DOCSLIB.ORG

Origin and Straying of Hatchery Winter Steelhead in Oregon Coastal Rivers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Origin and Straying of Hatchery Winter Steelhead in Oregon Coastal Rivers Transactions of the American Fisheries Society ISSN: 0002-8487 (Print) 1548-8659 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utaf20 Origin and Straying of Hatchery Winter Steelhead in Oregon Coastal Rivers R. Kirk Schroeder , Robert B. Lindsay & Ken R. Kenaston To cite this article: R. Kirk Schroeder , Robert B. Lindsay & Ken R. Kenaston (2001) Origin and Straying of Hatchery Winter Steelhead in Oregon Coastal Rivers, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 130:3, 431-441, DOI: 10.1577/1548-8659(2001)130<0431:OASOHW>2.0.CO;2 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(2001)130<0431:OASOHW>2.0.CO;2 Published online: 09 Jan 2011. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 136 View related articles Citing articles: 16 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utaf20 Download by: [Oregon State University] Date: 02 December 2016, At: 13:22 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:431±441, 2001 q Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2001 Origin and Straying of Hatchery Winter Steelhead in Oregon Coastal Rivers R. KIRK SCHROEDER,* ROBERT B. LINDSAY, AND KEN R. KENASTON Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 28655 Highway 34, Corvallis, Oregon 97333, USA Abstract.ÐWe evaluated the origin and straying of hatchery steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss among 16 rivers on the Oregon coast to examine rearing or release practices that might contribute to straying. Data were collected on the returning adults of three brood years that had been dif- ferentially marked and released as smolts in 1990±1992. The percentage of strays averaged 11% (range, 4±26%) of the samples of hatchery and wild ®sh in 11 streams where hatchery steelhead were released. Stray hatchery ®sh composed a mean of 22% (range, 9±43%) in 5 streams without hatchery releases. The two predominant factors that contributed to straying were releases of stocks transplanted from their natal basins and releases into adjacent basins. Releases of transplanted stocks into adjacent basins accounted for 41% of the strays, while releases of transplanted stocks into nonadjacent basins accounted for 29% of the strays. Local stocks of steelhead released into adjacent basins accounted for 16% of the strays. The incidence of straying by hatchery ®sh and its widespread occurrence in Oregon coastal rivers present genetic and ecological risks to wild populations of winter steelhead. Strategies to reduce straying may include using local brood stocks, rearing and releasing ®sh within their natal basins, reducing the numbers of hatchery ®sh released, and eliminating some hatchery releases altogether. Homing of adult anadromous salmonids to their the genetic diversity between populations and de- natal stream has been recognized as an important crease the ®tness of wild populations through the adaptation in establishing and maintaining distinct displacement or breakdown of locally adapted gene spawning populations through reproductive iso- complexes (Emlen 1991; Waples 1991a). Gene ¯ow lation (Ricker 1972; Horrall 1981). Mature ®sh increases between nonnative hatchery and wild pop- that migrate to and spawn in a stream other than ulations when hatchery strays successfully spawn the one where they originated are considered strays with wild ®sh, and it can result in the reduced fre- (Quinn 1993). Straying is a natural behavior that quency and subsequent loss of locally adapted alleles enables salmonids to colonize new habitat (Milner (Felsenstein 1997). Hatchery strays spawning in sev- and Bailey 1989), to avoid locally unfavorable eral rivers can also result in a genetically homoge- conditions (Leider 1989), to maintain genetic di- nous population (Adkison 1995; Felsenstein 1997). versity within stocks (Horrall 1981), and to per- A potential ecological effect of stray hatchery ®sh petuate metapopulations (Hanski and Gilpin on wild ®sh is competition in spawning and rearing 1997). The genetically distinct structure of anad- areas (Fresh 1997). In addition, large numbers of romous salmonid populations (e.g., Reisenbichler strays can mask trends in the population abundance et al. 1992) suggests that the successful reproduc- of wild ®sh and bias estimates of the survival and tion of strays naturally occurs at low levels. How- exploitation of wild and hatchery stocks (e.g., La- ever, straying of hatchery ®sh concerns ®sh man- belle 1992). agers because of the potential negative impacts on Concerns about the genetic and ecological im- wild populations of interbreeding between wild pacts of hatchery ®sh on wild ®sh have led to and hatchery ®sh (e.g., Waples 1991a). De®ning proposals for assessing and altering hatchery pro- the ``home'' of hatchery ®sh can be dif®cult be- grams (e.g., NRC 1996) as well as to policy chang- cause local stocks are often reared and released in es in ®sh management agencies. For example, a different locations. In addition, stocks of hatchery wild ®sh management policy adopted in Oregon ®sh are often transplanted to nonnatal streams. sets guidelines for the percentage of hatchery ®sh Stray