DOCSLIB.ORG

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-118. Scientific

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-118. Scientific NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-118 Scientific Conclusions of the Status Review for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) June 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC series to issue scientific and technical publications. Manuscripts have been peer reviewed and edited. Documents published in this series may be cited in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS- F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be referenced as follows: Stout, H.A., P.W. Lawson, D.L. Bottom, T.D. Cooney, M.J. Ford, C.E. Jordan, R.G. Kope, L.M. Kruzic, G.R. Pess, G.H. Reeves, M.D. Scheuerell, T.C. Wainwright, R.S. Waples, E. Ward, L.A. Weitkamp, J.G. Williams, and T.H. Williams. 2012. Scientific conclusions of the status review for Oregon coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-118, 242 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-118 Scientific Conclusions of the Status Review for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Heather A. Stout, Peter W. Lawson, Daniel L. Bottom, Thomas D. Cooney, Michael J. Ford, Chris E. Jordan, Robert G. Kope, Lance M. Kruzic,1 George R. Pess, Gordon H. Reeves,2 Mark D. Scheuerell, Thomas C. Wainwright, Robin S. Waples, Eric Ward, Laurie A. Weitkamp, John G. Williams, and Thomas H. Williams3 Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, Washington 98112 1NMFS Northwest Regional Office 2900 Northwest Stewart Parkway Roseburg, Oregon 97471 2U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station 333 Southwest First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 3Southwest Fisheries Science Center 110 Shaffer Road Santa Cruz, California 95060 June 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Most NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS-NWFSC are available at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center Web site, http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Phone orders: 1-800-553-6847 E-mail orders: [email protected] ii Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... xiii Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Previous BRT Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 7 ESU Determination................................................................................................................................... 7 Status Evaluation in 1994 ......................................................................................................................... 9 Status Evaluation in 1996 ......................................................................................................................... 9 Status Evaluation in 2003 ....................................................................................................................... 11 New Contributions to Understanding and Assessing Status of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ..................... 14 ESU Delineation ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Artificial Propagation—Membership in the ESU ................................................................................... 15 Population Delineation ........................................................................................................................... 15 Definition of Biogeographic Strata ......................................................................................................... 18 Biological Recovery Criteria Used to Inform Risk Assessment ............................................................. 18 New Comments ........................................................................................................................................... 20 Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Symposium .................................................................................................... 23 New Data and Updated Analyses................................................................................................................ 26 Current Biological Status ........................................................................................................................ 26 Factors for Decline and Threats .............................................................................................................. 53 Overall Risk Assessments ......................................................................................................................... 114 Risk Matrix Approach .......................................................................................................................... 115 Summary of Risk Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 117 Significant Portion of its Range Question ............................................................................................ 119 Glossary .................................................................................................................................................... 121 References ................................................................................................................................................. 129 Appendix A: Threats Matrix and DSS Criteria ......................................................................................... 