WOOD RIVER WETLAND
MONITORING REPORT
2003-2005
Restored Wood River Channel
USDI BLM, Klamath Falls Resource Area Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Page ii Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Table of Contents
Table of Contents...... iii List of Tables ...... v List of Figures...... v
Introduction...... 1 Resource Management Plan...... 1 Wood River Restoration Project ...... 1 Restoration Plan Phase 1 components: 1996-1997...... 1 Restoration Plan Phase 2 components: 1997-2001...... 2 Restoration Plan Phase 3 components: 1997-2002...... 2 Restoration Plan Phase 4 components: 2002 plus...... 2 Historic Management...... 2 Recent Management...... 3 Partners ...... 3 Monitoring Plan ...... 3 Monitoring Report ...... 4 Monitoring Results...... 4 Waterfowl ...... 4 Neotropical Migratory Birds...... 6 Constant-effort Monitoring...... 7 Censusing...... 7 Area Search Censuses...... 7 Point Count Censuses ...... 8 Conclusion ...... 8 Special Status Species Monitoring...... 8 Black Tern Nest Colony Survey Project...... 8 Wintering Raptor Survey ...... 8 Yellow Rails...... 9 Bald Eagles ...... 9 Vegetation...... 9 Riparian Resources ...... 11 Photo Points ...... 11 Water Quality...... 11 Water Temperature ...... 11 Introduction...... 11 Methods...... 12 Results...... 13 Analysis and Interpretation...... 19 Fisheries Monitoring...... 26 Interior Wetland Fish Sampling...... 26 Methods...... 26 Results...... 27 Endangered Sucker Investigations...... 28 Surveys 1998...... 28 Surveys 1999...... 28
Page iii Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Surveys 2003...... 29 Surveys 2004...... 29 Snorkeling Surveys ...... 29 Habitat Observations...... 30 Boat Surveys ...... 30 Recommendations for Future Monitoring ...... 30 ODFW Redband Trout Spawning Surveys...... 31 Spotted Frog Populations...... 33 Oregon Spotted Frog Egg Mass Survey...... 33 Methods...... 33 Results...... 33 Bat Populations ...... 34 Study Area ...... 34 Methods...... 34 Data Summary ...... 34 Recreation and Outreach...... 35 Visitation Monitoring...... 35 Outreach/Environmental Education Activity...... 36 Volunteer Work ...... 37 Recreation Projects ...... 37 Visual Resources...... 37 Lands...... 37 Land Sales...... 37 Lands Actions in Support of Restoration...... 37 Grazing...... 37 Cultural Resource Management...... 38
APPENDICES ...... 40 Appendix A – Supplementary Tables...... 41 Appendix B - References...... 50
Page iv Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
List of Tables
Table 1. Waterfowl Production Counts for 2003 & 2004...... 4 Table 2. Water Temperature Monitoring Studies ...... 12 Table 3. Agency Lake Water Temperatures ...... 22 Table 4. Nutrient concentrations and loading at two pump sites...... 25 Table 5. Fish Counted in Lower Wood River by Boat, July 27, 2004...... 30 Table 6. 2004 Wood River Recreation Use by Activity (hours per month) ...... 35 Table 7. Wood River Environmental Education And Outreach ...... 36 Table A-1. Total Waterfowl (Ducks and Geese) - Aerial Surveys...... 41 Table A-2. Abundance of Birds...... 42 Table A-3. List of All Bird Species documented at the Wood River Wetland...... 44 Table A-4. Wood River Vegetation Plots Change Summary: 2002 - 2005...... 45 Table A-5. Wood River Wetland Plant Species List ...... 46
List of Figures
Figure A. Duck Production at Wood River Wetland...... 5 Figure B. Riparian Vegetation monitoring photo points ...... 11 Figure C. Logger Station Location Map...... 13 Figure D. New Temperature Monitoring Stations in Lower Wood River...... 14 Figure E. Temperature Monitoring Stations in Wood River Delta/Agency Lake ...... 14 Figure F. Change In Channel Surface Area Before and After Restoration Work...... 15 Figure G. Wood River Discharge, 1998-2004...... 16 Figure H. Agency Lake Level (Elevation), 1998-2004 ...... 16 Figure I. Stream Temperatures, North Boundary, 1998-2004...... 17 Figure J. Stream Temperatures, Dike Bridge, 1998-2004 ...... 18 Figure K. Air Temperatures, Chiloquin Weather Station, 1998-2004...... 18 Figure L. Pre- and Post-Treatment Water Temperatures...... 19 Figure M. Pre- and Post-Treatment Stream Warming, Restoration Area...... 20 Figure N. July and August warming from Dike Bridge to Agency Lake, 2001-2004...... 21 Figure O. Cumulative Stream Warming, 1997-2004...... 