DOCSLIB.ORG

Information Reports Number 2011-02

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Information Reports Number 2011-02 INFORMATION REPORTS NUMBER 2011-02 FISH DIVISION Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Status, Distribution, and Life History Investigations of Warner Suckers, 2006- 2010 Status, Distribution, and Life History Investigations of Warner Suckers, 2006-2010 Sunset on Hart Lake looking southwest with the Warner Mountains in the background. Photo credit: S. Starcevich Paul Scheerer1, Steven Jacobs1, Mark Terwilliger2, Stephanie Miller1, Stephanie Gunckel1, Shannon Richardson1, and Michael Heck3 1Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Native Fish Investigations Project 28655 Highways 34, Corvallis, Oregon 97333 2Oregon State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Nash Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97330 3U.S. Geological Service Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 This project was financed with funding from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (task orders 134206M093, HLP073006, HLP083003), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (task orders 134206M086, 134207M085, and 134208J814 and contracts E-2-46 and E-2-50), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (task orders W66QKZ8094612 and W66QKZ90227848) and Oregon Conservation Strategy (contract T-17-1). CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 3 Distribution and Abundance of Suckers in the Warner Lakes ......................................... 3 Distribution and Abundance of Suckers in the Warner Tributaries ................................. 5 Comprehensive Mark-Recapture Abundance Estimate ....................................... 9 Habitat Associations ............................................................................................ 9 Statistical Analyses ....................................................................................................... 11 Seasonal Movement of Warner Suckers ...................................................................... 11 PIT and FLOY® Tagging .................................................................................... 11 Radio Tagging .................................................................................................... 12 Downstream Migrant Trapping ........................................................................... 12 Upstream Trapping at the Dyke Diversion Fish Ladder ..................................... 13 Sampling Larval Drift .......................................................................................... 13 Comparison of Ageing Techniques ............................................................................... 13 Lapillar Otoliths .................................................................................................. 13 Pectoral and Pelvic Fin Rays ............................................................................. 14 Opercles ............................................................................................................. 14 Scales ................................................................................................................ 14 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 15 Distribution and Abundance of Warner Suckers in the Warner Lakes ............................ 15 Length Frequencies and Length-Weight Relationships of Suckers in the Warner Lakes ............................................................................................................................... 16 Fish Assemblages in the Warner Lakes .......................................................................... 16 Sex Ratios and Sexual Maturation of Suckers in the Warner Lakes ............................... 22 Condition of Crump Lake Suckers .................................................................................. 22 Distribution and Abundance of Suckers in the Warner Tributaries.................................. 25 Length Frequencies and Length-Weight Relationships of Suckers in the Warner Tributaries ....................................................................................................................... 32 Sex Ratios and Sexual Maturation of Suckers in the Twentymile Subbasin ................... 32 Habitat Associations ........................................................................................................ 35 Condition of Suckers in the Twentymile Creek Subbasin................................................ 35 Growth of PIT-tagged Warner Suckers ........................................................................... 37 Seasonal Movements of Warner Suckers ....................................................................... 37 Downstream Migrant Trapping ............................................................................ 37 Upstream Migrant Trapping ................................................................................. 40 i Movements of PIT-tagged Warner Suckers .................................................................... 40 Movements of Radio-tagged Warner Suckers ................................................................ 44 Movements of Larval Suckers ......................................................................................... 58 Avian Predation on Warner Suckers ............................................................................... 60 Comparison of Ageing Techniques ................................................................................. 61 Warner Sucker Abundance Estimate at the Summer Lake WMA ................................... 61 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 63 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 69 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 69 ii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Warner sucker CPUE for trap nets fished in Hart and Crump Lakes, 1990-2010 ........ 