sign in sign up
<<
Home , Brown trout, Cutthroat trout, Lahontan cutthroat trout, Lake trout, Truckee River

Lahontan Cutthroat Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

Upper Truckee Lahontan Restoration Project 2011 Annual Report

USDA Forest Service, Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Written by

Christopher Lemmers (Biological Science Technician) and Maura Santora (Aquatic Biologist)

Reviewed by

Sarah Muskopf (Acting Forest Aquatic Biologist)

Approved by

Holly Eddinger (Biological Program Leader)

1

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 2 Introduction ...... 2 Methods...... 6 Results ...... 7 2011 Field Work ...... 7 2010 Genetic Results ...... 9 2008-2011 Progress ...... 9 Discussion ...... 12 Works Cited ...... 13 Appendix A ...... 16 Appendix B...... 17

Executive Summary

In 2011, the Basin Management Unit Aquatics Department continued implementation of the Upper Restoration Project. Non- native trout were removed on approximately 3.6 total miles of the main stem of the below Meiss Meadows and the outlet from Round Lake. A total of 1,913 were sampled. All non-native were removed, which included 729 ( fontinalis) and 27 ( mykiss). A total of 337 native speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) were returned to the river. A total of 820 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (LCT = Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) were captured in the project area. Of these, 734 LCT were returned to the upper portion of the river, while 86 were removed from the lower portion of the project area due of potential hybridization with rainbow trout. Genetic samples were collected from 124 individuals and sent to University of Reno Laboratory for analysis.

Introduction

Historically, Lake Tahoe’s fishery was dominated by a single predator, the LCT. LCT were extirpated from Lake Tahoe by 1939 (Cordone and Frantz 1968, Moyle 2002). Several factors contributed to the of LCT including over-fishing, logging, mining, dams, water diversions, intense grazing, road building, urban development, and the introduction of non-native fish and other aquatic . These activities are believed to have cumulatively contributed to the change in Lake Tahoe’s fish composition and degradation of fish habitat (SNEP 1996, Murphy and Knopp 2000). LCT were listed as an

2

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

in 1970 (Federal Register Vol. 35, p.13520). In 1975, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, LCT was reclassified as threatened to facilitate management and to allow for regulated (Federal Register Vol. 40, p.29864).

Since the end of the 19th century, numerous non-native species have been introduced to water bodies in the Tahoe Basin, altering its biological assemblage. The nonnative salmonid species found in the Lake Tahoe and inlet streams are: rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), ( trutta), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka). The nonnative warm water fish that have been documented to occur in the Lake Tahoe streams and near shore environment are: brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and goldfish (Carassius auratus) (Basinwide Native Non- Assessment 2007-2010; Kamerath et al. 2008). (Salvelinus namaycush) are found only in Lake Tahoe, , and Stoney Ridge Lake. The presence of non-native fish has been found to disrupt the natural food webs, and to be negatively correlated with the distribution and abundance of native fish (MacRae and Jackson 2001; Betolli et al. 1992; Vander Zanden et al. 2003; Moyle and Nickols 1973; Findlay et al. 2000). Brook trout and brown trout compete with cutthroat trout for space and resources (Gerstung 1988; Gresswell 1988; Griffith 1988; Fausch 1989; Hilderbrand 1998; Schroeter 1998; Dunham et al. 1999). Rainbow trout, a closely related species, at the same time and use the same spawning habitat as LCT with which it can interbreed creating individuals. (Vander Zanden et al. 2003).