21 Figure P. Mean Daily Water Temperatures, Upper Klamath Lake and Wood River Delta ...... 23 Figure Q. Change in Total Phosphorus Concentration (TP), Weed Road and Dike Bridge...... 24 Figure R. Change in Total Nitrogen concentration (TN), Weed Road and Dike Bridge...... 24 Figure S. Estimated Nutrient Loading Due to Decreased Pumping ...... 25 Figure T. Interior Marsh Trap Net Locations ...... 26 Figure U. Deployed Marsh Trap Net At Site 20A...... 27 Figure V. Relative Abundance in Trap Net Surveys, Interior Marsh Wetland...... 27 Figure W. Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) Trap Net Surveys in Interior Marsh Wetland...... 28 Figure X. The Highest (Peak) Count For Each Spawning Season In The Record ...... 31 Figure Y. Monthly spawning statistics for all spawning counts combined...... 32 Figure AA. Spawning numbers (Adults) 1999-2004 (post BLM project work)...... 33
Page v Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Introduction
In September 1992, Congress appropriated funds for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to purchase 3,200 acres of former wetland that had been converted to irrigated pasture (1950-1970). In July of 1994, the purchase of the property was completed. The primary goal for management of the Wood River Property is to restore the majority of the area to a properly functioning wetland community.
In the early years of BLM management at Wood River Wetland a monitoring report was prepared each year. The past three years BLM has found that with shortages in funding and personnel, we were not able to prepare an annual report. In addition, there has been less activity has occurred in the wetland, resulting in less data to report. This report includes the results of monitoring and a summarization of past activities including those from 2003, 2004 and 2005. In a few instances there was monitoring that occurred in 2005 but the data was not available to include in this report. That data will be reported in the next Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report.
Resource Management Plan
Immediately following acquisition of the property, the BLM began preparation of a resource management plan (RMP) to establish management objectives and direction. The BLM published the Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland Resource Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in July 1995. The record of decision for the resource management plan was published in February 1996. The primary objectives are to improve water quality and quantity entering Agency Lake from the property, and to restore and maintain riverine/wetland habitats, primarily for the federally listed as endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers, and secondarily for other fish and wildlife species. Additional objectives of the project include providing public recreation and environmental education opportunities, and coordinating multi- agency research and monitoring.
Wood River Restoration Project
The overall wetland restoration project was designed to restore approximately 3,000 acres of wetland habitat and 2.5 miles of river channel. The Bureau of Land Management’s project goals include improved water quality and quantity, and improved habitat for two endangered fish species, as well as other wildlife. Secondary goals are to provide for public recreation, environmental education and research.
Restoration Plan Phase 1 components: 1996-1997 • Construction of two miles of levee and installation of five associated water control structures. • Creation of two ponds in the northeast corner of the property. • Replacement of an existing pump station. • Design of a new drainage system to emulate original stream courses across the property. • Reconstruction of 0.5 mile of existing levee.
Page 1 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Restoration Plan Phase 2 components: 1997-2001 • Reconstruction of a levee for 1.8 miles across the middle of the project area. • Construction of two settling ponds in front of the two pump stations to serve as final treatment for water to be pumped from the property. • Installation of seven water control structures associated with this middle levee and ponds were completed in 1998. • Creation of seven waterfowl nesting/loafing islands 2001.
