DOCSLIB.ORG

CONSERVATION STRATEGY for INTERIOR REDBAND (Oncorhynchus Mykiss Subsp.)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR INTERIOR REDBAND (Oncorhynchus mykiss subsp.) in the States of California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington November 2016 1 Acknowledgments We recognize the contribution of the Interagency Conservation Strategy Leaders, James Capurso, Dave Jepsen, Bob Austin, Martin Koenig, Dan Shively, and Scott Grunder. In addition, we recognize the contribution of the Geographic Management Unit (GMU) team leads Bruce Kinkead, Holly McLellan, Joe Dupont, Shawn Young, Rob Ryan, Mike Faler, Martin Koenig, Bob Austin, Alan Mauer, Jennifer Mickelsen, Richard Pyzik, Dave Lentz, and Mike Dege. Lastly, we thank participants in the interagency Redband Conservation Team for their participation in the preparation and, more importantly, the implementation of this document. Recommended Citation Interior Redband Conservation Team. 2016. A Conservation Strategy for Interior Redband (Oncorhynchus mykiss subsp.) in the states of California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Recommended Citation ................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................... 5 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................... 5 I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 II. Background ............................................................................................................................................ 6 III. Species Description .................................................................................................................................... 7 IV. Distribution and Status ............................................................................................................................ 10 Historical and Current Distribution ........................................................................................................ 10 V. Definitions ................................................................................................................................................. 11 VI. Species Threats ........................................................................................................................................ 14 A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range .............. 14 B. Overutilization ................................................................................................................................... 15 C. Disease ............................................................................................................................................... 15 D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms ............................................................................... 16 E. Introduced Species ............................................................................................................................. 16 VII. Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................................... 17 VIII. 3Rs: Representation, Resiliency, and Redundancy Analysis ................................................................ 20 IX. Interior Redband GMUs ......................................................................................................................... 26 Upper Columbia-Spokane Geographic Management Unit (GMU) ........................................................ 26 Kootenai GMU ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Clearwater River GMU ........................................................................................................................... 38 Snake River GMU ................................................................................................................................... 43 Oregon Closed Basins GMU ................................................................................................................... 54 Deschutes GMU ..................................................................................................................................... 60 Klamath, Upper Sacramento, North Lahontan GMU (K-US-NL GMU) ................................................... 65 X. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 78 XI. Appendix A: 3R Analysis Maps ............................................................................................................... 84 XII. Appendix B, Existing Programs and Strategies ...................................................................................... 87 Burns Paiute Tribe .................................................................................................................................. 87 Colville Confederated Tribes .................................................................................................................. 88 Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation ............................................................ 89 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ........................................................................................... 90 Coeur d’Alene Tribe ............................................................................................................................... 91 Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) ......................................................................................... 92 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho…………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………..93 Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks……………………………………………………………………….……….94 Nevada Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Division………………………………………………………………………..….95 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) ................................................................................. 96 US Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................................... 97 US National Park Service ........................................................................................................................ 98 US Bureau of Land Management ........................................................................................................... 99 US Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................................................................... 100 USDA Forest Service ............................................................................................................................. 101 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ..................................................................................... 102 3 XIII Appendix: GMU Team Participants ....................................................................................................... 103 Upper Columbia-Spokane GMU .......................................................................................................... 103 Kootenai GMU ..................................................................................................................................... 103 Clearwater GMU .................................................................................................................................. 104 Middle Snake GMU .............................................................................................................................. 104 Oregon Closed Basins GMU ................................................................................................................. 105 Deschutes GMU ................................................................................................................................... 105 Klamath and Upper Sacramento GMU ................................................................................................ 105 4 List of Tables Table 1. Estimates of amount of stream habitat occupied by Redband in the western United States (from Muhlfeld et al. 2015). ................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2. Results of 3R analysis for Redband conservation populations in hydrologic basins. .................... 22 Table 3. Results of 3R analysis for Redband non-conservation populations in hydrologic basins. ............ 23 Table 4. Basin-level summary of 3R results for conservation populations of Redband. ........................... 24 Table 5. Summary statistics for the Upper Columbia-Spokane Redband GMU......................................... 27 Table 6. Summary statistics for the Kootenai Redband GMU. Summary includes the number of core conservation, conservation, and sportfish
Recommended publications
  • Photo Courtesy of Idaho Tourism Shoshone Falls