15 Table 2. Mean length of Warner suckers captured in 2006, 2008, and 2010 from Crump and Hart Lakes ................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3. Numbers and percentages of fish captured in trap nets in Hart and Crump Lakes in 2006, 2008, and 2010, by species .............................................................................................. 23 Table 4. Length of the sampling frame (potential sucker distribution), length of stream sampled, and numbers of sites by outcome category (sites sampled, sites where suckers were collected, sites with dry channels, and sites where access was denied) .................................................... 25 Table 5. Estimates of Warner sucker population abundance (fish >60 mm FL), with associated confidence limits, and sucker densities in streams in the Warner basin, summer 2007 ............. 28 Table 6. Details of the 2009 mark-recapture estimate for Warner suckers in the Twentymile Creek drainage, listed by stream stratum ................................................................................... 28 Table 7. Warner suckers density estimates in the Twentymile Creek drainage in 2009, listed by stream stratum ............................................................................................................................ 32 Table 8. Numbers and capture locations of Warner suckers implanted with PIT tags and radio tags, 2006-2010 .......................................................................................................................... 40 Table 9. Numbers of Warner suckers radio-tagged, their mean length, the mean number of observations (detections), and the mean and range of cumulative distance traveled in April-June 2008 ............................................................................................................................................ 44 Table 10. Stream locations of radio-tagged Warner suckers detected in the Twentymile Creek drainage in 2010, showing the furthest downstream (minimum) and upstream (maximum) location and range of river kilometers for each fish, the number of detections, and the minimum movement distance ..................................................................................................................... 55 Table 11. Numbers and percentages of Warner suckers tagged in the Warner basin that we documented were consumed by avian predators, 2006-2010 .................................................... 60 Table 12. Percent agreement among three reads for each structure aged in the study ............ 61 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of the study area in the Warner basin, Oregon ..................................................... 2 Figure 2. Hydrographs for Twentymile Creek, 2006-2010. Data is from the gaging station located near Adel, Oregon ............................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3. Sample frame and corresponding sample points for estimating Warner sucker abundance in the three major subbasins of the Warner Basin, 2007 ........................................... 6 Figure 4. Study area for 2009
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Caspian Tern Nesting Island Construction Draft Supplemental
    Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (with Draft Amended FONSI) and Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis Caspian Tern Nesting Island Construction Project Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, California U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District June 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Proposed Project 1.1 Proposed Project Description 1.2 Proposed Location 1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action 1.4 Project Authority 2.0 Scope of Analysis 3.0 Proposed Action 3.1 Habitat Construction: Sheepy Lake in Lower Klamath NWR 3.1.1 Demolition and Disposal of Sheepy Floating Island 3.1.2 Sheepy Rock Island Design 3.1.3 Timing of Construction 3.1.4 Construction Methods 3.1.5 Access 3.1.6 Staging Area 3.1.7 Temporary Access Road 3.1.8 Maintenance Methods 3.1.9 Summary of Fill Requirements and Footprint 3.1.10 Post-Construction Monitoring 4.0 Alternatives 4.1 No Action Alternative 4.2 Repair the existing floating island 5.0 Impact Assessment 6.0 Summary of Indirect and Cumulative Effects 6.1 Indirect Effects 6.1.1 Caspian Terns 6.1.2 Fishes 6.1.3 Endangered and Threatened Species 6.1.4 Other Birds 6.1.5 Socioeconomic Effects 6.2 Cumulative Impacts 7.0 Environmental Compliance 8.0 Agencies Consulted and Public Notifications 9.0 Mitigation Measures 10.0 Draft Amended FONSI LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Map of Tule Lake NWR and Lower Klamath NWR within the vicinity of Klamath Basin NWRs, Oregon and California 3.1 Sheepy Lake Floating Island Failure (1 of 3) 3.2 Sheepy Lake Floating Island Failure (2 of 3) 3.3
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River
    Bonneville Power Administration, USACE – Portland District, USACE – Walla Walla District, and Grant County Public Utility District Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report 1 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report This 2013 Draft Annual Report has been prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Grant County Public Utility District for the purpose of assessing project accomplishments. This report is not for citation without permission of the authors. Daniel D. Roby, Principal Investigator U.S. Geological Survey ‐ Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐737‐1955 Ken Collis, Co‐Principal Investigator Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Avenue Bend, Oregon 97702 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐382‐3836 Donald Lyons, Jessica Adkins, Yasuko Suzuki, Peter Loschl, Timothy Lawes, Kirsten Bixler, Adam Peck‐Richardson, Allison Patterson, Stefanie Collar, Alexa Piggott, Helen Davis, Jen Mannas, Anna Laws, John Mulligan, Kelly Young, Pam Kostka, Nate Banet, Ethan Schniedermeyer, Amy Wilson, and Allison Mohoric Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 2 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Allen Evans, Bradley Cramer, Mike Hawbecker, Nathan Hostetter, and Aaron Turecek Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Ave. Bend, Oregon 97702 Jen Zamon NOAA Fisheries – Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Threatened Fishes in Warner Basin, Oregon
