trout are isolated above dams and diversions in Klamath and Snake RedbandRedband TroutTrout SMUsSMUs andand PopulationsPopulations Great Basin Redband Trout SMU's and Populations
Silvies
Poison Silver Cow Prater Coffeepot Rattlesnake
Fort Rock Malheur Lakes Buck
Bridge Riddle
SIlver McCoy Blitzen Upper Williamson
Upper Sycan Foster Chewaucan Wood Lower Williamson
Cascade Warner Lakes Rock Complex Lower Sprague Chewaucan Threemile Home Willow Upper Sprague Skull Honey Catlow Valley Crooked Guano Upper Klamath Basin Thomas-Bauers Complex Cottonwood Upper Deep Upper Muddy Lost River Drews Deadman Jenny Klamath River Antelope Lower Deep Lower Crane Drews Cogswell Tandy Dry Kelley Twentymile Fall
Goose Lake SpeciesSpecies ManagementManagement UnitsUnits andand PopulationsPopulations
Species Management Units are defined as the major pluvial lake basins of the Great Basin. Are geographically isolated from populations in other SMUs and may be genetically distinct. Coincide with ODFW management plans and the USFWS Status Review of Great Basin redband Trout. Populations were based on geography, movement patterns and genetic data. Oregon Great Basin
• Area: 40,000 km 2 distribution of redband trout • 16% of Oregon’s area in wadable streams
• Pop: 14,000 people • 0.4% of Oregon’s pop
• 6 interior basins with redband trout
• Northern Basin & Range • Elevation: 1,246 - 2,964 m (4,088 - 9,725 ft)
• Annual ppt: 17 - 130 cm (6 - 51 in) Great Basin Redband Trout
Redband trout persist in areas of higher elevation/precipitation
Diverse habitats gave rise to diverse life histories
Majority of redband trout inhabit headwater streams - stream resident form
Pluvial lakes present in Goose, Warner, and Malheur Lakes basins - adfluvial form adfluvial form stream resident form
Previous Redband Trout Assessments
1997: Redband trout petitioned to be listed under ESA
1999: ODFW surveys Great Basin redband trout - 950,000 fish (± 21%)
2000: USFWS denies listing of redband trout
2005: Status Review of Oregon’s Native Fishes ODFWODFW StatusStatus ReviewReview EvaluationEvaluation CriteriaCriteria
1. ExistingExisting PopulationsPopulations 2. HabitatHabitat UseUse DistributionDistribution 3. AbundanceAbundance 4. ProductivityProductivity 5. ReproductiveReproductive IndependenceIndependence 6. HybridizationHybridization Trout Status Criteria
Existing Populations • Extinct or functionally extinct • Population delineation based on Bowers et al, input from regional staff
Distribution
• Pass if meet two of three criteria: 1) > 10% of total stream distance 2) Greater than 5 miles 3) Connected to other populations Redband Status Criteria
Abundance
•Data from Dambacher 2001, and district staff • Guidelines based on Dambacher and Jones 2007 Low <0.059 fish m-2 Moderate 0.06 – 0.19 fish m-2 High >0.2 fish m-2 •Pass if moderate or high in 3 of the past 5 yrs.
Productivity • Not quantitatively assessed due to a lack of or inconsistent data
• Consider distribution and abundance • high densities with adequate distribution = pass • isolated populations (no migratory life history) = fail • presence of non-native salmonids = ? Redband Status Criteria
Reproductive Independence
• Current and historic stocking records
• Failed if currently stocked, or if genetic analysis indicates significant interaction
Hybridization
• Pass if hybrids are rare or non-existent
• If data are not specific, then fail if con-generic non-native fish are sympatric ConservationConservation StatusStatus ScoreScore forfor SMUSMU
Each of these attributes was evaluated for every population based on benchmark values related to species viability, persistence probability, and conservation risks. Criteria for individual SMUs were met when at least 80% of existing constituent populations met the standard. Risk categories were assigned based on the number of interim criteria met by each SMU. ImplementationImplementation ofof CriteriaCriteria
Scoring of Interim Criteria place SMUs in one of three “conservation risk ” categories:
– “At Risk ” SMU does not meet at least four of the six criteria.