hatchery ®sh can have genetic and ecolog- allowed in a wild spawning population (ODFW ical effects on wild ®sh populations. Hatchery ®sh 1992). The National Marine Fisheries Service that stray and hybridize with wild ®sh can reduce (NMFS) is also developing guidelines for man- aging stray hatchery ®sh in its efforts to protect * Corresponding author: [email protected] natural populations under the Endangered Species Received April 11, 2000; accepted January 4, 2001 Act (McElhany et al. 2000). Strategies to reduce 431 432 SCHROEDER ET AL. the number of hatchery ®sh in a river basin depend, categories, namely, local stocks and transplanted in part, on knowing the number and origin of the stocks. Local stocks were steelhead released into strays that occur with natural spawners. In addi- their natal basins and included those reared within tion, knowledge of hatchery release practices that the natal basin and those reared outside but re- contribute to straying is important for modifying leased within the natal basin. Transplanted stocks hatchery programs. were steelhead taken from their natal basin and Studies of straying have examined hatchery prac- released into another basin. Some transplanted tices such as release time (Unwin and Quinn 1993; stocks were reared within the basin where they Pascual et al. 1995) and release location (Pascual were released, but most were reared outside the and Quinn 1994; Pascual et al. 1995). A few studies release basin. have examined straying of hatchery salmon Oncor- Release groups returned as adults in the 1991± hynchus spp. over large geographic areas (Labelle 1992 through the 1993±1994 run years. We collected 1992; Unwin and Quinn 1993; Pascual and Quinn data on stray hatchery ®sh in 12 streams by using 1994). Studies of straying in steelhead O. mykiss have trap catches and creel surveys. Seven of these focused on small geographic scales (Shapovalov and streams were stocked with hatchery steelhead (the Taft 1954; Leider 1989) or the effects of smolt trans- Nestucca, Siletz, Yaquina, Alsea, Siuslaw, Coquille, portation in the Columbia River basin (Slatick et al. and Chetco rivers), and ®ve streams received no 1988). We are aware of just one study that examined hatchery ®sh (the Trask, Elk, Sixes, and Winchuck straying of steelhead over a large geographic area rivers, and Drift Creek) (Figure 1). In addition, we (Lirette and Hooton 1988). Our study was initiated used data reported by anglers to examine the per- to examine the origin and straying of hatchery winter centage of stray hatchery ®sh in four streams that steelhead among rivers on the Oregon coast, as well were stocked with hatchery steelhead (the Necani- as to examine the factors in¯uencing patterns of cum, Nehalem, Umpqua, and Rogue rivers). Anglers straying. voluntarily collected scales and reported clip infor- mation under an ODFW program to obtain infor- Methods mation about the catch of steelhead. In this study we considered hatchery steelhead We estimated straying within a surveyed basin as strays if they returned to a river basin other than as the percentage of the total sample of winter the one where they were released. Studies have steelhead (hatchery and wild) that was of stray demonstrated that hatchery steelhead tend to return hatchery origin. We could not calculate a stray rate to speci®c release sites within a river basin (Wag- (i.e., the percentage of a release group that strayed) ner 1969; Slaney et al. 1993). We examined the because we could not account for all adult returns origin of stray steelhead and their spatial distri- of a given release. The hatchery portion of the bution in rivers along the Oregon coast over a return to a basin was divided into a homing com- distance of about 500 km (Figure 1). ponent (those from releases into that basin) and a Hatchery winter steelhead were differentially straying component (those from releases into other marked by excising ®ns or maxillary bones for basins). In catch-and-release ®sheries, we deter- three brood years at seven steelhead hatcheries on mined the catch of wild ®sh from angler interviews the Oregon coast (Figure 1) and were released as during creel surveys. We assigned returning adults smolts in 1990±1992 (Table 1). We generally var- to a release year by using circuli patterns on scales ied the marks within and among release groups to determine age (Chapman 1958). Where no over the 3-year study to reduce bias in estimates scales were available, we used ®sh length to es- of straying attributed to particular groups. Because timate the age of adults. the number of distinct clip combinations is limited Some steelhead had marks that could not be as- and because a few hatcheries that released steel- signed to a particular release and were classed as head into several basins were unable to rear sep- ``unknown'' strays.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rainbow Rock Condominiums' Drinking Water Protection Area