At least 20 non-native species, called Aquatic (AIS), are established in the Lake Tahoe basin, including aquatic plants, , , and amphibians. Populations of warm water fishes such as largemouth bass and bluegill are expanding. Until recently, the distribution of warm water fishes beyond the Tahoe Keys was largely unknown, but a survey by Kamerath et al. (2008) found non-native fish species, including bluegill, largemouth bass, brown bullhead, black crappie, and gold fish, at 12 of 21 sites around Lake Tahoe. It is believed that increased water temperatures have extended the amount of habitat available for warm water fishes to spawn (Chandra et al. 2009). The illegal introduction of these warm water fishes further disrupts the aquatic , reducing available habitat and resources for LCT.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in collaboration with USFS reintroduced LCT into the headwaters of the Upper Truckee River (UTR) in Meiss Meadows in 1989 and 1990 thus reclaiming a total of 5 stream miles and 15 lake acres. Reclamation activities involved electro- fishing and gill-netting to remove non-native brook trout from the UTR prior to LCT introduction. Since the initial reclamation activities, annual maintenance removal efforts occurred in Meiss Meadows until 2009 after three consecutive years of zero non-natives was achieved. Since 2009 no surveys have been conducted to let the LCT population rest from sampling and electro-shocking efforts. Meiss Meadows will be monitored periodically by the CDFG to ensure the brook trout removal was successful. The LCT population in Meiss Meadows is currently one of the only high-elevation self-sustaining populations found in meadow habitat in the Mountain Range.

3

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

In 2009, the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) began implementation of the Upper Truckee River Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project. The project area encompasses 10 miles of perennial stream and 85 acres of lake habitat within the UTR watershed (Figure 1). The objective of the effort was to facilitate natural range expansion of the Meiss Meadows LCT population downstream by removing non-native trout. The project will reclaim 10 miles of stream habitat for federally threatened LCT in the UTR. The project is in (El Dorado County) on National Forest System land within the LTBMU and is entirely in the Meiss Management Area (USDA Forest Service 1988).

Reclaiming aquatic habitats in the UTR watershed is consistent with CDFG goals and objectives for recovering and developing waters for native salmonid fisheries. The CDFG currently works under the interagency Fishery Management Plan for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout in California and Waters (1986), which identifies the UTR as a priority area in Lake Tahoe to reclaim aquatic habitats for LCT.

Restoration efforts in the expansion area were approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the 2008 Biological Opinion (BO; File #: 2008-F-0434-BO). During the 2010 field season, re-initiation of consultation was conducted and an amended BO (file #: 2008-F-0434- R001) was received in October 2010. The amended BO allowed for the removal of LCT where potential hybridization with rainbow trout was expected. The LTBMU and USFWS agreed that in the interest of recovery of LCT in the Lake Tahoe basin, genetically pure populations of LCT within the expansion area was desired.

4

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

Figure 1. The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) Upper Truckee River Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project Area and Accomplishments. 5

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

Methods

The LTBMU Aquatics Crew manually removed brook trout, rainbow trout, and selected LCT by electro-fishing methodology. “Guidelines for Electro-fishing Waters Containing Salmonids Listed under the Endangered Species Act” (NMFS 2000) was used to develop the protocol. A three-pass depletion method was used on the UTR main stem to enable tracking of brook trout removal progress on a site-specific basis. Three-pass depletion relies on barriers to prevent the recapture of the same fish during multiple passes. Natural low water fish barriers (i.e. waterfalls, chutes, cascades) were identified in 2008 before implementation of the project, and were used to break the river up into manageable treatment reaches. If a reach on the UTR contained no brook trout on the first pass, only one pass was conducted. If brook trout were detected, 3-pass depletion was initiated. The barriers used in 2011 were the same as those used in 2010 (Figure 1), so that progress can be compared per year. Throughout implementation, fish sampled were identified and measured into size classes. Non-native trout and sacrificed LCT were also sexed. Above barrier 36B (Figure 1) on the main stem of the UTR, all LCT and speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) were relocated upstream to previously treated reaches and brook trout were removed from the river. Below barrier B36, speckled dace were relocated upstream to previously treated reaches, and brook trout, rainbow trout, and LCT were removed as defined in the amended BO (file #: 2008-F-0434-R001).

Single pass depletion was implemented on the Round Lake tributary (RLT) due to time constraints. In the RLT, all salmonids were removed below barrier T1BA4 due to hybridization risk. Throughout the project area, genetic samples were taken from LCT and rainbow trout to determine where introgression had already taken place. Samples were sent the University of Nevada at Reno for genetic analysis.