Restoration Plan Phase 3 components: 1997-2002 • Restore the lower 1.8 miles of the Wood River to its historic form and function, from the confluence of Crooked Creek south to the dike road bridge. Construction of this project began in September of 1997, with the stockpiling of materials and creation of approximately two acres of wetland habitat. Approximately 40% of the construction work was completed in 1998. The remainder of this work was completed in 1999. This phase of the project is designed to improve refugial habitats for the early life stages of endangered suckers, fish passage, and instream habitat for trout, and provide a wider flood plain with improved riparian and wetland habitat for waterfowl and neotropical migrant birds. • Restoration of 3,300-feet of historic channel south of the dike road bridge was completed in 2001. Additional maintenance of west side channel near bridge was completed in 2002, 2003. Final wetland restoration and closure of the east and west side channels near the bridge is planned for 2005. Wetland restoration at former river mouth planned for 2006.
Restoration Plan Phase 4 components: 2002 plus • The final phase of the Wood River Wetland restoration project will be to develop a more sinuous and diverse interface along Sevenmile Canal. This would involve a two-mile reach of existing levee. This phase of the project will provide improved refugial habitat for larval and juvenile fish, as well as improved nesting and brood-rearing habitat for waterfowl and Neotropical migrant birds. Potential partners include Ducks Unlimited, Oregon Trout, Water for Life, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Trout Unlimited, and the Bureau of Reclamation. Studies are underway to examine the feasibility of this portion of the project.
Historic Management
From 1985 through 1994, this property was managed as irrigated pastureland for beef cattle production. Water that had accumulated on the property over the winter would be pumped off beginning in February or March. Pumping would continue until the property was without surface water except in the drainage canals. This condition was usually achieved by approximately May 1. Cattle were trucked into the ranch beginning in April and turned out on the north half of the property. Approximately 1,300 cow/calf pairs grazed the property through November with some variation in these dates due to weather. Irrigation of the property was usually conducted during June, July, August and September, with typical use being 3,000-6,000 acre feet of water. Under this management scenario, some open water was available from December through April or limited to the drainage canals. Spring and fall forage for migrating geese was abundant. Grasses, sedges and weeds dominated vegetation on the property.
Page 2 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Recent Management
The first year that the property was managed by the BLM was 1995. Water that accumulated during the winter remained on the property throughout the growing season and no cattle were grazed. Irrigation water was added to the property in September, prior to the waterfowl hunting season. The response to this new management from waterfowl was dramatic, with total waterfowl numbers in excess of 100,000. The property was drained to facilitate construction work during the period of 1996-1998. Management from 1999-2004 has generally adhered to the following strategy:
• Reduce/eliminate discharge pumping from the wetland to improve water quality in Agency Lake. • Reduce/eliminate summer irrigation of the wetland to increase the quantity of water available for downstream uses. • Irrigate a limited amount (1000 acre feet) from September 15 to October 31 for wildlife habitat and recreation.
Partners
The BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area would like to express thanks to a diverse group of partners, committed to restoring the Klamath Basin Ecosystem. To date, Federal partners are Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Klamath Basin Refuges and Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office), National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Winema National Forest, U.S. Forest Service Redwood Sciences Lab, the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Non-federal partners to date are American Lands Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Oregon Trout, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Klamath Tribes, The Nature Conservancy, Jim Root, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Klamath Basin Audubon Society, Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture, The Usual Suspects, Oregon State University Extension Service, Oregon Institute of Technology, Henley High School, Lost River High School, Tulelake High School, Butte Valley High School, and Chiloquin Elementary School.
Monitoring Plan
A comprehensive monitoring plan for this wetland restoration project was established and initiated in 1995, and includes the following: water quality sampling, fish distribution, waterfowl numbers and species composition, neotropical migrant bird use, spotted frog distribution and population estimates, vegetation composition, cultural resources, recreation use, riparian condition, and structural integrity and maintenance. Baseline information for these parameters has been gathered, and frequency intervals for field measurements have been established (1995, 1996 and 1997 baseline monitoring reports are available upon request).
The Wood River Wetland project provides a model for wetland restoration and its effects on water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. This project will provide information that could be
Page 3 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
used in other restoration efforts throughout the Klamath Basin and western United States. Monitoring of the effects of this project on these fish species is a cooperative effort.
Partners contributing to monitoring are The Klamath Tribes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, area high schools, Oregon Institute of Technology, U.S. Forest Service Redwood Sciences Lab, Klamath Bird Observatory, The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Trout, U.S. Geological Survey, Klamath Basin Audubon Society, and Oregon State University Extension.