    Source Water Assessment Report Rainbow Rock Condominiums Brookings, Oregon PWS #4101361 April 17, 2003 Prepared for Rainbow Rock Condominiums Prepared by rt:•~ i •l =<•1 State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division Drinking Water P~otection Program )(OHS . ()n•g[Jn rk'f)flrtmr'nt of H~Jm(.ln Sc~rviccs Drinking Water Program Department of Environmental Quality reg on 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1390 Theodore R. Kulongoski, Coven1or 503-229-5696 TTY 503-229-6993 April 1 7, 2003 Don Bryant Rainbow Rock Condominiums PO Box 6313 Brookings, Oregon 97415 RE: Source Water Assessment Report Rainbow Rock Condominiums PWS # 4101361 Dear Mr. Bryant: Enclosed is the Source Water Assessment Report for Rainbow Rock Condominiums' drinking water protection area. The assessment was prepared under the requirements and guidance of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the US Environmental Protection Agency, as well as a detailed Source Water Assessment Plan developed by a statewide citizen's advisory committee here in Oregon over the past two years. The Department ofEnviromnental Quality (DEQ) and the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) are conducting the assessments for all public water systems in Oregon. The purpose is to provide information so that the public water system staff/operator, consumers, and community citizens can begin developing strategies to protect your source of drinking water. As you kuow, the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act requires Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) by community water systems. CCRs include information about the quality of the drinking water, the source of the drinking water, and a sununary of the source water assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Chetco River Steelhead Report
    Chetco River Steelhead Report Mystagogic and arboreous Shelby agonized her chazans imparl glowingly or hovel maritally, is Joachim hard? How bloomier is Theodoric when massy and weak Irwin averring some valeta? Beneficiary and fractious Darby perennate: which French is vinicultural enough? Conditions will be maintaining our shorter, isonychia fly shop building in southern oregon on northern california state and chetco river tailwaters lodge. Best results for steelhead runs of all oregon, report for chinook move up or future stock photography and chetco river steelhead report started last week. An ice box, the day and most of natural colors for all have a very often fishes when releasing fish well be following day includes lunch, chetco river steelhead report search training to. Try lures is salmon fishing well as the river stream area road, chetco river steelhead report. My preferred method is nice chetco river steelhead report for steelhead on charts and fun filled days should be muddy for del norte to. Try again later salmon stocks, chetco river steelhead report. Gonna work hard fought second place, river report is. The chetco steelhead are passionate about all the green water to hundreds of sandy ground. This is one of the later salmon runs and produces some of the largest salmon on the west coast. Rains blow the Chetco out, King Salmon on the move! Please handle them nicely. Alternatively you can expect significant snow showers late next weekend the chetco river over time frame february at chetco river steelhead report the standard small minnow imitation lures like. The chetco flows dropped into magical march with shane, chetco river steelhead report.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Highlights in Oregon - 2012
    United States Forest Service Oregon Department of Forestry Department of Pacific Northwest Region Forest Health Section Agriculture Forest Health Protection Forest Health Highlights in Oregon - 2012 May 2013 Forest Health Highlights In Oregon – 2012 Joint publication contributors: Rob Flowers¹ Wyatt Williams¹ Alan Kanaskie¹ Alison Nelson² Michael McWilliams¹ Robert Schroeter² ¹Oregon Department of Forestry ²U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Front cover: Douglas-fir on the west slopes of the Coast Range with obvious yellow to yellow-brown foliage indicates moderate-to-severe infection by Swiss needle cast. Shown also are western hemlock (dark green) and red alder (light green). (Photo by Alan Kanaskie, Oregon Dept. of Forestry ) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Coverage area and flight lines for the statewide aerial survey of Oregon forests, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Motor Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest FSEIS
    United States Department of Agriculture FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1 Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest for the greatest good September 2015 VicinityVicinity Map Map OREGON Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest High Cascades Powers 5 ¨¦§ Grants Pass Wild Rivers Gold Beach Medford I Siskiyou Mountains Wild Rivers OREGON CALIFORNIA The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Lead Agency: TARGET CenterUSDA at Forest(202) 720 Service-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaintIn accordance of discrimination, with Federal write civil to rights USDA, law Director, and U.S. Office Department of of Civil Rights,Rogue 1400 River-Siskiyou Independence Avenue,National S.W., Forest Washington,Agriculture D.C. 20250 -(USDA)9410, or civilcall (800)rights 795 regulations-3272 (voice) and or policies, (202) the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Geography
