DOCSLIB.ORG

Information Reports - Number 96-8

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Information Reports - Number 96-8 INFORMATION REPORTS - NUMBER 96-8 Review of Capacity Utilization at ODFW Salmon Hatcheries Mark A. Lewis Fish Propagation Section Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2501 S.W. First Avenue P.O. Box 59 Portland, Oregon 97207 August 1996 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION................................................................ 1 SUMMARY...................................................................... 1 INDIVIDUAL HATCHERY EVALUATIONS..................................... 3 Bandon Hatchery.......................................................... 4 Big Creek Hatchery........................................................ 6 Bonneville Hatchery........................................................ 8 Butte Falls Hatchery....................................................... 10 Cascade Hatchery......................................................... 12 Cedar Creek Hatchery..................................................... 14 Clackamas Hatchery....................................................... 16 Cole Rivers Hatchery.............................................. ........ 19 Elk River Hatchery........................................................ 21 Fall Creek Hatchery........................................................ 24 Klaskanine Hatchery....................................................... 25 Lookingglass Hatchery..................................................... 27 Marion Forks Hatchery.................................................... 29 McKenzie Hatchery........................................................ 31 Nehalem Hatchery......................................................... 33 Oxbow Hatchery........................................................... 35 Rock Creek Hatchery...................................................... 38 Round Butte Hatchery..................................................... 40 Salmon River Hatchery......................................... .......... 43 Sandy Hatchery................................................ ........... 45 South Santiam Hatchery.................................................... 47 Trask Hatchery............................................................ 49 Umatilla Hatchery.......................................................... 52 Willamette Hatchery....................................................... 53 REFERENCES................................................................... 56 INTRODUCTION An extensive review of capacity utilization at Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife hatcheries was done in the 1980’s (Jeffrey and Associates 1987, and Walters 1989). Both reports compared actual production levels to theoretical carrying capacity and loading density for the period April 1985 to April 1987. Theoretical values calculated for the analysis were based on a carrying capacity model developed by Liao (1971) and a loading density graph developed by Burrows and Combs (1968). Carrying capacity is a measure of the ability to provide oxygen and remove metabolic waste, and is calculated as pounds of fish/gallons per minute (gpm) water flow. Loading density is a measure of the physical space required by the fish, and is calculated as pounds of fish/cubic foot of rearing space. Since these reports are fairly recent this review is based on their conclusions modified for any changes in the physical capacity of the hatchery (number or size of ponds, and available water supply) and any changes in the level of production. Hatchery managers were also asked to assess their current level of production and their ability to increase production at all stages of rearing (adult holding and spawning, egg incubation, juvenile rearing, and smolt production). Data on Columbia River hatcheries was also obtained from the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) report (Nandor 1995). The body of the report is a hatchery by hatchery evaluation including general background information, the prior assessment, changes since that assessment, and conclusions on potential for increased production. These individual hatchery reviews are presented in tabular format (arranged geographically) in the summary section. Only salmon producing hatcheries are reviewed for this report. There are 10 other hatcheries that produce steelhead and/or other species of trout, but not salmon. These are not reviewed in this report but all are reviewed in the earlier reports (Jeffrey and Associates 1987, and Walters 1989) and data on six of them is contained in the IHOT report (Nandor 1995). There may be some ability to increase salmon production by using these steelhead or trout hatcheries. However, this would generally involve transport of eggs or fish, disease concerns, and isolation and/or separation from current production. SUMMARY The following table summarizes the current level of capacity utilization and the potential for increasing salmon production at various stages of the rearing cycle (adult holding and spawning, egg incubation, juvenile