Monitoring Report
The BLM periodically produces this monitoring report to present the results of monitoring efforts and meet the following monitoring objectives from the RMP: • Ensure the decisions and priorities conveyed by the plan are being implemented • Ensure that progress towards identified resource objectives is occurring • To display that mitigating measures and other management direction are effective in avoiding or reducing adverse environmental impacts • To display that the plan is maintained and consistent with the on-going development of BLM state office, regional, and national guidance.
Monitoring Results
Waterfowl
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted periodic waterfowl census flights over the property (except May-August) during the past nine years. The waterfowl counts are highly variable based on the time of year and on site conditions. The results of those flights are displayed in Table A-1 (Appendix A).
The BLM surveyed waterfowl populations each August between 1998 and 2004 to determine the number of young produced. In 2003, the production count survey total was 1,900 waterfowl. In 2004 the production count survey total was 3,222. Table 1 displays the number of young waterfowl by species for 2003 and 2004.
Table 1. Waterfowl Production Counts for 2003 & 2004 Species 2003 Young counted 2004 Young counted Cinnamon Teal 673 1141 Gadwall 911 1595 Mallard 241 275 Widgeon 11 24 Shoveler 5 15 Pintail 11 27
Page 4 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Canvasback 16 0 Redhead 14 3 Wood Duck 4 8 Greenwing Teal 10 10 Ruddy Duck 4 15 Eared Grebe 9 40 Pied billed Grebe 5 3 Western Grebe 4 2 American Coot 87 33 Total Young 2005 3222
As a result of the changes in management to meet RMP objectives waterfowl numbers have increased dramatically. After the construction of new levees and water control structures in January of 1998, waterfowl production tripled between 1998 and 2000. Since 2000, the numbers have fluctuated, with 2002 and 2004 being similar to 2000 (Figure A). The major factors influencing production are climate and water management. During late August 2004, an outbreak of avian botulism was observed at Wood River Wetland. An estimated 500-600 ducks (mostly adult hens and young) died. Prolonged high temperatures and the lack of fresh water circulating within the wetland are likely the primary reasons for the outbreak (refer to Figure A).
Duck Production
3500 3089 3000 3144
3000 2500 1900 2000 1500 875 1125 1000 650
Number of Young 500 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year
Figure A. Duck Production at Wood River Wetland
The long-term management strategy for Wood River Wetland includes having longer periods of inundation. In general the north half of the property will be managed to provide seasonal wetland habitat and the south half of the property will be managed to provide a more permanent
Page 5 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
marsh/open water habitat. While no far-reaching conclusions can be drawn from this limited data, the ability of both vegetation and waterfowl to respond to changes in water management on the property has already been demonstrated. Based on the data displayed in Figure A, BLM expects that waterfowl production will continue to increase as cover increases. The spring and fall peak use of the property by migrating waterfowl is expected to remain in the 25,000 - 80,000 range.
Neotropical Migratory Birds
Text and data for this section is excerpted from Klamath Bird Observatory reports. Species- specific data can be accessed at the KBO website: http://www.klamathbird.org/. Since 1997 the Klamath Bird Observatory (KBO), US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Bureau of Land Management-Lakeview District-Klamath Falls Resource Area, the Winema National Forest and others have been implementing a long-term effort to monitor songbird populations in the Upper Klamath Basin and surrounding areas. This broad scale effort includes the area designated as the Wood River Wetland (WRW) managed by the Lakeview District. KBO operates a constant-effort monitoring station which includes a mist netting array, area search and point count surveys, and an annual vegetation survey within the WRW annually, that are conducted between early May and late October. This sampling period effectively brackets the breeding and fall migration seasons for most species at this latitude. The following provides a brief description of the bird monitoring efforts at the WRW.
In 2003, 16 visits were made constant-effort monitoring station during which 33 person-days expended. Twenty-eight area search surveys were conducted during these visits. Seven point count censuses were conducted on 21 June and 2 July at the constant-effort station, and vegetation sampling was conducted at the station. On 5 July a Black Tern Survey was conducted along a 15-point route at the WRW.