Two backpack Smithroot LR-12 electro-fishers were used for survey efforts. The electro-fisher was set between 500-700 Volts and 30-60 Hertz for all reaches. These settings are not a standard but worked well with the observed electric conductivity and turbidity. Fish recovered quickly in most instances. Electro-fisher settings were adjusted as needed and recorded when changed. Below barrier B36, the settings were increased as complete removal of all salmonids was required.

Two electro-fishing crews (3 person crews) implemented removal treatments from the end of August through the third week in October. One crew focused on the RLT while the other worked on the UTR. When a single pass was completed on the RLT (1.9 miles), both crews continued survey efforts on the UTR. To increase efficiency and productivity, both crews conducted passes on a single reach with one crew beginning approximately 20 to 30 minute prior to the second crew. Upon completion, one crew would initiate survey efforts on the next reach while the other crew completed the third pass.

On the UTR, reaches B41 through B38 (0.42 miles) were treated with single pass methods because no non-native salmonids were detected on the first pass. The remaining 6 reaches (1.27 miles) from barrier B37 through B33 were treated with the 3-pass depletion method.

6

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

Results 2011 Field Work

In 2011, non-native trout removal occurred on approximately 3.6 miles of stream in the project area: 1.7 total miles on the UTR and 1.9 miles on the RLT. A total of 1913 fish were captured: 820 LCT, 729 brook trout, 27 rainbow trout, and 337 speckled dace (Figure 2). A total of 729 brook trout, 27 rainbow trout, and 86 LCT were manually removed. Accidental mortalities of LCT included five in the 0-5 cm size class, eight in the 5-10 cm size class, and two in the 10-15 cm size class. No speckled dace mortalities were recorded. Genetic samples were collected from 124 individuals and locations documented.

Total fish surveyed in 2011 350

300

250 fish

of 200

#

150

100

50

0 0‐5cm 5‐10cm 10‐15cm 15‐20cm 20‐25cm 25‐30cm 30+cm LCT 74 312 237 139 43 3 12 BKT 68 154 258 205 42 2 0 RBT 0 16 4 6 0 1 0 SPD 28551 1 0 0 0 0

Figure 2. Total number of fish captured in the expansion area in 2011.

On the mainstem of the UTR, 799 fish were captured (Figure 3). Non-native trout removals on the UTR included 306 brook trout and 17 rainbow trout. Of the total 347 LCT caught, 40 below barrier B36B were removed and the remaining 307 were returned to the river upstream of previously treated reaches. All 129 speckled dace were released back into the river. The highest upstream distribution of rainbow trout in the UTR was found between barriers B35 and B34. Between barriers B37 and B34, 77 genetic samples were collected from 64 LCT and 13 rainbow trout (Appendix A).

7

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

140 120 100 80 fish of

60 # 40 20 0 10‐ 15‐ 20‐ 25‐ 0‐5cm 5‐10cm 30+cm 15cm 20cm 25cm 30cm LCT 22 116 84 85 37 3 0 BKT 39 68 96 83 18 2 0 SPD 1235 1 0 0 0 0 RBT 0 7 3 6 0 1 0

Figure 3. Size class distribution of fish sampled in the UTR.

On the RLT, a total of 1114 fish were sampled (Figure 4). Non-native trout removals on the RLT included 423 brook trout and 10 rainbow trout. All 208 speckled dace were released back into the creek. Of the total 473 LCT caught, 46 below barrier T1BA4 were removed and the 427 LCT caught above the barrier were released. On the RLT from barrier T1BA10 to T1BA6 only LCT and speckled dace were detected. Below T1BA6 to the of the RLT and UTR, brook trout were detected in every reach in addition to LCT and speckled dace. The highest upstream distribution of rainbow trout in the RLT was found between barriers T1BA6 and TIBA6A. Genetic samples were taken from 47 LCT collected between barrier T1BA6A and T1BA1 (Appendix A).