– “Potentially at Risk ” SMU meets four or five criteria.
– “Not at Risk ” SMU meets all criteria. Status of Redband Trout
Not at risk Potentially at risk At risk Extinct
Malheur Fort Rock
Chewaucan
Catlow Klamath Warner Goose ScoringScoring ofof StatusStatus CriteriaCriteria forfor RedbandRedband TroutTrout SMUsSMUs
80% Upper Klamath 10 40%
0%
80% Goose Lake 13 40% 0%
Chewaucan 80% 4 40% 0%
80% Fort Rock 3 40% 0%
80% Warner Lakes 4 40% 0%
80% Catlow Valley 5 40%
Percent of Populations Meeting Criterion 0%
80% 40% Malheur Lakes 10 0% Existing Distribution Abundance Productivity Reproductive Hybridization Populations Independence FactorsFactors LimitingLimiting RedbandRedband ProductivityProductivity
FlowFlow diversiondiversion DegradedDegraded StreamStream && RiparianRiparian HabitatHabitat MigrationMigration BarriersBarriers CompetitionCompetition withwith exoticexotic salmonidssalmonids ClimateClimate regimeregime ODFW Redband Trout Study
2007: ODFW’s Native Fish Investigations Project initiates a six-year study to assess status and trends of Great Basin redband trout
Key Objective: - To assess the response of fish populations to changes in climatic conditions and evaluate subsequent shifts in population abundance and structure GreatGreat BasinBasin RedbandRedband StudyStudy
To address data gaps outlined in the Native Fish Status Review (ODFW 2005).
To provide better management for future fishing opportunities.
To write effective conservation plans for all Great Basin SMUs.
To assess the response of fish populations to changes in climatic conditions. ODFW Redband Trout Study
EPA’s Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) design - probabilistic surveys !( !( !( !( !( - spatially balanced, representative sample !( !( !( !( !( 30 sites per basin every year !( !( !( !( 30 sites per population every 3 years !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Density estimates at randomly selected sites - 2-pass removal electrofishing
Calibrate removal estimates
!( !( - mark-recapture at sub-sample of sites !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Collect stream habitat data at each site !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( LandLand OwnershipOwnership ofof GreatGreat BasinBasin RedbandRedband TroutTrout HabitatHabitat
Legend Redband Trout Populations Land Ownership Land Ownseship BLM ODF PVT USFS USFWS 020 40 80 Kilometers
Malheur Lakes
Fort Rock
Chewaucan
Warner Lakes
Catlow Valley
Goose Lake SamplingSampling SuccessSuccess
Warner Lakes, 2007 Site Status ( n = 90) (! Completed (53) (! Did Not Survey (1) (! Access Denied (21) (! Failed Estimate (2) (! Dry Channel (13)
All SMUs 2007-08 CalibrationCalibration ofof RemovalRemoval EstimatesEstimates • ~ 10 % of sample sites calibrated with mark-recapture techniques.
• Removal estimates underestimated abundance by 37%, a 0.63 bias.
• Develop predictive models based on channel complexity and fish attributes.
• Preliminary analysis of 2006 data show bias correlated to in-stream wood and fish size.