During the mist netting efforts, 590 individual birds of 38 species were captured. Notable captures included one Northern Waterthrush (Seirius noveboracensis) (on 10 June) and 16 Willow Flycatchers (Empidonax trailliii) throughout the season. All of the 12 Wilson’s Warblers (Wilsonia pusilla) captures occurred only during early May or late September through October, the spring and fall migration seasons. There were several additional species captured only during the fall migration season, including Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), Red- breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber), Cassin’s Vireo (Vireo cassinii), Dusky Flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri), Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus), Orange-crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata), Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), Golden-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), and Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus). As has been experienced in previous years at this site there was an influx of hatching-year (hatched in 2003) individuals of several species in July in what is understood as post-breeding and juvenile dispersals. Increased capture rates were experienced from mid-August through early October during the fall migration season.
During area search and point count surveys, 76 species were detected. These data, complimentary to the capture data, provided presence and possible breeding behavior information for the 51 species detected but not captured. Notable detections again included Willow Flycatchers from early June through early September, with individuals singing until early August suggesting breeding in the area (although captured adult individuals showed no
Page 6 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
evidence of breeding condition). The area search and point count surveys provided information for an increased variety of species that are not targeted by mist netting efforts alone. During these surveys, raptor, waterbird, wader, seabird, and gallinaceous species were detected. During the 2003 Black Tern survey seven individuals were detected foraging or flying with no breeding behavior detected. During the area search segment of the survey, 40 species were detected including six additional Black Terns.
The Klamath Bird Observatory and partners expanded monitoring efforts at the Wood River Wetland in 2004, to include additional point count census routes that were established by BLM personnel. The complimentary data collected at this important area, and as part of our broad- scale long-term monitoring program in the Upper Klamath Basin, will continue to provide valuable information about the effectiveness of wetland rehabilitation efforts at Wood River. Table A-2 (Appendix A) provides much more detail about the abundance of birds at Wood River Wetland. Table A-3 (Appendix A) lists all bird species documented at the Wood River Wetland.
Constant-effort Monitoring
In 2004, 16 efforts were completed at the WRW constant-effort monitoring station during which 42 person-days were expended. During the efforts we logged 766.4 net hours capturing 551 individual birds of 44 species. These included eight species listed as Partners in Flight Priority Species of the Southern Pacific Rainforests Physiographic Area (Area 93; which includes the Klamath Basin). These species included California Quail, Rufous Hummingbird, Willow Flycatcher, Cassin’s Vireo, Swainson’s Thrush, Hermit Warbler, MacGillivray’s Warbler, and Black-headed Grosbeak. Notable capture numbers included 137 Song Sparrows, by far the most frequently captured species, and 50 Yellow Warblers over the course of the season.
There were several species captured only during the breeding (n=17) or only during the fall migration (n=12) season. Red-winged Blackbird (n=37), Brown-headed Cowbird (n=34), and American Goldfinch (n=21) were the most abundant species captured during the breeding season only. Hermit Thrush (n=18), Golden-crowned Sparrow (n=9), and Ruby-crowned Kinglet (n=8) were the most abundant species captured during the migration season only. As has been experienced in previous years at this site, there was an influx of hatching-year (hatched in 2004) individuals of several species in July in what is understood as post-breeding and juvenile dispersals. Increased capture rates were experienced from mid-August through early October during the fall migration season.
Censusing
Area Search Censuses
During area search censuses, 75 species were detected. The area search surveys provided information for an increased variety of species that are not targeted by mist netting efforts alone. During these surveys, raptor, waterbird, wader, seabird, and gallinaceous species were detected. These data complimented the demographic information attained by banding data with presence and possible breeding behavior information for 51 species detected but not captured. Notable detections included Willow Flycatchers from early June through early September, with individuals singing until early August suggesting breeding in the area (although captured adult individuals showed no evidence of breeding condition).
Page 7 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Point Count Censuses
As a component of our long-term, constant-effort monitoring station protocol, KBO conducted point count censuses at the WRW in June. These four count stations, located within the mist netting array, have been censused every year during the same date (within five days) since our monitoring efforts began here in 1997. Also in 2004, KBO expanded monitoring efforts at the WRW, to include additional point count census routes that had been established by BLM personnel. These efforts included three routes consisting of 46 stations surveyed 2-4 June. These routes include stations at the North Marsh, Petric Dike, South Dike, South Spit, Lower Wood River, and Sevenmile Dike.