250

200

150 fish of

# 100

50

0 0‐5cm 5‐10cm 10‐15cm 15‐20cm 20‐25cm 25‐30cm 30+cm LCT 52 196 153 54 6 0 12 BKT 29 86 162 122 24 0 0 RBT 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 SPD 16246 0 0 00 0

Figure 4. Size class distribution of fish sampled in the RLT.

8

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

2010 Genetic Results

Genetic results from the 2010 field season were received in August of 2011. Results indicate hybridization has occurred within the expansion area. A hybrid individual was found between some of the lowest reaches in the expansion area on the UTR (between B28-B31), and between T1BA6 and T1BA6A on the RLT (Figure 1).

2008-2011 Progress

A total of 10.19 river miles have been treated since 2008 (Table 1).

Table 1. Miles treated per year for each river segment.

UTR (6.8 miles total) RLT (3.39 miles total) Year Miles Miles Treated Reaches Treated Treated Reaches Treated 2008 0.80 B41-B37 0.00 -- 2009 1.10 B41-B36B 0.00 -- 2010 3.31 B41-B28 1.46 T1BA9-T1BA6, T1BA4-T1BA1 2011 1.60 B41-B33 1.93 T1BA10-T1BA1

Numbers of brook trout and LCT caught between barriers B41 to B37 (5 most upstream reaches in expansion area) from 2008 to 2011 on the mainstem of the UTR is displayed in Table 2. Overall, brook trout numbers have decreased while LCT numbers have increased in these upstream reaches (Figure 5). In addition, smaller size classes (0-5cm and 5-10cm) of brook trout have decreased or in some reaches completely eradicated (Figure 6). In comparison, LCT numbers in the smaller size classes are slowly increasing (Figure 7). Only in 2011, have zero brook trout been documented between B41 and B38 (Table 2). Treatment will continue in these upstream reaches until three years of zero catch is obtained.

Table 2. Fish distribution on same upper reaches of the UTR over 4 years.

Brook Trout LCT Year B41-B41A B41A-B38 B38-B37 B41-B41A B41A-B38 B38-B37 2008 23 207 -- 28 17 -- 2009 6 19 73 25 40 17 2010 3 6 3 68 69 17 2011 0 0 6 39 121 17

9

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

B41A‐B38 UTR 250

200

fish 150 of

# 100

50

0 2008 2009 2010 2011 LCT 79 59 159 160 Brook 230 25 6 0 Dace 25 121 41 81

Figure 5. Total number of individuals caught by species on the same upper reaches of the UTR over 4 years.

Brook Trout B41‐B41A 10 9 8 7 6

fish 5 of

# 4 3 2 1 0 0‐5cm 5‐10cm 10‐15cm 15‐20cm 20‐25cm 25‐30cm 30+cm 2008 1 6 9 6 1 0 0 2009 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 2010 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 6. Distribution of brook trout size class on the same upper reaches of the UTR over 4 years.

10

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

LCT B41‐B41A 35

30

25

20 fish of 15 # 10

5

0 0‐5cm 5‐10cm 10‐15cm 15‐20cm 20‐25cm 25‐30cm 30+cm 2008 34 13 6 2 0 0 2009 0 5 8 8 4 0 0 2010 0 1532 14 7 0 0 2011 0 8 12 15 4 0 0

Figure 7. Distribution of LCT size class on the same upper reaches of the UTR over 4 years.

Brook trout numbers in the upper reach of RLT (T1BA9 – T1BA6A) increased from 2010 to 2011 (Table 3). However, in the lower section (T1BA4 – T1BA1), brook trout density declined. LCT numbers in both sections increased (Table 3 and Figure 8).

Table 3. Fish distribution on the same upper RLT reaches for 2 years.

Brook Trout LCT RBT Year T1BA9- T1BA4- T1BA9- T1BA4- T1BA9- T1BA4- T1BA6A T1BA1 T1BA6A T1BA1 T1BA6A T1BA1 2010 13 1398 279 26 0 2 2011 119 283 392 55 8 0

11

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

T1BA6A‐T1BA1 RLT 1600 1400 1200 fish 1000 of

# 800 600 400 200 0 2010 2011 LCT 156 269 Brook 1414 423 Dace 6 7 Rainbow 21 0

Figure 8. Total number of individuals caught by species on the same lower reaches of the RLT over 2years.