    Oregon Geography 4th Grade Social Studies Medford School District 549c Created by: Anna Meunier and Sarah Flora Oregon Geography 4th Grade Social Studies Medford School District 549c Table of Contents Oregon Geography Unit Syllabus ........................................................................ 1 Oregon Geography Unit Objectives ..................................................................... 2 Oregon Geography Unit Lesson Plans.................................................................. 3 Print Shop Order ................................................................................................. 4 Oregon Geography Unit Lessons ......................................................................... 6 Oregon Geography Daily Lessons ...................................................................... 19 Lesson #1 ........................................................................................................................................ Lessons #2 & #3 .............................................................................................................................. Lesson #4 ........................................................................................................................................ Lesson #5 ........................................................................................................................................ Lesson #6 .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis
    W Dl9.9.uMENT -*5 H 86x I/ Hunter Creek A OplO V<f 0'' "I* voev *I' W- VPO.-O 'rf VW0.11 'r " Engineering, Science, and Technology 3841 North Freeway Boulevard Sacramento, CA 95834 I have read this analysis and find it meets the Standards and Guidelines for watershed analysis required by The Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. (April 1994). SIGNED A /t/ .I /gI(/V DATE /7-/ / 49y- District Ranger Gold Beach Ranger District Siskiyou National Forest Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis Prepared for USDA Forest Service Siskiyou National Forest Gold Beach Ranger District 29279 Ellensburg Avenue Gold Beach, OR. 97444 Prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 3841 N. Freeway Blvd. Suite 145 Sacramento, CA. 95834 August 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1-1 1.1 ANALYSIS PROCESS ............. ................................ 1-1 1.2 ANALYSIS OF ECOSYSTEM ELEMENTS ............................. 1-1 2.0 CULTURAL AND PHYSICAL FEATURES .................... .............. 2-1 2.1 MANAGEMENT ALLOCATION .................................... 2-1 2.2 PHYSICAL SETTING .............................................. 2-1 2.2.1 Bedrock Geology ............ ............................... 2-1 2.2.2 Lithologies . ............................................... 2-6 2.2.3 Structure .................................................. 2-6 2.3 CULTURAL ELEMENT ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • The 2005 Coastal Cutthroat Trout Symposium
    THE 2005 COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT SYMPOSIUM Status, Management, Biology, and Conservation Major support for the 2005 Coastal Cutthroat Trout Symposium was provided by Oregon Chapter of the Pacific States Marine U.S. Fish and Wildlife American Fisheries Society Fisheries Commission Service Additional support for the symposium and for publication of these proceedings was provided by North Pacific International Chapter AFS Humboldt Chapter AFS Alaska Chapter AFS American Fisheries Society South Sound Flyfishers Clark-Skamania Flyfishers Lower Columbia Flyfishers Washington Fly Fishing Club Port Townsend Chapter of Trout Unlimited Fine Art and Books for Raffle and Auction provided by Washington Trout G. Loomis Bruce Ferguson Les Johnson THE 2005 COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT SYMPOSIUM Status, Management, Biology, and Conservation Proceedings of a Workshop Fort Worden State Park Port Townsend, Washington September 29-October 1, 2005 Edited by Patrick J. Connolly, Thomas H. Williams, and Robert E. Gresswell Published by Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Portland, Oregon 2008 Suggested citation formats: Entire book Connolly, P. J., T. H. Williams, and R. E. Gresswell, editors. 2008. The 2005 coastal cutthroat trout symposium: status, management, biology, and conservation. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Portland. Article within book Anderson, J. D. 2008. Coastal cutthroat trout in Washington state: status and management. Pages 11-23 in P. J. Connolly, T. H. Williams, and R. E. Gresswell, editors. The 2005 coastal cutthroat
    [Show full text]
  • Book of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria
    i NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-37 Status Review of Coastal Cutthroat Trout from Washington, Oregon, and California Orlay W. Johnson, Mary H. Ruckelshaus, W. Stewart Grant, F. William Waknitz, Ann M. Garrett, Gregory J. Bryant, Kathleen Neely, and Jeffrey J. Hard Conservation Biology Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service 2725 Montlake Blvd. E Seattle, WA 98112-2097 January 1999 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE William M. Daley, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration D. James Baker, Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service Rolland A. Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x xi xii xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This status review examines coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) in California, Oregon, and Washington to determine whether they face a risk of extinction if present conditions continue. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) initiated this status review, which was also requested by a 1997 petition seeking listing of all O. c. clarki in those three states as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The NMFS decision to conduct this status review follows the agency’s announcement, in response to earlier petitions and to general concerns about the status of Pacific salmon throughout the region, to initiate ESA status reviews for all species and populations of anadromous salmonids, including coastal cutthroat trout, in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. The ESA allows listing “distinct population segments” of vertebrates and named species and subspecies. The policy of the NMFS on this issue for anadromous Pacific salmonids is that a population will be considered “distinct” for purposes of the ESA if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the species as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management
    United States Department of Agriculture Rogue River-Siskiyou Forest Service National Forest Pacific Northwest Region Land and Resource September 2015 Management Plans Monitoring and Evaluation Report Fiscal Year 2014 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Fiscal Year 2014 Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1 Background ...............................................................................................................................................1 Forest Plan Monitoring Strategies .............................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Local and Special Regulations
    Chapter 511 Local and Special Regulations GENERAL PROVISIONS ALSEA BAY YAQUINA BAY SILETZ RIVER AREAS 511005 Where angling permitted means natural person holding game commission license 511405 Use of drift nets in Alsea Bay and River 511010 Determining size of mesh of nets 511410 Angling and use of fishing appliances in Yaquina Bay COLUMBIA RIVER AREA 511415 Angling and use of drift nets in Siletz River Drift and Schooner Creeks 511105 Use of drag and whip seines prohibited COOS BAY COQUILLE RIVER AREAS 511110 Use of certain fishing appliances to take certain fish prohibited 511505 Use of fishing appliances in Coos Bay and tributaries 511115 Seizure and sale of fishing appliances un lawful under ORS 511105 and 511110 511510 Taking striped bass with drift and set 511120 Indian fishing rights and state or federal nets in Coos Bay and tributaries sale fortfeiture of illegal gear and license propagation or scientific projects un affected 511515 Angling and use of drift nets set nets 511125 Angling and use of fishing appliances west and seines in Coquille River of Deschutes River west of Cascade NEHALEM RIVER AND NESTUCCA NETARTS Locks and within three miles from AND TILLAMOOK BAY AREAS mouth of Columbia River 511130 Mouth of Columbia River defined 511605 Angling and use of drift nets in Nehalem 511135 Use of fishing appliances east of Des River and tributaries chutes River 511610 Taking crabs in Nehalem Bay and River 511140 Seizure and sale of fish and fishing appli 511612 Nestucca Bay and tributaries angling ances unlawful under ORS 511135
    [Show full text]
  • Lanphere National Natural Landmark Evaluation
    Evaluation of Lanphere / Ma-le’l Dunes Humboldt County, California For its Merit in Meeting National Significance Criteria as a National Natural Landmark to Represent Siskiyou – Klamath Coastal Sand Dunes in the North Pacific Border Biophysiographic Province Peter Alpert and James S. Kagan May 2019 Contact Information: Peter Alpert, Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003 James S. Kagan, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. Institute for Natural Resources – Portland, Portland State University. Mailstop: INR. P.O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon 97207. Citation: Alpert, P. and J.S. Kagan, 2019. Evaluation of Lanphere / Ma-le’l Dunes, Humboldt County, California for its Merit in Meeting National Significance Criteria as a National Natural Landmark to Represent Siskiyou – Klamath Coastal Sand Dunes in the North Pacific Border Biophysiographic Province. National Park Service Technical Report, National Natural Landmarks Program, Fort Collins, CO. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the work of the many people who participated in the evaluation of the North Pacific Border province coastal dunes theme studies. The authors would also like to acknowledge the help, support and patience of our partners at the National Park Service, in particular Laurette Jenkins, who took this on as her first project, and has done a wonderful job, helping us with formatting, questions, and direction on the project. We also especially thank Steve Gibbons, who recently left the Pacific West Region’s NNL program job after 22 years to become the superintendent of Mount Lassen National Park and who inspired us to take on this report. Both authors would like to recognize Andrea Pickart, for her help, great photos, guidance, and advice.
    [Show full text]