300
250 y = 1.55x + 5.98 R2 = 0.86 200
150
100
Mark-Recapture Estimate Mark-Recapture 50
0 0 50 100 150 200 Removal Estimate ODFW Redband Trout Study
2008 Site Densities
Fish/m 2 0.0 (n = 59) 0.01 – 0.15 (n = 107) 0.16 – 0.40 (n = 52) 0.41 – 1.00 (n = 17)
• High variability •Some areas of high density ODFW Redband Trout Study
2008 Site Densities
30
100 25
20 80
15 60
10 Percentage Sites of 40
5 Cumulative Sites Percentof
0 20 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fish/m 2 ODFW Redband Trout Study
Blitzen Population Length Frequency
60
n = 918 50 1+ > 85mm
40 • Dominated by smaller, younger fish
30 • High productivity? Frequency
20
10
0 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410
Fork Length (mm) OccurrenceOccurrence ofof BrookBrook TroutTrout
Legend
Brook Trout Redband Trout Distribution Other Streams ODFW Redband Trout Study
2007 population SMU n Estimate 95% CI estimates Catlow Valley 7 24,539 65% Chewaucan 31 120,577 50% Fort Rock 27 70,315 28% Goose Lake 90 102,855 36% Malheur Lakes 39 447,970 37% Warner Lakes 53 221,985 50% Total 247 988,241 22%
2008 population SMU n Estimate 95% CI estimates Catlow Valley - - - Chewaucan 25 112,275 38% Fort Rock 24 39,833 42% Goose Lake 24 36,266 47% Malheur Lakes 138 395,855 19% Warner Lakes 24 396,580 41% Total 235 980,810 19% TrendsTrends inin AbundanceAbundance Fort Rock Goose Lake Catlow Valley 120 200 80
100 160 60 80 120 60 40 80 40 20 20 40 0 0 0
Chewaucan Warner Lakes Malheur Lakes 250 800 800 200 Age 1000 1+ Fish x Age 600 600 150 400 400 100 200 200 50
0 0 0 1999 2007 2008 1999 2007 2008 1999 2007 2008 Year Population Abundance
SMU Population n Estimate 95% CI Goose Lake Drews 20 16,477 69% 2007 Dry 12 2,749 163% Eastside 17 21,613 28% Thomas 21 38,309 58% West Goose 20 41,146 84% Warner Lakes Deep 18 163,565 75% 2007 Honey 17 16,247 60% Twentymile 18 79,808 58% Malheur Lakes Blitzen 23 106,807 36% 2008 East Burns 25 27,940 45% McCoy 24 124,255 35% Riddle 18 45,938 51% Silver 25 41,161 49% Silvies 23 112,074 52% ApplicationApplication ofof ResultsResults ODFW Redband Trout Study - Possible Outcomes -
Abundance of redband trout as it relates to stream flow 35 R2 = 0.89 1999 30 p = 0.055
25 1994 20
15 2005 10 1989
5
Age 1+ LCT 1000 x abundance Age 0 510 15 20 25 30 Mean Annual Precipitation (inches) years i-1 and i-2 Mean Annual Flow years i-1 and i-2 Donner und Blitzen River 300
250
200 CFS 150
100
50
0 19411951 1961 19711981 1991 2001 ODFW Redband Trout Study - Possible Outcomes -
Changes in Distribution of redband trout relative to climate cycles
Wet Dry
Fish/m 2 no fish low density high density RedbandRedband TroutTrout DensityDensity MalheurMalheur River,River, 20072007
(! (! 0.0 (! (!!( (! !( (! !(! !( !( (! (! !( !( !( W (! (! (! !( (! !( (! il (! 0.01 – 0.10 (! (! (!!( lo ! L (! !( ( !( w (! i (! t C !( !( !( t r !( !( l e !( !( e e (! !( (! k (! (! !((! !( M (! (! !( !( a !(! !( (! !(( (!(! l Bully ! 0.11 – 0.19 (! h ( !( e !( (! Creek !( u ! (! r ( Reservoir
(!!( R i !( v e (! ! r 0.20 – 0.39 ( (!!( !( Creek
!( (! N Bully (! o !( r t Beulah (! h
F Reservoir (! 0.40 – 1.30 o r k
! M ( !( a !( (! l h (! (! e k u e M e a r r !( lh R C e i d !( !( u v o r e o R r !( w i n v (! o e tt r o C (! Warm !( Springs !( Reservoir (! (! (! (! (!!( Estimated Abundance !( (! (!(! (! !( r
e
298,250 ± 29% v (! i
R
r
u
e
h l
Ma
k
r
o
F
h
t
u
o
S
(! MigratoryMigratory PopulationsPopulations UpperUpper KlamathKlamath BasinBasin