153 Appendix B: Disturbance .......................................................................................................................... 157 iii Appendix C: Summary of Findings of the BRT-ODFW Habitat Trends Working Group ....................... 163 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 163 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 165 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 168 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 172 Appendix D: Peer Reviews and Public Comments with the BRT’s Responses ....................................... 175 Comments of Eight Peer Reviewers ..................................................................................................... 175 Comments of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ................................................................. 193 Comments of the MidCoast Watersheds Council Coordinator ............................................................ 205 Comments of Douglas County, Oregon................................................................................................ 212 iv List of Figures Figure 1. West Coast coho salmon ESUs .................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Critical habitat designation for the OCCS ESU, February 2008 .................................................. 5 Figure 3. Historical populations and biogeographic strata for OCCS ESU ............................................... 17 Figure 4. OCCS naturally produced recruits per spawner, 1972–2009 ..................................................... 28 Figure 5. OCCS naturally produced recruits, 1969–2008 .......................................................................... 28 Figure 6. Comparison of historical and recent estimates of spawner abundance and preharvest recruits ....................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 7. Trends in natural spawner abundance for the whole ESU and the five biogeographic strata ...................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Water-Resources of Western Douglas County, Oregon
    WATER-RESOURCES OF WESTERN DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON By D.A. Curtiss, C. A. Collins, and E.A. Oster U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 83-4017 Prepared in cooperation with DOUGLAS COUNTY PORTLAND,OREGON 1984 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas Peck, Director For additional information write to: U.S. Geological Survey 847 N.E. 19th Ave., Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97232 i i CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Previous Investigations 2 Geographic features 2 Geolog ic setti ng 8 Tertiary marine sedimentary rocks 8 Quaternary sediments 8 Coastal deposits 9 Fluvial deposits 10 Ground-water resources 10 Recharge 11 Movement 11 Di scharge 12 Water-level fluctuations 13 Potential well yields 13 Water quality 16 General characteristics 16 Area I variations 17 Surface water 20 Mean annual flow 20 Peak flows 20 Low flows 23 Water quality 25 Umpqua River near Elkton 25 Small streams 25 Extent of saltwater intrusion in the Umpqua River estuary 27 Selected lakes 30 Summary of water-resources conditions 36 SeIected references 38 Supp I ementa I data 43 ILLUSTRATIONS [Plate is in pocket] Plate 1. Map of generalized geologic map of western Douglas County, Oregon, showing wells and springs, and stiff diagrams for water sampled for chemical ana Iysi s Page Figure 1. Index map of study area 3 2. Map showing the average annual precipitation in the study area 4 3. Graph showing maximum, average, and minimum precipitation at Reedsport, 1938-79 5 4. Graph showing cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Astoria, Gardiner, and Reedsport 6 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II Appendix F
    Volume II –Appendix F - Fisheries Appendix F – Fisheries Table of Contents 1. FISHERIES...................................................................................................... 1 2. FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE FISHERIES ................................................... 1 2.A. Water Quality..................................................................................................................................... 2 2.B. Water Quantity and Physical Habitat.............................................................................................. 2 3. ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS....................................................................... 3 4. ASSESSMENT OF FISH RESOURCES............................................................ 4 5. BASIN OVERVIEW......................................................................................... 5 6. SUB-BASIN DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 6 6.A. Coastal / Umpqua River Sub-basins................................................................................................. 7 6.A.1. Minimum Flows ................................................................................................................................. 7 6.A.2. Distribution and Abundance............................................................................................................... 7 6.A.3. Recreation........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cascadia Subduction Zone) Tsunami Inundation Map Tsunami Inundation Maps for Gardiner, W
    STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES Tsunami Inundation Map Doug-03 www.OregonGeology.org Local Source (Cascadia Subduction Zone) Tsunami Inundation Map Tsunami Inundation Maps for Gardiner, W. Lawrence Givens, Governing Board Chair Douglas County, Oregon Vicki S. McConnell, Director and State Geologist Andree V. Pollock, Assistant Director, Geologic Survey and Services Gardiner, Oregon Plate 1 Rachel L. Smith, Project Operations Manager Ian P. Madin, Chief Scientist 2013 124°12'0"W 124°10'0"W 124°8'0"W 124°6'0"W 100 200 rm 200 100 25 A Introduction y 100 r D r I L E R he I V E M C 200 F The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) Oregon. DOGAMI has also incorporated physical evidence that suggests rm has been identifying and mapping the tsunami inundation hazard along that portions of the coast may drop 4 to 10 feet during the earthquake; s A Bas 100 the Oregon coast since 1994. In Oregon, DOGAMI manages the National this effect is known as subsidence. Detailed information on fault 25 Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, which has been administered by geometries, subsidence, computer models, and the methodology used to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) since create the tsunami scenarios presented on this map can be found in Tahkenitch 1995. DOGAMI’s work is designed to help cities, counties, and other sites DOGAMI Special Papers 41 (Priest and others, 2009) and 43 (Witter and Lake 200 25 25 in coastal areas reduce the potential for disastrous tsunami-related others, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Final Coastal Lakes Aquatic Plant Survey Report
    Portland State University PDXScholar Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations Center for Lakes and Reservoirs 1-1-2013 Final Coastal Lakes Aquatic Plant Survey Report Mary Pfauth Portland State University Mark Sytsma Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/centerforlakes_pub Part of the Fresh Water Studies Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Pfauth, Mary and Sytsma, Mark, "Final Coastal Lakes Aquatic Plant Survey Report" (2013). Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations. 22. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/centerforlakes_pub/22 This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Final Coastal Lakes Aquatic Plant Survey Report Prepared for: USDA Forest Service Prepared by Mary Pfauth and Mark Sytsma Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Portland State University Portland, OR 97207-0751 www.clr.pdx.edu March, 2005 v. 03.09.05 Coastal Lakes Aquatic Plant Survey Report Contents Section 1.01 Introduction ..............................................................................1 Section 1.02 Methods ...................................................................................2 Section 1.03 Results .....................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Coast Trail, Central Coast NORTH SEE ADJOINING MAP Trail “OCT, N
    www.visittheoregoncoast.com NOTE: Content specified is from time of PDF creation. Please check website for up-to-date information or for changes. Maps are illustrative in nature and should be used for reference only. LAST UPDATED: 16.07.2018 MAPS DEVELOPED BY: 0 5.0 mi. 10.0 mi. Oregon Coast Trail, Central Coast NORTH SEE ADJOINING MAP Trail “OCT, N. CENTRAL COAST” TO NEWPORT Alsea Bay Trail (bushwacking) Alsea River Primary Hwy Alsea Hwy Secondary Hwy/Rd 101 20 SEGMENT 16 Forest Rd (major) SEE DETAIL MAP: Beachside Wakonda Beach Forest Rd (minor) ALSEA BAY TO YACHATS Campground Airport Featured Route Tillicum Beach Campground TO CORVALLIS Alternate Route SAN MARINE STATE PARK YACHATS ENLARGE Cape Perpetua Trailhead Highest point on the Oregon coast – EL 803’ Giant Spruce SEGMENT 17 CAPE PERPETUA Cape Perpetua Parking SEE DETAIL MAP: MARINE RESERVE Campground YACHATS TO ROCK CREEK Searose Beach Restrooms Stonefield Beach Vault Toilet Rocky Creek Campground Hobbit Beach Picnic Area ENLARGE Picnic Shelter SEGMENT 18 WASHBURNE STATE PARK Washburne SP Campground ENLARGE SEE DETAIL MAP: Heceta Head ROCK CREEK TO Lighthouse Lighthouse SUTTON CREEK Sea Lion Caves Historic Landmark Alder Dune Baker Beach Campground TO EUGENE Vista / Viewpoint Sutton Campground 126 Heceta Beach Marina Darlingtonia SEGMENT 19 State Natural Site Boat Ramp SEE DETAIL MAP: SUTTON CREEK TO PACIFIC OCEAN South Jetty FLORENCE Sand Dunes Beaches GOOSE PASTURE Florence S. Jetty Municipal Airport Campground Rd OREGON DUNES NATIONAL HONEYMAN STATE PARK Backcountry Campsite
    [Show full text]
  • Central Coast 43