    Photo Courtesy of Idaho Tourism Shoshone Falls

    PHOTO COURTESY OF IDAHO TOURISM SHOSHONE FALLS Located at the edge of Twin Falls, Shoshone Falls is a natural beauty on the Snake River. At 212 feet, the falls are higher than Niagara and put on a show in spring and early summer, when water flows are at their peak PHOTO COURTESY OF IDAHO TOURISM after winter snowmelt. During high water years, the falls attract thousands of out-of-town spectators who KNOW BEFORE come to witness nature’s awesome power. YOU GO: Shoshone Falls access Even when the falls aren’t at their peak, they’re still an is available from 7 a.m. to dusk. Entry fees are inspirational sight. Make a day — or even a weekend! $3 per car and $20 per — of it by taking advantage of the hiking trails, tour bus. Season passes are $25 and can be playgrounds, picnic areas, boat ramps, and swimming purchased at the holes that surround the falls. You can rent a stand-up park entrance. paddleboard from the AWOL Dive & Kayak stand and get an up-close view of Shoshone Falls from below — an experience that visitors say they’ll never forget. VISITSOUTHIDAHO.COM TWIN FALLS ©BLIPPRINTERS The city of Twin Falls took its name from these two waterfalls in the Snake River Canyon. So why is only one waterfall visible today? A dam along the Snake River, which uses water for hydroelectricity throughout the year, diverted water away from the second KNOW BEFORE waterfall. However, Twin Falls still remains a beautiful YOU GO: The best time to see landmark in spring and early summer, when thousands Twin Falls is from March upon thousands of gallons of water plummet 125 feet through early June, to the river below.
  • Lehman Caves Management Plan

    Lehman Caves Management Plan

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Great Basin National Park Lehman Caves Management Plan June 2019 ON THE COVER Photograph of visitors on tour of Lehman Caves NPS Photo ON THIS PAGE Photograph of cave shields, Grand Palace, Lehman Caves NPS Photo Shields in the Grand Palace, Lehman Caves. Lehman Caves Management Plan Great Basin National Park Baker, Nevada June 2019 Approved by: James Woolsey, Superintendent Date Executive Summary The Lehman Caves Management Plan (LCMP) guides management for Lehman Caves, located within Great Basin National Park (GRBA). The primary goal of the Lehman Caves Management Plan is to manage the cave in a manner that will preserve and protect cave resources and processes while allowing for respectful recreation and scientific use. More specifically, the intent of this plan is to manage Lehman Caves to maintain its geological, scenic, educational, cultural, biological, hydrological, paleontological, and recreational resources in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and current guidelines such as the Federal Cave Resource Protection Act and National Park Service Management Policies. Section 1.0 provides an introduction and background to the park and pertinent laws and regulations. Section 2.0 goes into detail of the natural and cultural history of Lehman Caves. This history includes how infrastructure was built up in the cave to allow visitors to enter and tour, as well as visitation numbers from the 1920s to present. Section 3.0 states the management direction and objectives for Lehman Caves. Section 4.0 covers how the Management Plan will meet each of the objectives in Section 3.0.
  • Draft Clearwater Assessment: 8. Fishery Resources

    Draft Clearwater Assessment: 8. Fishery Resources

    8 Fishery Resources 8.1 Fish Status Currently more than 30 species of fish inhabit the Clearwater subbasin, including 19 native species, two of which have been reintroduced (Table 43). Salmonids and cyprinids are most numerous, representing 10 and 6 species, respectively. Exotic species within the subbasin are generally introduced sport or forage species, and include primarily centrarchids, ictalurids, and salmonids. Five fish species have been chosen as aquatic focal species in this assessment: chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss subspecies), westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Aquatic focal species may serve as indicators of larger communities, and are listed by federal and/or state agencies as species of concern or, in the case of brook trout, have the potential to negatively impact other selected species. In addition, aquatic focal species had adequate data available for species status, distribution, and habitat use to aid future decision making. Information is also provided for additional species of interest for which only limited data exists, redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss subspecies), Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Although species status is discussed, data limitations for these species prohibits substantial consideration of limiting factors and distribution or condition of existing habitat areas. The resident fishery in Dworshak Reservoir is also considered a substantial fishery resource in the Clearwater subbasin. The Dworshak Reservoir fishery involves multiple species, and is addressed as a single fishery rather than as a large number of individual species. Distribution and status information was compiled for the five aquatic focal species using 23 data sources.
  • The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo of Western North America

    The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo of Western North America