ComplexComplex lifelife historieshistories LakeLake rearingrearing StreamStream residentsresidents ConnectedConnected PopulationsPopulations SamplingSampling IssuesIssues KlamathKlamath BasinBasin PopulationsPopulations M IL L E R C R •10 Populations
R C k e K e r C C •4 Adfluvial
A k k J e c re o C L R on R ks E ac T J A L R Crater Lake O C N G C R
W
i l l i S a u L m ong n Upper Williamson Cree C s k o r e n A e n k R n i ie v C e Upper Sycan re r S ek y R c a C N n Wood A R 7- C mile Cr Y iv S e M r S r ve E p Ri Me r rr R i n itt n ca Cre R g Sy ek I Wo T C Lower Williamson o r C d R 7 -m R 4 il iv Spra e e r gue Rive - r C m C r e * a v i Cr il n k r ry e e Cher e a R
l e r iv C n r
o R C C r C Ro s e c r k e C l l r y m B i u
s a * y g i t l m r a l a - i r
l 5 e p C W S r Agency L. Lower Sprague ake Cr M Cascade Complex e Sn k. e A
k F * r . C N t R r u SPRAGUE C o ile r m T 4- Upper Sprague
R o c k U Klamath C Lake r F e I e S S. Fk. Sprague River k H H O L W E
I C L F
E R L is h K I A h o S A p M * le e L B n c S C e r r N C O G e r e e E E ek N k P R J R *
E S A B N E N A R r Y e R C iv t R E R s S Lo
R Klamath River Lost River
Jenny C
E I
R R I C r A M e
R v i k O er e
P R e T iv r
R R L t C O s k C G h o c t S o
Oregon a T L L N m R R L la O K A L F k k Rock Cree e
e
S r
h C o R
e
v l e i C l m B C r OG u W US C re R California R o CR o e W O ILLO F c R k W k L C TH L A re I AM e KL k W KlamathKlamath RedbandRedband TrendsTrends KlamathKlamath RedbandRedband GeneticGenetic StudyStudy
BetterBetter definedefine populationpopulation structurestructure MineMine samplessamples collectedcollected inin 20002000 AlsoAlso comparecompare withwith otherother populationspopulations AnalyzedAnalyzed byby DevonDevon Pearce,Pearce, NOAA,NOAA, UCSCUCSC 1818 microsatellitemicrosatellite lociloci
KlamathKlamath RedbandRedband GeneticGenetic PopulationPopulation StructureStructure
Rock Cr, Lower Sprague River
Trout Cr, Lower Upper Klamath River Sprague Upper Klamath River Lower River Wood Lower Sprague River Sprague River Lower Klamath River & Jenny Cr
Scott Cr, central Klamath CA coast Lake Basin Lost River Goose Lake MovementMovement andand PassagePassage ofof RedbandRedband TroutTrout inin thethe BlitzenBlitzen RiverRiver StudyStudy LocationLocation
Blitzen R Diversion Dams Sodhouse Busse
Grain Camp Page Objectives
1. DetermineDetermine movementmovement patternspatterns ofof fluvialfluvial lifelife historyhistory
2. InvestigateInvestigate migratorymigratory delaysdelays atat diversiondiversion damsdams MethodsMethods
TroutTrout caughtcaught inin trapstraps andand byby anglingangling
RadioRadio telemetrytelemetry
PITPIT tagstags
StreamStream temperaturetemperature andand flowflow
FishFish scalescale interpretationinterpretation TroutTrout SizeSize andand AgeAge DistributionsDistributions
Age: Number of trout passing PIT reader Temp ⁰C CatoBridge Busse GrainCamp Page
(N = 24)(N = Flow CFS Flow died Upstream Migration Extent and Arrival Timing PassagePassage DelayDelay atat DamsDams
1.0
0.75 Busse Busse 0.5
Grain Camp 0.25 Grain Camp Page Page 0
Proportion of trout below dam below trout of Proportion 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (days) Stream Temperature
Summer 7-day Max Average
UILT Temperature Temperature ⁰C
River km Conclusions • Multiple migrations within lifetime • Migration not exclusively for reproduction • Seasonal migration pattern • Spawning had a limited distribution •Lack of repeat spawning • Lower river trout arrive later at spawning habitat • Some dams present passage limitations to trout - Some delayed up to 40 days - Some never pass Conservation Principles for Redband Trout