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 50 Number 3 Article 5 10-31-1990 Conservation status of threatened fishes in arnerW Basin, Oregon Jack E. Williams Division of Wildlife and Fisheries, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. Mark A. Stern The Nature Conservancy, Portland, Oregon Alan V. Munhall Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview, Oregon Gary A. Anderson Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lakeview, Oregon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Williams, Jack E.; Stern, Mark A.; Munhall, Alan V.; and Anderson, Gary A. (1990) "Conservation status of threatened fishes in arnerW Basin, Oregon," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 50 : No. 3 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol50/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Creat &Isio N:l.luraUst 50(3), 1900, pp. 243-248 CONSERVATION STATUS OF THREATENED FISHES IN WARNER BASIN, OREGON 1 l 3 Jack E. Williams , MarkA. Stern \ Alan V. Munhall , and Cary A. Anderson"" A8S'TRACT.-Two fedemlJy listed fisbes, the Foskett speckled daceand Warnersucker, are endemic to Warner Basin in south central Oregon. The Foskett speckled dace is native only to a single spring in Coleman Valley. Anearby'spring was stocked with dace in 1979 and 1980, and now provides a second population. The present numbers ofdace probably are at their Wgbest levels since settlement ofthe region.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for Rangeland Health Assessment O'keeffe FRF
    ee e_ O'KEEFFE FRF INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENT #0203 Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (BLM, 1997) Introduction The Range Reform '94 Record of Decision (BLM, 1995a) recently amended current grazing administration and management practices. The ROD required that region-specific standards and guidelines be developed and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. In the State of Oregon, several Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) were established to develop these regional standards and guidelines. The RAC established for the part of the state covering the O'Keeffe FRF Individual Allotment is the Southeastern Oregon RAe. These standards and guidelines for Oregon and Washington were finalized on August 12, 1997 and include: Standard 1 - Upland Watershed Function Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. • dard 2 - Riparian/Wetland Watershed Function • Riparian-wetland areas are in properly functioning physical condition appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. Standard 3 - Ecological Processes Healthy, productive, and diverse plant and animal populations and communities appropriate to soil, climate, and landform are supported by ecological processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the hydrologic cycle. Standard 4 - Water Quality Surface water and groundwater quality, influenced by agency actions, complies with State water quality standards. Standard 5 - Native, T&E, and Locally Important Species Habitats support healthy, productive, and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals (including special status species and species of local importance) appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. NDARD 1 - UPLAND WATERSHED CONDITION: Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Study Areas
    I ___- .-ll..l .“..l..““l.--..- I. _.^.___” _^.__.._._ - ._____.-.-.. ------ FEDERAL LAND M.ANAGEMENT Status and Uses of Wilderness Study Areas I 150156 RESTRICTED--Not to be released outside the General Accounting Wice unless specifically approved by the Office of Congressional Relations. ssBO4’8 RELEASED ---- ---. - (;Ao/li:( ‘I:I)-!L~-l~~lL - United States General Accounting OfTice GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-262989 September 23,1993 The Honorable Bruce F. Vento Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Committee on Natural Resources House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: Concerned about alleged degradation of areas being considered for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (wilderness study areas), you requested that we provide you with information on the types and effects of activities in these study areas. As agreed with your office, we gathered information on areas managed by two agencies: the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLN) and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Specifically, this report provides information on (1) legislative guidance and the agency policies governing wilderness study area management, (2) the various activities and uses occurring in the agencies’ study areas, (3) the ways these activities and uses affect the areas, and (4) agency actions to monitor and restrict these uses and to repair damage resulting from them. Appendixes I and II provide data on the number, acreage, and locations of wilderness study areas managed by BLM and the Forest Service, as well as data on the types of uses occurring in the areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 37/Thursday, February 25, 2010
    Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8621 We encourage interested parties to DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Avenue, continue to gather data that will assist Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; with the conservation of the species. If Fish and Wildlife Service telephone 503–231–6179; facsimile you wish to provide information 503–231–6195. regarding the bald eagle, you may 50 CFR Part 17 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul submit your information or materials to [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2008–0128] Henson, Ph.D., State Supervisor, U.S. the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological [MO 92210–0–0009–B4] Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish ADDRESSES and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES, Services Office (see section RIN 1018–AW72 above). The Service continues to above). Persons who use a strongly support the cooperative Endangered and Threatened Wildlife telecommunications device for the deaf conservation of the Sonoran Desert Area and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed (TDD) may call the Federal Information bald eagle. Rule To List the Southwestern Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. On March 6, 2008, the U.S. District Washington/Columbia River Distinct SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Court for the District of Arizona Population Segment of Coastal Background enjoined our application of the July 9, Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened On July 5, 2002, we published a 2007 (72 FR 37346), final delisting rule notice of our withdrawal of the for bald eagles to the Sonoran Desert AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, proposed rule to list the Southwestern population pending the outcome of our Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Fern Ridge Wildlife Area Management Plan
    DRAFT FERN RIDGE WILDLIFE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN January 2009 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Salem, Oregon 97303 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Plan ..................................................................................................... 1 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Mission and Authority................................... 1 Purpose and Need of Fern Ridge Wildlife Area ........................................................... 1 Wildlife Area Goals and Objectives.............................................................................. 4 Wildlife Area Establishment ......................................................................................... 5 Description and Environment ...................................................................................... 6 Physical Resources................................................................................................... 6 Locatio n ................................................................................................................... 6 Climate..................................................................................................................... 7 Topography and Soils .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian Cascades Frog SOC X X Mountain Meadows, Bogs, Ponds Or
    Taxa Species Species SMU/ESU/D Federal State BM CP CR EC KM NR WC WV NS Special needs Limiting factors Data gaps Conservation actions Key reference or plan, if available Common Scientific PS/Group Listing listing Name Name Status status Amphibian Cascades SOC X X Mountain meadows, bogs, ponds or potholes Montane species vulnerable to genetic Habitat requirements and how they may vary by Maintain connectivity of habitat. Monitor effects of fish http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/ frog above 2,400 feet elevation. Requires access isolation. Experiencing substantial elevation within the species' range. Habitat stocking and water quality on populations. Carefully manage psw_gtr244/psw_gtr244.pdf to permanent water. Lays eggs in shallow reductions in southern parts of range characteristics that could enhance migration livestock grazing in occupied wet meadows. Use prescribed sunny edges of ponds, or on low vegetation (e.g., CA). Potentially sensitive to and gene flow. Feeding habits. Effects of burning or hand-felling of trees periodically to set plant near ponds where warm sunlight speeds egg waterborne pathogens. pathogens airborne environmental pollution. succession. If reintroductions are warranted, use individuals development. Larvae may “school” in large Feasibility studies on reintroduction at historic from nearby populations and consult results of feasibility masses. sites. studies. Conservation actions in Oregon are particularly valuable given reductions in other parts of range. Amphibian Cascade X X Cold, fast-flowing, clear, permanent headwater Larvae take several years to reach sexual Basic inventory, abundance and population Maintain stream buffers to maintain cool water Howell, B.L. and N. M. Maggiulli. 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Warner Lakes- 17120007 FINAL
    Warner Lakes- 17120007 FINAL 8 Digit Hydrologic Unit Profile JANUARY 2005 Introduction The Warner Lakes 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) subbasin is 1,214,838 acres. Seventy-four percent of it is in Lake County in South Central Oregon. Sixteen percent is in Harney County and the remaining 10 percent is in California and Nevada. Eighty-three percent of the subbasin is in public ownership. Seventy-two percent of the private and public land in the subbasin is rangeland, ten percent is forest, eight percent is pasture and hay land. The subbasin is largely unpopulated, having only about forty farmers and ranchers on twenty-five farms. Conservation assistance is provided by three NRCS service centers, one soil survey office, and four Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Profile Contents Introduction Resource Concerns Physical Description Census and Social Data Landuse Map & Precipitation Map Progress/Status Common Resource Area Footnotes/Bibliography Relief Map The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, Produced by the sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons Water Resources with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s Planning Team TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). Portland, OR To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD).