    CENTRAL COAST 43 44 45 18 To Salem 46 idal estuaries, long sandy beaches, and active sand dunes accented by a few 48 47 49 rocky outcroppings and coastal islands comprise the heart of the Coast. In- Lincoln City T 101 land the Siuslaw National Forest’s 630,000 acres, in the Coast Range, have four 52 major rivers flowing through on their way to the Pacific Ocean. Explore Lincoln 50 51 City’s seven miles of beach and two large estuaries, scope the roiling waters of Siletz Bay 53 55 Boiler Bay for pelagic birds, or ascend Cape Foulweather for expansive ocean 54 views. At Newport’s Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area, feel the frenzy of 56 one of the largest Common Murre nesting colonies on the coast. Drive the scenic 57 r 58 Yaquina Bay Road in winter to see all six species of grebes occurring in Oregon in Siletz Rive one location. Continue south to Seal Rock for Pigeon Guillemot and Harlequin 59 Depoe Bay Cape Foulweather Duck floating on the waves and Western Gull lining the coastal islands, and to 60 229 the south jetty of the Siuslaw River in Florence to glimpse flocks of Semipalmat- 61 ed Plover and Least and Western Sandpiper on migration. 62 Yaquina Head Lighthouse 63 Newport 20 43. Knight Park 44. Salmon River Estuary Yaquina Bay Lighthouse From Hwy 101 in Lincoln City, drive From Hwy 101 in Lincoln City, drive 68-74 64 To ledo 66 N, cross the Salmon River Bridge and N 0.4 mi past the Hwy 18 overpass, 65 67 turn W (L) on Three Rocks Rd, drive cross the Salmon River Bridge, and r Yaq ve To Corvallis 2.4 mi, turn L into Knight Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Lakes Strategic Action Plan for Coho Salmon Recovery
    The Coastal Lakes Strategic Action Plan for Coho Salmon Recovery FIP Draft Copy June 28 2018 Note: This SAP is still under development, and is near final draft version at the time of the FIP application deadline. Coastal Lakes Strategic Action Plan for Coho Recovery Page 0 Contents Contributors and Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ 3 Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction: Why Coho? ........................................................................................................ 9 1.1 A Keystone Species ......................................................................................................... 10 1.2 An Indicator Watershed Function .................................................................................. 11 1.3 A Threatened Species ..................................................................................................... 12 1.4 A Unique Opportunity for Recovery .............................................................................. 12 1.5 A Locally Led Partnership ............................................................................................... 12 1. An Overview of the Siuslaw Coho Partnership and the Coastal Lakes Plan ........................
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment for USDA Forest Service (Pacific Northwest
    Biological Assessment for USDA Forest Service (Pacific Northwest Region), USDI Bureau of Land Management (Oregon State Office) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs Fish Habitat Restoration Activities Affecting ESA-Listed Animal and Plant Species and their Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat and Designated Essential Fish Habitat under MSA found in Oregon, Washington and parts of California, Idaho and Nevada Prepared by USDA Forest Service (Pacific Northwest Region), Bureau of Land Management (Oregon State Office) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs In Partnership with US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Submitted to US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries January 28, 2013 Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 A. Background ....................................................................................................................... 2 B. ARBA II Activity Categories ............................................................................................ 8 C. ARBA II Geographic Scope ............................................................................................ 11 D. ARBA II Projects on Non-Federal Lands ....................................................................... 12 E. ARBA II Project Inclusion by Amendment .................................................................... 12 F. ARBA II Projects funded with Timber Sale or Stewardship Contracting Receipts .......
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II - Assessment I
    Volume II - Assessment i Volume II - Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1 1.A. Program Goal and Objectives....................................................................................................... 2 1.B. Natural Resources Division Activities .......................................................................................... 3 1.C. Background..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.C.1. Douglas County............................................................................................................................... 4 1.C.2. State of Oregon ............................................................................................................................... 7 1.D. Water Quality................................................................................................................................. 8 1.D.1. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Assessments ....................................................................... 8 2. SUB-BASIN ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................... 10 2.A. Umpqua River / Coastal Lakes Sub-basins................................................................................ 10 2.A.1. Area Description..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis: Origin of the Coos Bay Dune Sheet, South Central Coast, Oregon