Keys to persistence (Williams et al, 2007): - Protect current strongholds
- Increase size and extent of existing populations
- Maintain genetic and life history diversity
- Reconnect stream systems
- Minimize anthropogenic stressors
- Improve adaptive management ODFWODFW ConservationConservation PlanningPlanning NativeNative FishFish ConservationConservation PolicyPolicy
Native Fish Conservation Plans • Define desired status relative to biological attributes • DescribeDistribution current status at the Survivalpopulation level Abundance Rate of Population Growth • Limiting factor analysis including corrective strategies Population Diversity Forecast of Persistence • IdentifyPopulation monitoring Connectivity and research needs to evaluate success of corrective strategies • Include measurable criteria indicating significant deterioration in status & triggering recovery actions ODFWODFW ConservationConservation PlanningPlanning NativeNative FishFish ConservationConservation PolicyPolicy
Native Fish Conservation Plans Collaborative process Technical committee Stakeholder committee Peer review ConservationConservation PlanningPlanning ChallengesChallenges forfor RedbandRedband TroutTrout
Limited data available North Malheur Lakes Abundance & distribution Silvies Lack of long term data sets Lack of sensitivity to detect trend
Conflict in scale at which data Silver East Burns are collected Smallest populations aggregated ConservationConservation PlanningPlanning ChallengesChallenges forfor RedbandRedband TroutTrout
High among population variability Populations differ in potential
Irregular & sporadic monitoring activities Limited opportunities to detect deterioration
Few fishery management options for recovery Limited harvest, little or no stocking in running waters Approach
Evaluate Populations by Potential MeanPopulation Annual Potential Precipitation MalheurMalheur Lakes Lakes SMU SMU Flow - Precipitation & Area Temperature – Elevation & Aspect Approach Define desired and current status - Abundance & Distribution Varies by potential Varies by water year
High Potential Low Potential High water - 98% of sites with fish - 74% of sites with fish years - 50% of sites > 8.1 g/m 2 - 50% of sites > 0.31 g/m 2
Low Water - 58% of sites with fish - 50% of sites with fish years - 50% of sites > 0.86 g/m 2 - 50% of sites > 0.31 g/m 2 Approach
Define desired and current status - Reproductive Potential – length frequency Population diversity – Number of Eco-regions Spatial diversity – Habitat heterogeneity Approach
• Identify habitat related recovery actions
Habitat Restoration Restoration of Passage Restoration of instream flow RecentRecent ConservationConservation ActionsActions forfor GreatGreat BasinBasin RedbandRedband TroutTrout
Harvest impacts are being minimized.
2009 -10 Creel Survey in Upper Klamath Lake
Trout stocking in waters containing redband trout will use only triploid (sterile) trout.
Passage and screening in Chewaucan Basin.
Screening in Warner Lakes Basin.
Collaboration with USGS to analyze redband data to refine population benchmarks (WNTI) PartingParting ShotsShots
ProgressProgress overover lastlast decadedecade OverallOverall abundantabundant butbut disconnecteddisconnected andand constrainedconstrained lifelife historyhistory expressionexpression UncertaintyUncertainty ofof whatwhat monitoringmonitoring cancan bebe continuedcontinued AppropriateAppropriate conservationconservation objectivesobjectives EffectiveEffective monitoringmonitoring strategiesstrategies ProblemProblem ofof timetime scalescale