Discussion

During the 2011 field season, LCT were detected in all treatment reaches of the UTR. More LCT were present in the upper reaches than in the lower reaches, most likely attributed to proximity to the Meiss Meadow reclamation area where a self-sustaining population of LCT exists. This population is naturally expanding their range into reaches that were treated in 2008 through 2010. Additionally, LCT were present in all nine reaches of the RLT. As in the UTR, more LCT were detected in upper reaches than lower reaches of the tributary. This is most likely due to the proximity to Round Lake, which has been stocked with LCT by CDFG, and the presence of barriers that are preventing upstream migration of brook and rainbow trout into the upper reaches. Results support the conclusion that brook trout removal will help LCT recovery efforts in the UTR expansion area. As efforts continue and non-native salmonids are eradicated from the project area, this LCT population is expected to continue to expand.

Throughout the expansion area, LCT were found in all size classes. This suggests suitable spawning habitat is available in the system, reproduction is occurring, and LCT may thrive in the expansion area when competition with other salmonids is eliminated. This theory is supported by the increase in both LCT as well as speckled dace in the UTR from 2008 through 2011 (Figure 5). Because of the complexity of the expansion area which provides both lacustrine and fluvial habitat, the LCT population is expected to increase as these efforts continue.

Because genetic sample collection locations were not recorded in 2010, the exact location of barriers preventing rainbow trout upstream migration is unknown. However, the genetic results from 2010 indicated one hybrid was found between barriers B28-B31 in the main stem of the UTR and one found on the RLT (Figure 1). In 2011, 124 genetic samples were collected and

12

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

locations documented. These genetic results should help clarify the extent of hybridization and where this risk begins. When genetic results from 2011 are received, rainbow trout distribution will be reexamined in relation to hybridization risk.

The upper sections of RLT from T1BA9 to T1BA6A exhibit a self sustaining population of LCT indicated by the presence of all size classes (Figure 4). From T1BA9 upstream to Round Lake, the stream was dry in 2010. Three deformed (perch-form) LCT were surveyed in the RLT between barrier T1BA9 and T1BA8. Although deformed, these fish seemed healthy and were released. Although electrofishing is intended as a sampling method only, some settings or repeated sampling can impact non-target native species. Because of this unintended consequence, streams reaches with three consecutive years of zero non-natives detected will be rested until project effectiveness monitoring is initiated.

Works Cited

Brandenburg, W.H, and K B. Gido. Predation by Non-native Fish on Native Fishes in the San Juan River, and Utah. The Southwestern Naturalist, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Sep., 1999): 392-394.

California Fish and Game Commission staff. 1986. Fishery Management Plan for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout in California and Western Nevada Waters. Located at CDFG headquarters in Rancho Cordova, California.

Cordone, A.J., and T.C. Frantz. 1968. An evaluation of trout planting in Lake Tahoe. California Department of Fish and Game 54:68-69.

Deacon J.E. and W.L. Minckley, 1974 , Desert fishes. Desert biology. Academic Press, (1974), pp. 385–488.

Dunham, J.B., Peacock, M.M., Rieman, B.E., Schroeter, R.E. and Vinyard, G.L. (1999) Local and geographic variability in the distribution of stream-living Lahontan cutthroat trout. Trans. Am.Fish. Soc. 128, 875–889.

Fausch, K. D. 1989. Do gradient and temperature affect distributions of, and interactions between, brook char (Salvelinus fontinalis) and other resident salmonids in streams? Physiol. Ecol. (Spec. Vol.),1: 303-322.

