DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction SANTIAM AND CALAPOOIA SUBBASIN FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared by Mary Jo Wevers Joe Wetherbee Wayne Hunt Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife March 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS .......................................................................................................................... 3 HABITAT....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Background and Status.................................................................................................................... 6 Basin Description................................................................................................................. 6 Land Use............................................................................................................................. 9 Habitat Protection.............................................................................................................. 22 Habitat Restoration............................................................................................................ 22 Policies........................................................................................................................................... 23 Objectives....................................................................................................................................... 23 WINTER STEELHEAD................................................................................................................................ 28 Background and Status.................................................................................................................. 28 Origin................................................................................................................................. 28 Life History and Population Characteristics....................................................................... 28 Hatchery Production.......................................................................................................... 34 Angling and Harvest.......................................................................................................... 36 Management Considerations.......................................................................................................... 37 Policies........................................................................................................................................... 38 Objectives....................................................................................................................................... 39 SUMMER STEELHEAD.............................................................................................................................. 47 Background and Status.................................................................................................................. 47 Origin................................................................................................................................. 47 Life History and Population Characteristics....................................................................... 47 Hatchery Production.......................................................................................................... 51 Angling and Harvest.......................................................................................................... 54 Management Considerations.......................................................................................................... 55 Policies........................................................................................................................................... 56 Objectives....................................................................................................................................... 56 COHO SALMON ......................................................................................................................................... 60 Background and Status.................................................................................................................. 60 Origin................................................................................................................................. 60 Life History and Population Characteristics....................................................................... 60 Hatchery Production.......................................................................................................... 60 Angling and Harvest.......................................................................................................... 62 Management Considerations.......................................................................................................... 63 Policies........................................................................................................................................... 63 TABLE OF CONTENTS-continued Page SPRING CHINOOK SALMON .................................................................................................................... 64 Background and Status.................................................................................................................. 64 Origin................................................................................................................................. 64 Life History and Population Characteristics....................................................................... 64 Hatchery Production.......................................................................................................... 69 Angling and Harvest.......................................................................................................... 70 Management Considerations.......................................................................................................... 72 Policies........................................................................................................................................... 73 FALL CHINOOK SALMON......................................................................................................................... 80 Background and Status.................................................................................................................. 80 Origin................................................................................................................................. 80 Life History and Population Characteristics....................................................................... 80 Hatchery Production.......................................................................................................... 83 Angling and Harvest.......................................................................................................... 84 Management Considerations.......................................................................................................... 85 Policies........................................................................................................................................... 86 Objectives....................................................................................................................................... 86 SOCKEYE SALMON................................................................................................................................... 89 Background and Status.................................................................................................................. 89 Origin................................................................................................................................. 89 Life History and Population Characteristics....................................................................... 