rearing, and smolt production). Where hatcheries had extra capacity at some stage of rearing, estimates of the number of fish or eggs that could be produced were based on the hatcheries current production practices. No estimate of the number of additional adults that could be held was made since this would be dependent on the specific species, fish size, run timing, and spawning timing. Estimates of the number of additional eggs that could be incubated are based on the average numbers currently incubated per container at the hatchery. Again the actual numbers of additional eggs that could be incubated would be based on the species and timing. The 14 Columbia Basin hatcheries evaluated are generally operating at or above recommended capacities. In some cases this may be resulting in reduced smolt quality and survival. Only one hatchery had any capacity for increased smolt production, Clackamas hatchery could rear an additional 15,000 1 steelhead smolts. There was no additional capacity identified for holding of adult salmon at any of the Columbia Basin hatcheries. There was substantial additional egg incubation capacity identified at 6 hatcheries, ranging from 450,000 to 6 million eggs. Limited early rearing space was identified at 3 hatcheries. One of the hatcheries evaluated (Klaskanine) and one of the steelhead hatcheries (Gnat Creek) are being closed because of federal budget reductions, and others may be closed if further anticipated budget reductions occur. Potential for increasing Potential for increasing production to various stages production of salmon Starting and Early Hatchery smolts with existing Adult Holding Egg incubation Juvenile Rearing facility. Columbia Basin Hatcheries (arranged upstream to downstream) Lookingglass Goals at capacity Goals at capacity Goals at capacity Goals at capacity Umatilla Pending research results Not applicable Pending research results Pending research results Round Butte Fully utilized Fully utilized 900,000 eggs Fully utilized Oxbow Fully utilized Not applicable 6,000,000 eggs 300,000 fish Cascade Above capacity Fully utilized Fully utilized Fully utilized Bonneville Fully utilized Fully utilized Fully utilized Fully utilized Sandy Above capacity Fully utilized 2,000,000 eggs Some space available in spring Willamette Fully utilized Fully utilized 450,000 eggs Fully utilized McKenzie Fully utilized Fully utilized 2,000,000 eggs Fully utilized Marion Fully utilized Fully utilized Fully utilized Fully utilized Forks South Fully utilized Fully utilized 1,500,000 eggs to eyed Fully utilized Santiam stage Clackamas 15,000 steelhead smolts Fully utilized Fully utilized Fully utilized Big Creek Above capacity Fully utilized Fully utilized Fully utilized Klaskanine Above capacity Fully utilized Fully utilized Some space available in spring Coastal Hatcheries (arranged North to South) Nehalem 20,000 steelhead smolts Fully utilized 480,000 eggs 3 ponds available July -Jan. Trask 22,500 spring chinook. Yes, could hold separate, 1,000,000 eggs One pond available More with staff & after current uses funding Cedar Creek 145,000 in Rhodes pond, Yes, could hold separate 1,232,000 eggs Two troughs available, & can acclimate 42,000 one pond available Nov.- smolts June Salmon River 250,000 coho smolts. Yes, could hold separate 690,000 eggs, (-315,000 if No empty ponds, but could Needs additional funding. increase coho smolts) increase coho per pond Fall Creek Above capacity Fully utilized 700,000 eggs Fully utilized Rock Creek Fully utilized Fully utilized Fully utilized Fully utilized Bandon Fully utilized, could Yes, could hold separate Possible, with modifications Fully utilized acclimate more smolts to isolation system Elk River 37,000 chinook smolts Fully utilized 250,000 eggs One pond available Butte Falls 186,000 coho smolts Not applicable 300,000 eggs 300,000 fish with additional staff & funding. Cole Rivers 720,000 smolts with Yes, could hold separate 1,170,000 eggs 16 circular ponds available funding 2 In general the 10 coastal hatcheries evaluated are not operating at levels as close to capacity as the Columbia Basin hatcheries, only 2 coastal hatcheries are at or above capacity. This results from a variety of reasons including prior staff and budget reductions, compliance with wild fish management policy, and changes in fish culture practices intended to improve smolt quality and survival. Four hatcheries have substantial capacity for increased smolt production; Cole Rivers, Salmon River, Butte Falls, and Cedar Creek. However, the increase at Cedar Creek would involve re-activating an off
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment
    Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment Little Butte Creek Watershed Council August 2003 Abstract The Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment has been prepared for the Little Butte Creek Watershed Council with funding from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). The Assessment was prepared using the guidelines set forth in the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board’s 1999 Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. The purpose of this document is to assess the current conditions and trends of human caused and ecologic processes within the Little Butte Creek Watershed and compare them with historic conditions. Many important ecological processes within the watershed have been degraded over the last 150 years of human activity. This Assessment details those locations and processes that are in need of restoration as well as those that are operating as a healthy system. The Assessment was conducted primarily at the 5th field watershed level, that of the entire Little Butte Creek Watershed. List and describe field watershed levels below. Where possible, the analyses was refined to the smaller 6th field watershed level, thirteen of which exist within the Little Butte Creek Watershed. The assessment also notes gaps in data and lists recommendations for future research and data collection. It is intended that this document, and the Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan be used as guides for future research and watershed protection and enhancement over the next decade. The document was developed using existing data. No new data was collected for this project. Where data was lacking, it was detailed for future work and study. Acknowledgements This assessment was compiled and written by Steve Mason.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Streamflow Records in Rogue River Basin, Oregon
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 187 \ EVALUATION OF STREAMFLOW RECORDS IN ROGUE RIVER BASIN, OREGON B!y Donald Rkhaideon UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 187 EVALUATION OF STREAMFLOW RECORDS IN ROGUE RIVER BASIN, OREGON By Donald Richardson Washington, D. C., 1952 Free on application to the Geological Surrey, Washington 25, D. C. ' CONTENTS Page Page Abstract................................. 1 Syllabus of gaging-stations records--Con. Introduction............................. 1 Gaging-station records-Continued Purpose and Scope...................... 1 Rogue River Continued Acknowledgments........................ 1 Little Butte Creek at Lake Creek... 25 Physical features- of the basin........... 2 Little Butte Creek above Eagle Utilization of water in the basin........ 2 Point............................ 25 Water resources data for Rogue River basin 5 Little Butte Creek near Eagle Streamflow records ..................... 5 Point............................ 25 Storage reservoirs..................... 6 Little Butte Creek below Eagle Adequacy of data....................... 6 Point............................ 26 Syllabus of gaging-station records....... 13 Emigrant Creek (head of Bear Creek) Explanation of data .................... 13 near Ashland..................... 27 Gaging-station records................. 13 Emigrant Creek below Walker Creek, Rogue River above Bybee Creek........ 13 near Ashland..................... 28 Rogue River above
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Spring Chinook Salmon Spawning in Big Butte Creek, 2009
    ROGUE RIVER SPRING CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN Evaluation of spring Chinook salmon spawning in Big Butte Creek, 2008 Rogue Watershed District Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife March 2009 Introduction A conservation plan for Rogue River spring chinook salmon, developed in cooperation with a public advisory committee, was approved by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2007. The conservation plan lists several management strategies to bring numbers of naturally produced spring chinook back up to a desired status level that is sustainable and will support economically important fisheries. Management strategy 9.2 calls for enhancement of spring chinook (CHS) in Big Butte Creek through an increase in the amount of available spawning habitat. A small falls on lower Big Butte Creek (Crowfoot Falls, rivermile 0.6) is considered a partial barrier, limiting the upstream passage of adults, and thus limiting natural production in upstream areas. Two allied action items (Action 2.1 and 2.2) relate to this issue. Upstream passage at Crowfoot Falls might be enhanced if additional ambient flow of cool, spring-fed water can be realized during the upstream migration of adult CHS in Big Butte Creek. Determination of the amount of flow needed to enhance upstream migration would be valuable because flows during the critical migration period are significantly affected by water withdrawal from the creek. As part of conservation plan implementation, ODFW conducted enhanced surveys in 2008 on Big Butte Creek to verify current conditions and explore enhancement opportunities. To facilitate the work, ODFW Restoration and Enhancement Program (R&E) grant funding was utilized to hire two seasonal employees to complete the enhanced surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Coho Salmon Peak Counts in Random Spawner Surveys