Conclusion
The Klamath Bird Observatory’s long-term bird monitoring program utilizes multiple methods, at a landscape level, to monitor bird populations during the breeding and fall migration seasons. Integral components of this monitoring program are technical training and outreach efforts. We are collecting data on population trends, habitat relationships, and demographic parameters throughout the Klamath Bioregion in order to inform managers about important bird habitats and the effects of resource management practices on birds. Data resulting from these efforts are contributed to several databases including the USGS North American Bird Banding Laboratory, the Institute for Bird Populations’ Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship program, the Klamath Demographic Monitoring Network, the Landbird Migration Monitoring Network of the Americas, and the Eastern Cascades Bird Conservancy. These data collected as part of our broad-scale long-term monitoring program in the Upper Klamath Basin, and especially at the WRW, will continue to provide valuable information about the effectiveness of restoration efforts at the Wetlands.
Special Status Species Monitoring
Black Tern Nest Colony Survey Project
The KBO typically conducts Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) surveys during May through early July in this area. In June 2004, a Black Tern Nesting Colony Survey was conducted by KBO along a 15-point route at the WRW as a component of our Klamath Basin-wide colony- monitoring effort. Seven tern individuals were observed, with foraging behavior, but no nesting behavior noted. During the area search segment of the survey 40 species were detected.
Wintering Raptor Survey
In December, KBO began conducting a wintering raptor survey in the Upper Klamath Basin. The survey will be repeated once a month through March 2005. The survey consists of a 64.4 mile road route in the Agency Lake to Fort Klamath area and includes Modoc Point Road with a stop at the WRW interpretive and trailhead point. During the December survey, the most abundant species encountered was the Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) with 61 observed during the entire survey. Other highlights included two Red-shouldered Hawks (Buteo lineatus), one of which was observed at the WRW parking area, and 11 Rough-legged Hawks (Buteo lagopus).
Page 8 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
The results of these surveys are contributed to the East Cascades Bird Conservancy’s state-wide Wintering Birds of Prey Survey Project.
Yellow Rails
The Nature Conservancy has conducted surveys for yellow rails on the property where restoration work has been completed. In addition, mid-winter bald eagle counts have been conducted by BLM personnel on the property for the past four years.
Yellow rail surveys are conducted at night in preferred habitat types to locate territorial males. Males are captured and banded where it is feasible to do so. Nest searches take place during the day in suitable habitat within likely breeding territories.
Yellow rails continue to use the property along with several other areas in the Wood River Valley. The overall population (Wood River Valley) appears to be small but relatively stable.
Bald Eagles
Mid-winter bald eagle counts were conducted during 1998 and 1999. Mid-winter counts are conducted annually on a nationwide basis during target dates in January. The route at Wood River consists of a 6-mile route along the perimeter of the property. In 1998, five immature bald eagles and one adult bald eagle were observed along the route. In 1999, two adult bald eagles and two immature eagles were documented. In 2000, three immature bald eagles and two adult bald eagles were observed along the route. In 2001, four adult bald eagles and two immature bald eagles were observed. In 2002, two mature bald eagles and two immature bald eagles were observed. Bald eagles also have been frequently observed hunting at Wood River during the spring and summer months.
Vegetation
Data were collected from 30 vegetation monitoring plots on the Wood River Wetland property. Twenty of the plots were originally established in 1995, and 9 plots were established in 1996 to complete the planned plot design for vegetation monitoring. One new plot was established in 1999 within the riparian wetland created by filling a portion of the dredged Wood River channel. The objective is to monitor vegetation change over time in response to wetland restoration management actions. Since the changes in plant community that may occur as a result of restoration actions is unknown, a minimal area could not be determined for the size of the releves. Therefore, a standard releve size of 100 m2 (5.64 m radius circular plots) for grassland- type plant communities was used. Coordinates for each plot were determined in 1996 using a GPS. Details of the sampling methods are included in the 1995 monitoring report.