89 Hatchery Production.......................................................................................................... 89 Angling and Harvest.......................................................................................................... 90 Management Considerations.......................................................................................................... 91 Policies........................................................................................................................................... 91 TROUT AND WHITEFISH........................................................................................................................... 92 Background and Status.................................................................................................................. 92 RAINBOW TROUT............................................................................................................ 92 Origin.................................................................................................................... 92 Life History and Population Characteristics.......................................................... 92 Hatchery Production............................................................................................. 93 Angling and Harvest............................................................................................. 98 Management Considerations.............................................................................. 101 CUTTHROAT
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NA TIO NAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard. SUite 1100 PORT LAND, OREGON 97232·1274 January 11 , 2013 Lorri Lee Pacific Northwest Regional Director U .S. Bureau ofReclamation 1160 North Curtis Road, Suite 100 Boise, Idaho 83706-1234 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Odessa Subarea Modified Partial Groundwater Replacement Project. (NWR-2012-9371) Dear Ms. Lee: Enclosed is the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Odessa Subarea Modified Partial Groundwater Replacement Project on the Colwnbia River in Adams, Lincoln, Franklin and Grant Counties, Washington. NMFS received a final biological assessment (BA) from Reclamation on November 6, 2012. Reclamation's BA determined that Columbia River chum salmon were likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action, 12 other species ofESA listed salmon and steelhead would not likely be adversely affected by the proposed action, and that Pacific eulachon, green sturgeon, and southern resident killer whales would not likely be adversely affected by the proposed action. NMFS disagreed with Reclamation's "Not Likely
    [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]
  • 3. Named Rivers, Creeks, Peaks, Other Landmarks, and Destinations There Are Portions of Two Named Rivers (South Santiam and Blue
    20 3. Named Rivers, Creeks, Peaks, Other Landmarks, and Destinations There are portions of two named rivers (South Santiam and Blue) and major headwater tributaries of four others (Middle Santiam, Calapooia, Smith and McKenzie) within the study area. These six rivers are fed by dozens of named creeks, springs, lakes, and ponds, and contain dozens of other named landmarks within their drainages (see Appendix A); also within the study boundaries. Peaks, creeks, springs, caves, ridgelines and other named landscape features can serve as destinations, aids, impediments, or barriers to travel, depending on time and circumstance. People traveling by foot are more apt to notice (and name) a particularly dangerous creek crossing, for example, than someone traveling by automobile and crossing at the same location on a four-lane highway bridge. Each of the 32 named trail segments (see Part 4; Appendix B) that was determined to be a likely principal Molalla trade and travel routes, has a discrete beginning and ending point that can be mapped and measured. Further, each of these segments link with one another as to form efficient routes between all primary destination points known to be within, and adjacent to, the study area. By using these criteria, and by eliminating duplication and secondary routes wherever possible, it became apparent that six areas in particular were key destination or meeting points for purposes of travel, trade, hunting, gathering, processing, and/or product manufacturing: Cascadia; South Santiam Prairie Complex; Owl Creek-Swamp Mountain; Bear Pass; Wolf Rock; and Latiwi Mountain (see Maps 5, 6, and 7). All major foot-trail routes in the study area connect directly with each of these six areas, all of which have good options for traveling to key locations outside the study area as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Former Morse Brothers Quarry 2903 Green River Road Sweet Home, Oregon
    Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Former Morse Brothers Quarry 2903 Green River Road Sweet Home, Oregon November 20052011 Project Number 2011230034 Cascade Earth Sciences 3511 Pacific Boulevard SW Albany, OR 97321 (541) 926-7737 www.cascade-earth.com CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ V 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................1 2.1 Location and Legal Description ........................................................................................... 1 2.2 Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 1 2.2.1 Description of Site .................................................................................................... 2 2.2.2 Improvements and Utilities ...................................................................................... 2 2.2.3 Roads and Easements ............................................................................................... 2 2.2.4 Zoning ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Surrounding Property Characteristics .................................................................................. 3 2.3.1 Northern Boundary
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook
    Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook Existing Populations The Willamette Spring Chinook SMU consists of six populations (Table 63). The status of four of these populations including the Molalla, South Santiam, Calapooia, and Upper Willamette is somewhat uncertain. Little is known about these populations, but what is known indicates that the native populations are extremely depressed. While some natural spawning occurs, it is likely that these spawners are the offspring of naturally-spawning hatchery fish since hatchery fish comprise almost the entire naturally-spawning population each year in these basins. Future inventory work is needed for these populations so that they may be more appropriately assessed. Table 63. Population list and existence status for the Willamette Spring Chinook SMU. Exist Population Description Yes Molalla Molalla River basin. Yes North Santiam North Santiam River basin. Yes South Santiam South Santiam River basin. Yes Calapooia Calapooia River basin. Yes McKenzie McKenzie River basin. Yes Upper Willamette Willamette River basin upstream from mouth of McKenzie River. Habitat Use Distribution The distribution criterion was based on proportions of accessible and inaccessible habitat. It must be recognized that these estimates are derived at the 1:100,000 scale and thus will not capture habitat lost in many smaller (1:24,000) streams resulting from barriers such as culverts. Habitat lost in smaller streams will vary by population, but is not likely to account for 50% of any population, and thus does not alter assessment outcomes derived using data at the 1:100,000 scale. Data presented in this report on accessibility of habitat should be viewed as general approximations and not as a definitive analysis on habitat availability/accessibility.