    SUMMARY OF RANDOM COHO SPAWNER SURVEYS 2001 SPAWNING SEASON PEAK COUNTS (LIVE AND DEAD) ESTIMATED RUN SIZE (AUC) ADULTS JACKS ADULTS JACK NUMBER PER PER PER PER SURVEYS MILES VISITS MILE MILE MILE MILE COAST WIDE 503482.1 5106 15 1 31 1 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 15-Aug-02 PAGE 1 SUMMARY OF RANDOM COHO SPAWNER SURVEYS 2001 SPAWNING SEASON PEAK COUNTS (LIVE AND DEAD) ESTIMATED RUN SIZE (AUC) ADULTS JACKS ADULTS JACKS SEG- NUM PER PER DATE PER PER REACH MENT SURV MILES VISITS PEAK MILE DATE PEAK MILE AUC MILE AUC MILE North Coast 7069.3 717 21 1 39 1 Necanicum River88.4 88 25 2 64 4 Main Stem 8 8.4 88 25 2 64 4 Beerman Cr1 26198.00 3 0.6 10 11 18 12/5/01 2 3 11/1/01 32 53 3 5 Circle Creek1 26204.00 2 1.1 12 27 24 12/5/01 3 3 11/1/01 92 81 7 6 Klootchie Cr1 26214.00 2 1.0 11 23 22 11/18/01 3 3 11/18/01 54 52 5 5 Mail Cr 1 26218.00 1 1.0 12 35 36 11/26/01 4 4 12/4/01 96 98 6 6 Necanicum 1R, N Fk 26228.00 2 1.2 10 19 16 11/27/01 1 1 12/21/01 33 27 1 1 Joe Cr 1 26239.00 1 1.1 11 23 21 12/21/01 2 2 11/8/01 32 29 3 3 Joe Cr 1 26239.00 2 0.8 11 35 43 11/17/01 2 2 11/17/01 104 128 2 2 Necanicum 1R, 26243.00 2 1.5 11 34 23 12/21/01 1 1 12/31/01 66 44 1 1 Bergsvik Cr To Grindy Cr Arch Cape Creek10.8 10 10 0 16 0 Main Stem 1 0.8 10 10 0 16 0 Arch Cape Cr3 26163.00 1 0.8 10 8 10 11/9/01 0 0 13 16 0 0 Nehalem River 61 60.1 619 21 1 36 1 Main Stem 47 45.6 467 18 1 35 1 Vosburg Cr5 25832.00 10.31000000000 Foley Cr 5 25887.00 10.6800000000 Foley Cr 5 25889.00 1 1.2 9 1 1 11/12/01 0 0 1 1 0 0 Foley Cr 5 25893.00 2 0.3 9 4 12 11/12/01 0 0 3 9
    [Show full text]
  • North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed Water Quality
    Water Quality Restoration Plan Southern Oregon Coastal Basin North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Medford District Ashland Resource Area Butte Falls Resource Area Lakeview District Klamath Falls Resource Area May 2006 North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed at a Glance Hydrologic Unit Code Number (Little 1710030708 Butte Creek) WQRP Area/Ownership Total: 125,778 acres BLM: 26,959 acres (21%) U. S. Forest Service: 59,875 acres (48%) Bureau of Reclamation: 5 acres (<.01%) Private: 38,939 acres (31%) 303(d) Stream Miles Assessed Total: 65.4 miles BLM Ownership: 15.7 miles 303(d) Listed Parameters Temperature, Sedimentation, E. Coli, pH Key Resources and Uses Salmonids, domestic, aesthetic Known Human Activities Agriculture, forestry, roads, recreation, rural residential development Natural Factors Geology: volcanic Soils: various series and complexes Statement of Purpose This water quality restoration plan is prepared to meet the requirements of Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. Table of Contents Page Element 1 Condition Assessment and Problem Description 1 A. Introduction 1 B. Watershed Characterization 4 C.Temperature 16 D. Sedimentation 23 E.E.Coli 31 F.pH 34 Element 2 Goals and Objectives 36 Element 3 Proposed Management Measures 39 Element 4 Time Line for Implementation 40 Element 5 Responsible Parties 41 Element 6 Reasonable Assurance of Implementation 41 Element 7 Monitoring and Evaluation 42 Element 8 Public Involvement 44 Element 9 Costs and Funding 44 Element 10 Citation to Legal Authorities 45 References 46 List of Preparers 48 List of Tables Page 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution and Occurrence of the Birds of Jackson County, Oregon
    GAZETTEER Geographical localities to which references are made in the species accounts are listed below. Names are followed by distances from a certain reference point, usually Medford or Ashland. Most of the localities are located on 15-minute quadrangles (scale 1:62500) published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Quadrangles with publica- tion dates covering Jackson County are: Tiller (1944), Abbott Butte (1944), Prospect (1956), Wimer (1954), Trail (1945), Butte Falls (1954), Rustler Peak (1955), Goldhill (1954), Medford (1954), Lake Creek (1954), Mount McLoughlin (1955), Ruch (1954), Talent (1954), Ashland (1954), and Hyatt Reservoir (1955). Spelling, nomenclature, and measurements conform to those appearing on the maps. Measure- ments in parentheses are from the metric scale. Numbers in brackets identify localities shown in Fig. 1. Agate Desert. Open shrub area 4 miles (6.4 km) north of Medford and west of White City [17], Agate Reservoir. A reservoir 8 miles (12.9 km) northeast of Medford; elevation, 1,500 feet (457 m) [22], Anderson Creek. A tributary of Bear Creek beginning 7 miles (11.3 km) south-southwest of Phoenix at 4,189 feet (1,276.8 m) elevation [41]. Applegate River. Locality in species accounts refers to an area near Ruch [46], Ashland. The southernmost city of Jackson County; elevation, 1,951 feet (594.6 m) [44], Baldy or Mount Baldy. A rounded mountain 3 miles (4.8 km) north- east of Phoenix in the western Cascade Mountains; elevation, 3,844 feet (1,171.6 m) [34], Bear Creek. Primary drainage of Bear Creek Valley (from near Ashland to the backwaters of Gold Ray Dam) [42], Big Butte Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • US Army Corps of Engineers Rogue Basin Dam Fisheries Evaluation Effects of Lost Creek Dam on the Distribution and Time of Chinoo