    CItiEt'SW XHPYTD: RSOTLAITYWUAS 4 Monograph of ha, TEMPI, AZ The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo Of Western North America Robert J. Behnke "9! August 1979 z 141, ' 4,W \ " • ,1■\t 1,es. • . • • This_report was funded by USDA, Forest Service Fish and Wildlife Service , Bureau of Land Management FORE WARD This monograph was prepared by Dr. Robert J. Behnke under contract funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. Region 2 of the Forest Service was assigned the lead in coordinating this effort for the Forest Service. Each agency assumed the responsibility for reproducing and distributing the monograph according to their needs. Appreciation is extended to the Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, for assistance in publication. Mr. Richard Moore, Region 2, served as Forest Service Coordinator. Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. Rocky Mountain Region September, 1980 Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. it TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface ..................................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................
  • Payette River Basin Initiative

    Payette River Basin Initiative

    Payette River Basin Initiative Purpose The purpose of the Payette River Basin (PRB) Initiative is to utilize conservation easements in permanently conserving portions of land which hold natural, recreational, agricultural and hydrological water resource value. The PRB initiative hopes to receive and focus local, regional and national resources to accomplish this goal. The waterways, lakes, and wild country within and around the basin has drawn people to the area for generations and with increased use, development is inevitable. The Payette Land Trust (PLT) has long understood the importance of the Basin to the area’s quality of life, economic viability, unique natural beauty and the importance to the State’s water quality. The PLT will strive to keep the land in private ownership and provide the opportunity for public access through agreements with willing private landowners. Goal The Goal of the PRB initiative is to permanently conserve a connected corridor from the Payette Lake inlet to Cabarton Bridge along the main stem of the North Fork Payette River. This effort will allow for access, recreation and movement of both people and wildlife within the corridor, while conserving the existing natural beauty and water quality. Payette River Basin Initiative Payette Land Trust: What We Believe The PLT believes in conserving the rural landscape of west central Idaho for the benefit of our community and future generations. We promote a community ethic that values and conserves its working agricultural properties and timberlands in balance with thoughtful development. We envision dedicated areas of open access and connectivity encouraging people to take part in their environment.
  • Valley County, Idaho Waterways Management Plan

    Valley County, Idaho Waterways Management Plan

    Valley County, Idaho Waterways Management Plan REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) Introduction Valley County, Idaho is seeking the services of a qualified consultant to complete a Lakes Management Plan, including Lake Cascade, Payette Lake, Upper Payette Lake, Little Payette Lake, Warm Lake, Horsethief Reservoir, Herrick Reservoir, Boulder Lake, Deadwood Reservoir, Alpine Lakes, and other waterways i.e. North Fork of the Payette River. The Plan will be an effort co-managed by Valley County and City of McCall with collaborative input from Idaho Department of Lands, U.S. Forest Services, State Parks, and other public agencies. While the Plan would be a County wide, the City of McCall has interest in Payette Lake and is assisting to provide project management, technical and financial resources for the Plan especially as it relates to Payette Lake and the McCall Area planning jurisdiction. The Plan would provide the basis for policies, ordinances, programs, and practices for the specific water bodies. A public involvement process that uses a broad interest steering committee and numerous public outreach techniques to gather public input should be developed. There are a number of existing studies on Lake Cascade and Payette Lake. There are also studies currently being conducted. Qualifications The consultant team must have thorough knowledge and practical experience relating to the professional services and activities involved in recreation, reservoir/lake management, county system planning, and open space planning. The following factors will form
  • Steelhead (Snake River Basin) Oncorhynchus Mykiss Gairdneri

