Restoration of Cottonwood Lakes California Golden Trout Brood Stock Background Evolution of coastal rainbow trout, Kern River Basin California golden trout Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita Little Kern golden trout Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei Kern River rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti Mulkey Creek GT transfer to Cottonwood Creek - 1876
History of High Country Management AnimalAerial Stocking Powered Stocking
CAGT genetic analysis rainbow in review pure golden – introgression gradient in SFK – hybridization localized in GTC headwater lakes •Cordes et al., •Cordes et al. 2006 (TAFS 135:110-128) Microsatellite analyses:
r e California golden trout iv R Fork Kern
h
t
u
. o
Previous microsatellite results for
Cr S
t
u
o r
T
n
e
d
l
o G Application of SNP markers: California golden trout • 42 CAGT (8 SNPs) • 24 CAGT (previous microsatellite data) • 6 monitoring •2 WY samples • 5 rainbow reference • 3 hatcheries (MSS, MWS, HCS) • 2 wild (N.F. Amer., N.F. Navarro) • Bayesian analysis of Samples Admixture X Barriers (STRUCTURE) Native CAGT Range Golden Trout Creek
snp
usat
South Fork Kern WY rainbow
rainbow trout golden trout snp data not taken usat
Samples ordered from headwater to mouth for each major drainage for Golden Trout Creek and South Fork Kern River; Wyoming samples from Wind River, WY Stephens, M.R. 2007. “Systematics, genetics, cultural history and conservation of golden trout.” Dissertation, University of California, Davis. Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the California Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita) Tulare County, California California Department of Fish and Game San Joaquin Valley and Southern Sierra Region USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Inyo National Forest Sequoia National Forest U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Office
September 17, 2004 Best GT-C Population Task 1.2k – Establish refuges for California golden trout • Refuges for California golden trout will be established • The genetics management plan will provide recommendations for numbers of adult fish needed to replicate the genetic diversity of the donor population. • Transplants will be made over multiple years to strengthen this genetic diversity. • Five years after refuges are established, genetic characteristics will be compared with the donor populations. Additional fish will be transplanted if the refuge population does not represent the genetic diversity of the donor population. CAGT Genetics Management Plan • Protect and restore CAGT genetic integrity • Improve riparian and instream habitat • Establish GT refuge populations, including populations outside their historic range – Cottonwood Lakes
,
k
s
e
k
e
e
e
k
r
e
a
C
r l
,
s
C
e
h
e
t
n
p i
k
n
o
P
a
e
h
L
v
g
s
i
i
e
e
B
B
r
S
k u
k
r d
r
s
o
n o
a
F a
F
e
r
h
h h
t
T t
t
r
u
x
o
i
o
N S
S
,
s
k
e
e
k
e
a
r
L d
k C
n
e
e
e
l
a
e
n r
b ,
i
a k C
s
P
c
e
G
e
o k
c
l
a
t
n
l
a
e
d
,
M m
i
n
s
, l
n
e
i e
h
S
y
p
u k
c
e
e l
q a
l
n
,
d
a k
L
a
e
s
n
e o
I
V e
k B
J
e
k
r
o
s
n a
e o C
a
r L
k
k
S
a
B
d c
l L
k
o
n
r a
k
r
e
r
R
l o ,
e
t e
n
e
t i e F t
e
i
r
u k s
m L
e
l q a a
C
E
a d
L
E
e
d , o
i
d
n
J
2
a
e
M
4
l k
n
c
, 7
e e
a s
e 7
e
a
H S
r
k 1
C
a
k
C
e
r
L
k
o d
r
a
o
F
e
L o
e
l
w
w
d
o
k Current MYLF Restoration Projects
r
d
i T
i
K
M Inlet
7th Lake Inlet
6th Lake Outlet 13 Nets
18 Nets
Outlet Over-Winter Netting
6
PHASE I
5
4 3
Cabin PHASE II
2 1 Why should we do this project?
• Establish GT refuge populations • Meet AB7 mandates of increased use of native trout. GT is one of the native trout that would meet the mandate, however, there is some question about using highly introgressed trout • Proven performance for hatchery broodstock • This is our State fish, yet it is poorly represented in our High Elevation Lakes Management program 6
5
4 Fish barrier between Cottonwood lakes 3 and 4
Hatchery broodstock trapping Cottonwood Lake 4 Cottonwood Lake 6 Fishless 2007/08 Winter fish kill in pond below Cottonwood Lake 6 CDFG Cabin
6 - FISHLESS
5
4 • Rotenone needed for stream reach between lakes 5 and 6 – Phase I only • Could be minimized to ~300 meters • Would save money to treat this entire stream reach ~1700 meters versus just 300 meters • BUT, not at the expense of doing the project • 2009 would be CEQA/NEPA compliance and chemical treatment proposal application, including any needed invertebrate impact analysis • Personnel and Funding sources •SWG •SFRA • Kern River Fund • Hatchery personnel assistance • Multiple regions involved
GT X RT caught at Big Desolation Lake, September, 2008 Cottonwood Lakes broodstock offspring