    THESIS APPROVAL The abstract and thesis of Darren L. Beckstrand for the Master of Science in Geology presented November 22, 2000, and accepted by the thesis committee and the Department. COMMITTEE APPROVALS: _______________________________________ Curt D. Peterson, Chair _______________________________________ Errol C. Stock _______________________________________ Georg H. Grathoff _______________________________________ Virginia L. Butler Representative of the Office of Graduate Studies DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL: _______________________________________ Ansel G. Johnson, Chair Department of Geology ABSTRACT An abstract of the thesis of Darren L. Beckstrand for the Master of Science in Geology presented November 22, 2000 Title: Origin of the Coos Bay and Florence Dune Sheets, South Central Coast, Oregon The Coos Bay and Florence dune sheets are situated on Oregon’s south central coast, between Florence to the north and Coos Bay to the south. These two dune sheets comprise approximately 70 km of coastline; the largest coastal dune fields of Oregon. Heavy mineral analysis indicates a primary sand source from the Umpqua River, as evidenced by high hypersthene:augite ratios and a secondary source from streams to the south, yielding metamorphic amphiboles. Complex directional emplacement trends indicate onshore transport of sand; however, different data suggest either a southern or a northern sand source. Dune lee- slope azimuth analyses suggest a northern sand source, whereas particle-size analysis indicates a southern source. Dune thickness and depth increase to the north. Accommodation space also increases to the north due to possible tectonic uplift to the south and incision by the paleo-Siuslaw River channel to the north. Previously, these dune sheets were assumed to be Holocene features forced onshore during the latest de-glacial sea level rise.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Introduced Fish Report
    OREGON PLAN for SALMON and WATERSHEDS COASTAL COHO ASSESSMENT INTRODUCED FISHES IMPACTS (PECE Policy Format) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Mike Gray May 6, 2005 Part 4(C) ODFW (4) Exotics Final Report May 6, 2005 PECE (Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts) Policy Certainty that the conservation effort will be implemented. 1. Describe the staffing, funding level, funding source, and other resources necessary (and available) to implement the conservation effort or regulatory program. Monitoring and management of introduced fishes are currently accomplished primarily through ODFW Fish District staff, and their activities funded through the agency’s base budget. Funding of District management activities is typically through Other Funds (License and Tag fees) and Federal matching funds (Sport Fish Restoration, e.g.). While there is no current Western Oregon Warmwater Fish Biologist position within ODFW, the Eastern Oregon Warmwater Biologist has provided coastal Districts with assistance through population modeling, project review, and technical advice/expertise. 2. Describe the legal authority to implement and the commitment to proceed with the conservation effort or regulatory program. ODFW has the legal authority granted to the agency by State statute for management of fish and wildlife populations, namely the Wildlife Policy—ORS 496.012. This includes a policy and commitment to “…prevent the serious depletion of any indigenous species…”, which would apply to management of introduced fish species and their impacts on coho salmon. 3. Describe the legal procedural requirements (e.g. environmental review), if any exist, necessary to implement the effort or regulatory program. Management objectives and actions for some populations of introduced fish are established through Basin Fish Management Plans, adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • GRIM Commission BEHR]
    4i- 4- t a. GRIM commissionBEHR] Vol. V PORTLAND, OREGON, FEBRUARY, 1950 No. 2 "PRONGHORN ANTELOPE" RECEIVES BOOK AWARD 1950 ilplec:(49 Re teopt4 The National Association for Conser- By ROBERT C. HOLLOWAY, Chief Biologist vation Education and Publicity recently announced presentation of its 1949 award The angling regulations for 1950 were adopted by the Oregon State for "outstanding service to conservation Game Commission on January 28. Tentative rules were formulated two through a technical book" to Arthur S. weeks earlier and the interval in between provided an opportunity for the Einarsen for his book, "The Pronghorn sportsmen to present objections to them and to submit additional recom- Antelope." Awards of the Association, which is composed of conservation edu- mendations. A complete outline of the angling laws and a map showing cation and public relations personnel of zone boundaries can be found elsewhere in this issue. Several important state conservation, fish and game depart- changes have been made in the regulations as they applied in 1949. These ments, are usually made at the annual changes will be discussed in some detail below. meeting held in September but the judges had not reached their decision at that Trout several years. An additional two months time in regard to the book award. The trout season will open on May 1 in of trout angling will be possible in tide- Mr. Einarsen's book was nominated for all parts of the state, except that in Zone water of the coastal streams because the consideration by the information and ed- 1 (Coastal waters) and in the northern late opening date of June 15 in that area ucation department of the Oregon State part of Zone 2 the season will begin on has been eliminated.
    [Show full text]