    [Show full text]
  • South Santiam Hatchery
    SOUTH SANTIAM HATCHERY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN 2020 South Santiam Hatchery/Foster Adult Collection Facility INTRODUCTION South Santiam Hatchery is located on the South Santiam River just downstream from Foster Dam, 5 miles east of downtown Sweet Home. The facility is at an elevation of 500 feet above sea level, at latitude 44.4158 and longitude -122.6725. The site area is 12.6 acres, owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers and is used for egg incubation and juvenile rearing. The hatchery currently receives water from Foster Reservoir. A total of 8,400 gpm is available for the rearing units. An additional 5,500 gpm is used in the large rearing pond. All rearing ponds receive single-pass water. ODFW has no water right for water from Foster Reservoir, although it does state in the Cooperative agreement between the USACE and ODFW that the USACE will provide adequate water to operate the facility. The Foster Dam Adult Collection Facility was completed in July of 2014 which eliminated the need to transport adults to and hold brood stock at South Santiam Hatchery. ODFW took over operations of the facility in April of 2014. The new facility consists of an office/maintenance building, pre-sort pool, fish sorting area, 5 long term post-sort pools, 4 short term post-sort pools, and a water-to-water fish-to-truck loading system. Adult fish collection, adult handling, out planting, recycling, spawning, carcass processing, and brood stock holding will take place at Foster The Foster Dam Adult Collection Facility is located about 2 miles east of Sweet Home, Oregon at the base of Foster Dam along the south shore of the South Santiam River at RM 37.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Santiam Wilderness Air Quality Report, 2012
    Middle Santiam Wilderness Air Quality Report Wilderness ID: 216 Wilderness Name: Middle Santiam Wilderness Middle Santiam Wilderness Air Quality Report National Forest: Willamette National Forest State: OR Counties: Linn General Location: Central Oregon Cascade Range Acres: 8,900 Thursday, May 17, 2012 Page 1 of 4 Middle Santiam Wilderness Air Quality Report Wilderness ID: 216 Wilderness Name: Middle Santiam Wilderness Wilderness Categories Information Specific to this Wilderness Year Established 1984 Establishment Notes Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 Designation Clean Air Act Class 2 Administrative Willamette National Forest Unique Landscape Features Mature old-growth trees shadow virtually all of this Wilderness, with Douglas fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock at lower elevations and true firs higher up. Some of the trees, estimated to be 450 years old, tower to more than 200 feet. Gently sloping, benchy terrain in the lower country starts at about 1,600 feet and rises to steep slopes, ridges, and peaks that reach 5,022 feet above sea level. The most prominent geological feature is 4,965-foot Chimney Peak, a lava plug in the northwestern portion. The Middle Santiam River flows through the area, slowing into quiet pools with mossy banks. Both the river and Donaca Lake teem with native fish, including chinook salmon during spawning season. Not far to the south lies Menagerie Wilderness. Four seldom-hiked trails provide access routes to the area: McQuade Creek (5.2 miles); Chimney Peak (12.7 miles); and Gordan Peak (6.1 miles), and Swamp Peak (6.1 miles). Lakebed Geology Sensitivity High Lakebed Geology Composition andesite dacite diorite phylite (68%), basalt gabbro wacke argillite undifferentiated volcanic rocks (20%), amphibolite hornfels paragneiss undifferentiated metamorphic roc (12%), GC 1+2 (68%), GC 1+2+3 (88%), GC 4+5+6 (12%) Visitor Use Not reported in the database.
    [Show full text]
  • South Santiam Subbasin Tmdl
    Willamette Basin TMDL: South Santiam Subbasin September 2006 CHAPTER 9: SOUTH SANTIAM SUBBASIN TMDL Table of Contents WATER QUALITY SUMMARY....................................................................................... 2 Reason for action .........................................................................................................................................................2 Water Quality 303(d) Listed Waterbodies ................................................................................................................3 Water Quality Parameters Addressed.......................................................................................................................3 Who helped us..............................................................................................................................................................4 SUBBASIN OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 5 Watershed Descriptions ..............................................................................................................................................6 Crabtree Creek Watershed.........................................................................................................................................6 Hamilton Creek / South Santiam River Watershed...................................................................................................6 Middle Santiam River Watershed .............................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Leaburg Hatchery