    OREGO@ FISH & WILDLIFE REFERENCE LIBRARY US Army Corps of Engineers %Fish & Wilcffilz; Portland District Rogue Basin Dam Fisheries Evaluation Effects of Lost Creek Dam on the Distribution and Time of Chinook Salmon Spawning in the Rogue River Upstream of Gold Ray Dam May 1991 EFFECTS OF LOST CREEK DAM ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND TIME OF CHINOOK SALMON SPAWNING IN THE ROGUE RTVPD 11P1ZTDr'A OF rnin DAv nAM Rogue Basin Fisheries Evaluation Project Research and Development Section Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2501 SW First Street P.O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 May 1990 The United States Army Corps of Engineers funded this project under contract DACW57-77-C-0033. CONTENTS Paqe FOREWORD ............................................................... ii SUMMARY 1 ................................................................ Spawning I Distribution ............................................. Spawning Ti 1 ..................................................... RECOMMENDATIONS 2 ........................................................ INTRODUCTION 3 ........................................................... METHODS 4 ........................................ ....................... RESULTS 6 ................................................................ Spawning Distribution 6 ............................................. Spawning Time 10 ..................................................... DISCUSSION 17 ............................................................. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 20 ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the Matter of the Determination of the Relative Rights to the Waters of the Rogue River and Its Tributaries : Decree
    I--- I - 1 I __-_._____ ------- - --------- __ -,---_ I -, E & 641, ' IC~ -t Sam 9IMZ ' byV1 'I ~1LII IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ters of said stream are involved in and corporations shall be, and hereby is, for- STATE OF OREGON FOR to 'be determined by, separate adjudica- ever ]barred and estopped from hereafter JACKSON COUNTY. tion and determination proceedings now asserting any rights heretofore acquired pending in this court; and are expressly upon said Rogue River or any of its trib- excluded from consideration, adjudication utaries embraced within these proceedings, IN THE MATTER OF THE DETERMI- or determination in this decree, in so far and shall be held, and hereby is declared, NATION OF THE RELATIVE RIGHTS as said relatiye rights of said claimants to have forfeited all rights to use of the OF THE VARIOUS CLAIMANTS TO to said waters are concerned; and the said waters herein involved, if any he had prior THE WATERS OF ROGUE RIVER relative rights of said claimants shall be hereto, theretofore claimed by him; the AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, ABOVE THE adjudicated and determined in said ad- persons, firms and corporations so being in MOUTH OF THE ILLINOIS RIVER, IN judication proceedings to which they were default herein being as follows, to-wit: JACKSON, JOSEPHINE AND CURRY originally parties, as between themselves, W. C. Armstrong, 0. A. Adams, Wm. Ax- CGCJNTIES. by a decree cn be entered therein; that tell, M'arie V. Arnold, J. W. Adams, Ash- in respect to the rights of each and every land Com. Orchard Co., W.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Forest Watch Report
    Global Forest Watch Report Deforestation, Oregon Style1 By John Talberth2 and Erik Fernandez3 September 2015 Key points • As the catastrophic impacts of climate change accelerate, reversing the loss and degradation of forest ecosystems has become an urgent global priority. • While most decision makers focus on the loss and degradation of forests in developing countries, deforestation in the US is alive and well. What is happening on state and privately managed forestlands in Oregon exemplifies the situation in many other states. • There are four key drivers of deforestation on these lands in Oregon: (1) overcutting (cutting at a rate in excess of forest regrowth); (2) conversion of natural forests to industrial tree plantations; (3) loss of forestlands to roads and other infrastructure, and (4) loss of long-term site productivity. • As compared with the year 2000, Oregon has nearly 522,000 acres less forest cover on its state and privately managed forestlands in western Oregon today. This has primarily been the result of rapid clearcutting at rates that far exceed regrowth. Forest loss to clearcutting has exceeded forest regrowth by 45% between 2000 and 2013. • Over 4 million acres of Oregon’s natural forests have been converted to industrial tree plantations. These plantations are as far from real forests as are industrial cornfields from native grasslands. • The logging road network on state and private forestlands in Oregon has taken another 110,000 to 150,000 acres out of production. • Landslides, erosion, and short rotations are depleting soils and soil productivity. Loss and degradation of soils through industrial forest practices is a slow, but irreversible process.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Big Butte Watershed Analysis Table of Contents