    Steelhead (Snake River Basin) Oncorhynchus Mykiss Gairdneri

    Steelhead (Snake River basin) Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri Actinopterygii — Salmoniformes — Salmonidae CONSERVATION STATUS / CLASSIFICATION Rangewide: Imperiled/Vulnerable subspecies (G5T2T3) Statewide: Vulnerable (S3) ESA: Threatened USFS: Region 1: No status; Region 4: Sensitive BLM: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate (Type 1) IDFG: Game fish; Threatened BASIS FOR INCLUSION Threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act; declining abundance and habitat degradation. TAXONOMY Steelhead are the anadromous life form of rainbow\redband trout Behnke (2002). Steelhead spawning east of the Cascades are considered part of the redband trout of the Columbia Basin, which is a subspecies of rainbow trout. The rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss complex includes 5 additional subspecies. Rainbow trout were originally described by Walbaum in 1792 (Nelson et al. 2004). DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE Steelhead, which are the anadromous life form of rainbow\redband trout, were historically found along the west coast of North America from southern California to central Alaska. The interior Columbia River basin steelhead ranged from east of the Cascades upstream in the Columbia River and tributary streams to natural geologic barriers such as Shoshone Falls on the Snake River (Behnke 2002). In Idaho, steelhead had access to most of the Clearwater, Salmon, Weiser, Payette, Boise, Owyhee, Bruneau and Salmon Falls Creek drainages. Populations using the tributaries above Hells Canyon Dam were eliminated with the construction of the Hells Canyon complex in the 1950s and earlier upriver dams. Currently, wild and hatchery steelhead are found in the Snake River below Hells Canyon Dam, Clearwater, and Salmon River drainages. The resident life form, inland redband trout, are also present in the Salmon and Clearwater drainage along with steelhead.
  • Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Intermountain Region Part 1

    Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Intermountain Region Part 1

    United States Department of Agriculture Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Intermountain Region Part 1 Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Report Service Research Station RMRS-GTR-375 April 2018 Halofsky, Jessica E.; Peterson, David L.; Ho, Joanne J.; Little, Natalie, J.; Joyce, Linda A., eds. 2018. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Intermountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-375. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Part 1. pp. 1–197. Abstract The Intermountain Adaptation Partnership (IAP) identified climate change issues relevant to resource management on Federal lands in Nevada, Utah, southern Idaho, eastern California, and western Wyoming, and developed solutions intended to minimize negative effects of climate change and facilitate transition of diverse ecosystems to a warmer climate. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service scientists, Federal resource managers, and stakeholders collaborated over a 2-year period to conduct a state-of-science climate change vulnerability assessment and develop adaptation options for Federal lands. The vulnerability assessment emphasized key resource areas— water, fisheries, vegetation and disturbance, wildlife, recreation, infrastructure, cultural heritage, and ecosystem services—regarded as the most important for ecosystems and human communities. The earliest and most profound effects of climate change are expected for water resources, the result of declining snowpacks causing higher peak winter
  • Native Americans, the Earliest Interpreters: What Is Known About Their Legends and Stories of Yellowstone National Park and the Complexities of Interpreting Them

    Native Americans, the Earliest Interpreters: What Is Known About Their Legends and Stories of Yellowstone National Park and the Complexities of Interpreting Them

    Lee H. Whittlesey Native Americans, the Earliest Interpreters: What is Known About Their Legends and Stories of Yellowstone National Park and the Complexities of Interpreting Them The thermal wonders of the Park did not frighten the native peoples of the region. Euro-Americans originated this idea and it must be dispelled before we can understand the true nature of Yellowstone’s human past. —Joseph Weixelman, “The Power to Evoke Wonder” (1992) hat did the Indians say about Yellowstone? They must have told stories about its strange wonders, but what were those stories? His- torians have long wondered. Answers have been slow to appear. WNative Americans probably had many more tales, legends, and myths about the Yellowstone country than the few we currently know of, but thanks to Peter Nabokov and Larry Loendorf, we now know more than ever before about some of those early Yellowstone stories. Prior to the emergence of their manuscript American Indians and Yellowstone National Park: A Documentary Overview, his- torians trusted only one Indian legend relating to Yellowstone; that is, they knew of only one that appeared to be genuinely Indian rather than “white” (the Ralph Dixey story discussed below). Moreover, before the Nabokov book appeared, only small, unsatisfying tidbits of Yellowstone information were known to us in general about the Sheepeaters, Shoshones, Crows, Bannocks, Blackfeet, Flat- heads, Kiowas, Arapahoes, Nez Perce, Assinboines, Northern Cheyennes, Gros Ventres, Sioux, and other tribes who inhabited the upper Yellowstone country and its edges at various times prior to 1870. But now, because of that book, we know more than ever before about how these tribes related to Yellowstone.
  • The Twin Falls Water Story: More Growth, Less Use