Proposed Rules, Department Of The Interior, Fish And Wildlife Service [50 Cfr Part 17] Conservation Of Endangered Species And Other Fish Or Wildlife. Notice Of Proposed Rule Making 35 FR 13519; August 25, 1970

Chapter I-- Fish And Wildlife Service, Department Of The Interior Part 17-- Endangered And Threatened Wildlife. "Threatened" Status for Three Species of Trout 40 FR 29863; July 16, 1975 13

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

Genomic Variation Lab. “Fish DNA Sample Collection Protocol.” May 2007. http://genome- lab.ucdavis.edu/Protocols/tissuesampleprot.pdf, 29 May 2012.

Gerstung, E.R. 1988. Status, life history, and management of Lahontan cutthroat trout. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4:93-106.

Gresswell. R. E., editor. 1988. Status and management of interior stocks of cutthroat trout. American Fisheries Society. Symposium 4, Bethesda, Maryland.

Griffith, J. S. 1988. A review of competition between cutthroat trout and other salmonids. In Status and management of interior stocks of cutthroat trout. Edited by R. E. Gresswell. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4, Bethesda, Md. pp. 134 - 140.

Hilderbrand, R.H. (1998) Movements and conservation of cutthroat trout. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 135 pp.

Knapp, R.A., K.R. Matthews, O. Sarnelle. 2001. Resistance and resilience of alpine lake fauna to fish introductions. Ecological Monographs. 71:401-421.

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California, revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.

Murphy DD , Knopp CM (2000) Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment, Volume 1 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-175 (Berkeley, CA) 735 pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Guidelines for Electro-fishing Waters Containing Salmonids Listed Under the Endangered Species Act. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.

Schindler, D.W. 2000. Aquatic problems caused by human activities in . Ambio 29: 401-407.

Schroeter, R.E. (1998) Segregation of stream dwelling Lahontan cutthroat trout and brook trout: patterns of occurrence and mechanisms for displacement. M.S. Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, 93 pp.

SNEP [Sierra Nevada Project] 1996. Status of the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, final reports to Congress, Vols I–III and Addendum. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. http://ceres.ca.gov/snep/pubs/; accessed on 16 May 2004.

Shepard, B.B., B. Sanborn, L. Ulmer, and D.C. Lee. 1997. Status and risk of extinction for westslope cutthroat trout in the upper basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 1158-1172.

14

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land and Resource Management Plan. South Lake Tahoe, CA.

Vander Zanden, J., S. Chandra, B.C. Allen, J.E. Reuter, and C.R. Goldman. 2003. Historical Food Web Structure and Restoration of Native Aquatic Communities in the Lake Tahoe (California-Nevada) Basin. 6: 274-288.

15

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

Appendix A

Distribution of genetic samples taken by size class on the main stem of the UTR in 2011. 25

20

15 fish of

# 10

5

0 0‐5cm 5‐10cm 10‐15cm 15‐20cm 20‐25cm 25‐30cm 30+cm LCT 0 13 16 20 13 2 0 RBT 1 5 4 3 0 0 0

Distribution of genetic samples taken by size class on Round Lake Tributary in 2011. 30

25

20 fish of 15 #

10

5

0 0‐5cm 5‐10cm 10‐15cm 15‐20cm 20‐25cm 25‐30cm 30+cm LCT 011 25 9 0 0 2

16

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

Appendix B. Depletion for reaches on the UTR in 2011

Depletion B37‐B36A 30

25

20 fish LCT of 15

# BKT 10 SPD

5

0 1 2 3 Pass

Depletion B36A‐B36B 5

4

fish 3 of

# 2 LCT

1

0 1 2 3 Pass

17

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

Depletion B38‐B37 45

40

35

30

25 fish LCT of

# 20 BKT 15 SPD

10

5

0 1 2 3 Pass

Depletion B36B‐B35 14

12

10

8 fish of LCT

# 6 BKT 4

2

0 1 2 3 Pass

18

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project – 2011 Annual Accomplishment Report

Depletion B35‐B34 90

80

70

60

50 fish LCT of

# 40 BKT 30 RBT

20

10

0 1 2 3 Pass

Depletion B34‐B33

40

35

30

25

fish 20 LCT of

# BKT 15 RBT

10

5

0 1 2 3 Pass

19