    Lower Big Butte Watershed Analysis Table of Contents 1.0 CHARACTERIZATION of the WATERSHED ................................1 1.1 PHYSICAL ASPECT .................................................1 1.1.a Regional Setting ..............................................1 1.1.b Climate .....................................................1 1.1.c Topography ..................................................1 1.1.d Geology ....................................................1 1.1.e Soils ......................................................1 1.1.f Water Rights .................................................2 1.1.g Hydrology and Water Distribution ..................................2 1.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM ..........................................3 1.2.a Forest Vegetation .............................................3 1.2.b 15% Late-Successional Forest Lands ...............................3 1.2.c Special Status Plants ..........................................3 1.2.d Noxious Weeds ...............................................4 1.2.e Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ........................4 1.2.f Wildlife .....................................................5 1.2.g Grazing ....................................................5 1.3 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM ..............................................5 1.3.a Fish Passage Barriers ..........................................5 1.3.b Fisheries Distribution ...........................................5 1.4 RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEM ..............................................6 1.5 HUMAN/SOCIAL
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2017-2018
    JACKSON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT “Turning natural resource concerns into opportunities” Annual Report July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 Highlights Contents Large-Scale Riparian Restoration Project Along Bear Creek: page 8 Manager’s Message Inside Cover Financial Report i Our Board 1 Our Staff 2 Our Partners in 3 Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Strategic Conservation Implementation Areas: page 9 Project Achievements 6 & Success Stories Eagle Scout Candidates Help Restore Riparian Habitat along Bear Creek: page 14 Middle Rogue PSP 11 Riparian Restoration 11 Rebate Program Hands-on Education 12 The Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District is dedicated to helping the people of Jackson County protect and improve their natural resources. We work with both individuals and communities to analyze and implement science-based solutions to various natural resource concerns, while still protecting the cultural, social and economic values of Jackson County. Manager’s Message habitat, interpretive trails and educational demonstration projects with individuals, ell, another year has come and schools and other local public and private Wgone with several natural resource entities. Kora was able to help many concerns turned into opportunities for of these projects receive funding for many Jackson County citizens. As you will implementation, including grant funds see, district staff has been busy helping from the District. landowners implement stewardship projects. They have developed and Paul DeMaggio, the District’s Soil delivered a wide range of outreach and and water Conservation Engineer, was instrumental in designing and educational projects to engage and implementing a large scale irrigation inspire youth and adults to do their part conversion project in our Focus Area.
    [Show full text]
  • 50 Places Premier Summer Trout Fi Shery Stocked with Rainbow Trout Weekly Campground with River Access, Boat Ramp and ADA Restroom
    41. ROGUE RIVER ABOVE LOST CREEK 48. VALLEY OF THE ROGUE STATE PARK, Common Fish RESERVOIR, Prospect – 42 mi, 55 min. Gold Hill – 16 mi., 20 min. Trout Salmon, steelhead, trout 50 places Premier summer trout fi shery stocked with rainbow trout weekly Campground with river access, boat ramp and ADA restroom. between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Campgrounds and Take I-5 N for 15.5 miles to Exit 45B. Right onto Twin Bridges to go fishing within other public access sites are stocked. More fi shing on naturally Rd. Go under the freeway into the park. ORSP produced trout is available in tributaries, and on the South and 49. WHITEHORSE PARK, Grants Pass – Salmon Middle Forks. Take OR-62 E about 42 miles and look for access Trout Steelhead 60 minutes points and campgrounds. USFS 38 mi., 45 min. Salmon, steelhead, trout 42. SARDINE CREEK/ROCK POINT, Gold Hill – of Medford County campground and day use fee park with restrooms, picnic 13 mi., 18 min. Let’s go fishing on Saturday. Not enough time to go fi shing? Think again – if you live in the Salmon, steelhead, trout area, and boat ramp. Take I-5 N 28 miles to Exit 58. Left onto 6th Str. and go about 2 miles. Right onto G Str. and go 1.3 miles Medford area, there are many places you can get to in less than an hour. Mileage and generalized Undeveloped access site on the Rogue River at the junction of where it becomes Upper River Rd. Go another 4.5 miles to where directions are from Rogue Valley Mall, 1968 Crater Lake Hwy.
    [Show full text]