    LEABURG HATCHERY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN 2020 Leaburg Hatchery Plan Page 1 Leaburg Hatchery INTRODUCTION Leaburg Hatchery is located along the McKenzie River (Willamette Basin) 4 miles east of Leaburg, Oregon, on Highway 126 at River Mile 38.8 on the McKenzie River. The site is at an elevation of 740 feet above sea level, at latitude 44.1203 and longitude -122.6092. The area of the site is 21.6 acres. Water rights total 44,900 gpm from the McKenzie River. Water use varies with need throughout the year and is delivered by gravity. All rearing facilities use single-pass water. The facility is staffed with 3 FTE’s. Rearing Facilities at Leaburg Hatchery Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Number Total Construction Type Length Width Depth Volume Units Volume Material Age Condition Comment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft3) (ft3) Canadian Troughs 16 2.66 1.5 64 13 832 fiberglass 1987 good Canadian Troughs 16 3.0 3.0 144 2 288 Fiberglass 2002 good Circular Ponds 20 2.2 690 6 4,140 concrete 1953 good Raceways 50 20 3.66 3,660 1 10,980 concrete 1953 good Raceways 100 20 3.66 7,320 40 285,480 concrete 1953 good Troughs 18 1.17 0.5 11 5 53 aluminum 1970 good Vertical Incubators 48 plastic 1990 good 6 stacks of 8 trays PURPOSE Leaburg Hatchery was constructed in 1953 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to mitigate for lost trout habitat caused by construction of Blue River and Cougar dams and other Willamette Valley projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 State(S): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River
    Chapter 5 State(s): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River Recovery Unit Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and, in this case, with the assistance of recovery unit teams, contractors, State and Tribal agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or indicate the approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Cited: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 5, Willamette River Recovery Unit, Oregon. 96 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Two working groups are active in the Willamette River Recovery Unit: the Upper Willamette (since 1989) and Clackamas Bull Trout Working Groups. In 1999, these groups were combined, and, along with representation from the Santiam subbasin, comprise the Willamette River Recovery Unit Team.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Deaths: the Near Destruction of Western
    DAVID G. LEWIS Four Deaths The Near Destruction of Western Oregon Tribes and Native Lifeways, Removal to the Reservation, and Erasure from History THE NOTIONS OF DEATH and genocide within the tribes of western Oregon are convoluted. History partially records our removal and near genocide by colonists, but there is little record of the depth of these events — of the dramatic scale of near destruction of our peoples and their cultural life ways. Since contact with newcomers, death has come to the tribes of western Oregon in a variety of ways — through epidemic sicknesses, followed by attempted genocide, forced marches onto reservations, reduction of land holdings, broken treaty promises, attempts to destroy tribal culture through assimilation, and the termination of federal recognition of sovereign, tribal status. Death, then, has been experienced literally, culturally, legally, and even in scholarship; for well over a century, tribal people were not consulted and were not adequately represented in historical writing. Still, the people have survived, restoring their recognized tribal status and building structures to maintain and regain the people’s health and cultural well-being. This legacy of death and survival is shared by all the tribes of Oregon, though specific details vary, but the story is not well known or understood by the state’s general public. Such historical ignorance is another kind of death — one marked by both myth and silence. An especially persistent myth is the notion that there lived and died a “last” member of a particular tribe or people. The idea began in the late nineteenth century, when social scientists who saw population declines at the reservations feared that the tribes would die off before scholars could collect their data and complete their studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Foster Dam Adult Fish Facility and in Foster Dam Reservoir on the South Santiam River, 2017
    Technical Report 2018-3-FINAL _______________________________________________________________ EVALUATION OF ADULT CHINOOK SALMON BEHAVIOR AT THE FOSTER DAM ADULT FISH FACILITY AND IN FOSTER DAM RESERVOIR ON THE SOUTH SANTIAM RIVER, 2017 M.L. Keefer, T.S. Clabough, M.A. Jepson, T. Blubaugh, G. Brink, G.P. Naughton, C.T. Boggs, and C.C. Caudill Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1136 For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District 2018 1 i Technical Report 2018-3-FINAL _______________________________________________________________ EVALUATION OF ADULT CHINOOK SALMON BEHAVIOR AT THE FOSTER DAM ADULT FISH FACILITY AND IN FOSTER DAM RESERVOIR ON THE SOUTH SANTIAM RIVER, 2017 M.L. Keefer, T.S. Clabough, M.A. Jepson, T. Blubaugh, G. Brink, G.P. Naughton, C.T. Boggs, and C.C. Caudill Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1136 For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District 2018 ii Acknowledgements This research project was funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and we thank Fenton Khan, Rich Piakowski, Glenn Rhett, Deberay Charmichael, Sherry Whittaker, and Steve Schlenker for their support. We also thank Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife staff Bob Mapes, Brett Boyd, and Cameron Sharpe for project coordination and support. We are grateful to the University of Idaho’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee for reviewing and approving the protocols used in this study. We thank Stephanie Burchfield and Diana Dishman (NOAA Fisheries) and Michele Weaver and Holly Huchko (ODFW) for their assistance securing study permits and Bonnie Johnson (U.S.
    [Show full text]