    [Show full text]
  • Hart Lake BCS Number: 48-14
    Oregon Coordinated Aquatic Bird Monitoring: Description of Important Aquatic Bird Site Hart Lake BCS number: 48-14 Site description author(s) Vernon Stofleth, Lakeview BLM District Kate Halstead, Field Technician, Klamath Bird Observatory Primary contact for this site Vernon Stofleth, Lakeview BLM District. Phone: (541) 947-6134. Email: [email protected] Site location (UTM) Datum: NAD 83, Zone: 11, Easting: 0265777, Northing: 4699280 Boundaries and ownership Boundaries: Hart Lake is located 2 miles East of Plush, Oregon Ownership: Hart Lake is bordered on the north by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Warner Wetlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern, on the northeastern side by the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge (USFWS), and the majority of the lake by private lands. The 10,200 acre lakebed (below high water line) is owned by the State of Oregon. See Figure 1 for BLM Lakeview District ownership map. Water levels Hart Lake water levels are dependent upon snow pack in the Warner Mountains and spring runoff. When snow pack exceeds 120%, there is usually enough runoff to maintain Hart Lake water levels. Agricultural irrigation and evaporation are the two largest factors in lowering lake levels. Approximately 2 feet of the lake is drawn down each year by irrigation and another 2 feet in evaporation of the 6 to 8 feet at full. Description updated 4/29/2010 1 Focal species use and timing Secretive marsh birds, colonial nesters, ground based aquatic birds, and migrating shorebirds have been observed each spring and summer on Hart Lake. Focal Guild/Species Wintering Breeding Migration Secretive Marsh Birds* Colonial Nesting Waterbirds Ground-based Aquatic Birds Migrating Shorebirds American White Pelican Barrow’s Goldeneye Black-necked Stilt Bufflehead Dusky Canada Goose Franklin’s Gull Greater Sandhill Crane Long-billed Curlew Snowy Egret Red-Necked Grebe Upland Sandpiper Western Snowy Plover Yellow Rail *The focal species for Oregon’s aquatic secretive marsh bird monitoring are PBGR, LEBI, AMBI, VIRA, SORA, YERA.
    [Show full text]
  • Scenic Bikeways! Safety Tips Please Be Aware That the Bikeway Information Here Is in 2009, Oregon Became the First State to Develop Only Advisory
    Explore Oregon’s Scenic Bikeways! Safety Tips Please be aware that the bikeway information here is In 2009, Oregon became the first state to develop only advisory. You assume all risks as far as the quality a statewide Scenic Bikeway program. Ten years and accuracy of the information; in other words, you’re later this innovative program now includes 17 agreeing to use it at your own risk. Scenic Bikeway designated bicycle routes that showcase Oregon’s routes include roads with car and truck traffic, and are breathtaking landscapes, cultural treasures and for cyclists that are comfortable riding in some amount western hospitality. of traffic. Cyclists must obey the rules of the road. For car-free riding, check out the Banks-Vernonia State Trail Scenic Bikeways are Oregon’s best of the best bicycle rides on the Tualatin Valley Bikeway and the Row River Trail for exploring this beautiful state. Everyone can find a ride section of the Covered Bridges Bikeway. that fits their style, from a half-day, family-friendly outing A must-know: in Oregon, a bicycle is legally considered to a multi-day, remote and challenging route. Ride one or a vehicle (and the same laws apply). Riding with the connect a series of bikeways for an epic adventure. Official direction of traffic is the law; it’s also the best way to be route signs are posted along each bikeway. seen by motorists. Painted Hills Scenic Bikeway Crooked River Canyon Bikeway Scenic Bikeways are nominated by locals and then tested To demonstrate the best riding etiquette and promote and vetted by a statewide advisory committee of cyclists, good relations with motorists, please ride single-file.
    [Show full text]