    The Twin Falls Water Story: More Growth, Less Use

    The Twin Falls Water Story: More Growth, Less Use In 1746 among the pages of Poor Richard’s Almanac, Benjamin Franklin noted astutely, “When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.” Those who are intimately involved in city planning can agree it’s best to not wait until the well is dry before understanding the many ways water sustains industry, commerce and the well-being of a population. The City of Twin Falls, Idaho, has made water management a priority for decades. As a result, groundwater consumption has gone down even as their population growth continues at a steady pace. The History of Twin Falls Water When exploring the dozens of waterfalls in the Magic Valley including the sprawling, thundering Shoshone Falls, it’s difficult to imagine the area as a parched desert. “The building of Milner Dam around 1900 is really what brought the City of Twin Falls to life,” said Brian Olmstead, general manager of the Twin Falls Canal Company. “It turned what was once a desert into the rich farmland that it is now.” The implementation of the Milner Dam and the subsequent canal system were an early result of the Carey Act of 1894. Also known as the Federal Desert Land Act, the act promoted cooperative ventures with private companies to establish irrigation systems that would allow large areas of semi-arid federal land to become agriculturally productive. The Milner Dam project provided water to nearly 200,000 acres on the south side of the Snake River. “The initial setup included irrigation shares and ditches that flowed to nearly every lot in town until about the 1960s,” Olmstead said.
  • Redband Trout Sub-Sp. (Oncorhynchus Mykiss Sub-Species) Data: Trout and Salmon of North America, Behnke, 2002; Various State and Federal Documents Partners: CA, OR

    Redband Trout Sub-Sp. (Oncorhynchus Mykiss Sub-Species) Data: Trout and Salmon of North America, Behnke, 2002; Various State and Federal Documents Partners: CA, OR

    Redband Trout Sub-Sp. (Oncorhynchus mykiss sub-species) Data: Trout and Salmon of North America, Behnke, 2002; Various state and federal documents Partners: CA, OR. WA, NV, ID, MT, FS, FWS, BLM, Tribes__________________ Status of the Redband Trout: Various forms Historic Distribution of Redband Trout of the Redband trout (RBT) were petitioned to (modified from Behnke, 1996) be listed as Threatened or Endangered in the late 1990’s, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the sub-species, in the various drainages, did not need the protection of the Endangered Species Act. The various forms of Redband trout in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho and Montana are considered to be sensitive species or species of concern in all the states. The BLM also considers several populations of Redband Trout to be a “sensitive Species”. Sportfishing Status of Redband trout: Native populations of redband trout provide diverse and popular recreational angling opportunities. Their willingness to take a variety of fishing gear, impressive fighting ability when hooked, spectacular appearance and potential to reach large size all contribute to their popularity. Special regulations for waters possessing redband trout population are Although the current distribution is not used to balance angling opportunities with accurately described, regionally located surveys conservation needs. For example, in Nevada, do give some good information. For the recreational angling is allowed for redband purposes of this status assessment, distribution trout with harvest and possession limits ranging in four geographic population groups is from five to ten trout. Angler use on these described. They include 1) the upper redband trout streams and rivers has averaged Sacramento River Basin; 2) The upper interior approximately 7,000 angler use days per year Great Basin in Oregon and Nevada; 3) the since 1993.
  • Long-Term Captive Breeding Does Not Necessarily Prevent Reestablishment: Lessons Learned from Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout

    Long-Term Captive Breeding Does Not Necessarily Prevent Reestablishment: Lessons Learned from Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout

    Rev Fish Biol Fisheries DOI 10.1007/s11160-011-9230-x RESEARCH PAPER Long-term captive breeding does not necessarily prevent reestablishment: lessons learned from Eagle Lake rainbow trout Gerard Carmona-Catot • Peter B. Moyle • Rachel E. Simmons Received: 7 March 2011 / Accepted: 18 July 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract Captive breeding of animals is often cited recovering as habitat. With the exception of an as an important tool in conservation, especially for abundant alien brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) fishes, but there are few reports of long-term population in Pine Creek, the habitat factors that led (\50 years) success of captive breeding programs, to the presumed near-extinction of Eagle Lake rainbow even in salmonid fishes. Here we describe the captive trout in the early twentieth century have been amelio- breeding program for Eagle Lake rainbow trout, rated, although the final stages of reestablishment Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum, which is endemic (eradication of brook trout, unequivocal demonstration to the Eagle Lake watershed of northeastern Califor- of successful spawning migration) have still not been nia. The population in Eagle Lake has been dependent completed. The Eagle Lake rainbow trout story shows on captive breeding for more than 60 years and that long-term captive breeding of migratory salmonid supports a trophy fishery in the lake. Nevertheless, fishes does not necessarily prevent reestablishment of the basic life history, ecological, and genetic traits of wild populations, provided effort is made to counter the subspecies still seem to be mostly intact. Although the effects of hatchery selection and that natural management has apparently minimized negative habitats are restored for reintroduction.