A preliminary tabulation of the data for selected species from 1997, 1999, 2003 and 2005 shows that the changes in water management have resulted in some changes in the vegetation, as reflected in changes in individual species distribution and cover/abundance. Although reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) increased slightly in frequency (per cent of plots in which it occurred) between 2002 and 2005 from 20% to 27%, it is still much lower than the 59% frequency found in 1997. The current increase represents only two additional plots with reed
Page 9 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
canary grass, and the 2005 frequency still represents less than half as many plots as in 1997. Similarly, quack grass (Elytrigia repens), an exotic pasture grass listed as noxious by the Oregon state weed board, also decreased in frequency from 28% in 1997, to 10% in 1999, to only 3% in 2003 and 2005 (which represents occurrence in only one plot). These data indicate that conditions at the Wood River Wetland are less conducive to the persistence of species adapted to seasonal and/or disturbed, marginal wetlands.
Some emergent obligate wetland species have remained relatively constant in frequency, while others have increased significantly in frequency over the years. The frequency of spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya) declined to 63% in 2002, but increased to 90% in 2005. Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) continued to decline from 40% in 2002 to 30% in 2005. Baltic rush is described by some as an early seral wetland species, and may be declining as the site becomes more stable. Although hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus) declined slightly from 20% in 2002 to 13% in 2005 (the same number of plots as in 1997), its cover/abundance increased in three of the four plots in which it occurred.
Two late seral obligate wetland species, cattail (Typha latifolia) and giant bur-reed (Sparganium eurycarpum), increased in frequency in 2005. Cattail increased to 33% frequency from low of only 7% in 2002. Giant bur-reed continued to increase in frequency to 17% in 2005 from 13% in 2002.
Several submerged and floating aquatic species were found in the vegetation sample plots for the first time during the 1999 sampling. Coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), Canadian waterweed (Elodea canadensis), and common duckweed (Lemna minor) were found in plots that were described as aquatic since they had standing water up to 3 feet deep at the time of sampling. Water management that did not pump water off and only pumped water on in the fall resulted in standing water in some plots in some years, but no standing water on those same plots in drier years, such as 2005. Therefore, no plots in 2005 had these submerged and floating aquatic species or the aquatic conditions that support them, with the exception of duckweed noted as visible on the substrate in some plots.
Although the vegetation still seems to be in a dynamic state of change, there seems to be a trend towards an increase or stabilization of obligate wetland species and a decline or stabilization of weedy, upland or edge species. Therefore, future monitoring should detect more changes in the vegetation, with a general trend towards the establishment of a plant community typical of a functioning wetland.
A list of and relative changes of plant species that were monitored from 2002 to 2005 on the Wood River property can be found in Table A-5 (Appendix A). A complete list of the plant species that have been identified from surveys conducted from 1995 to 2005 on Wood River property is available in the botany files at the Klamath Falls Resource Area office.
Page 10 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Riparian Resources
Photo Points
Photo points have been established to monitor visual changes in vegetation following restoration activities. Prior to 2002 significant changes were evident. Since most of the active restoration work has been completed, the visual changes in the vegetation are not as evident as in recent years. Between 2002 and 2004 the photo points were not monitored. The photos will be retaken on a new schedule of every five years beginning in 2006.
The 12 riparian photo points are located approximately 1000 meters apart along the Seven Mile dike and the Wood River (see Figure B). At each point four photos were taken, one in each of the four cardinal directions (North, South, East, and West) using a compass to determine the direction. The photos are taken during the middle to end of June. A map of the photo points and copies of the photos are located in the Wood River Photo Points binder at the Klamath Falls Field Office.
Figure B. Riparian Vegetation monitoring photo points
Water Quality
Water Temperature
Introduction
Channel restoration between the confluence of Crooked Creek and Dike Bridge was started in the fall of 1998 and completed in the fall of 1999. The Wood River channel below Dike Bridge
Page 11 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
was lengthened in 2001 by rerouting water into a historic channel in the lower delta. Water temperature monitoring was initiated in 1997 to assess baseline conditions for aquatic species and to conduct before and after effectiveness monitoring of channel restoration activities.
Temperature monitoring activities can be conveniently separated into three areas of analysis with slightly differing study objectives and study design parameters shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Water Temperature Monitoring Studies Study Objective Parameters Location Timeline 1. Determine effects of channel Hourly data acquisition. Upstream BLM 1997- restoration and narrowing on Control and Treatment boundary to 2004 rate of stream warming Reach, Before and After Dike Bridge restoration monitoring 2. Determine effects of channel Hourly data acquisition. Dike Bridge to 2001- lengthening on water Before and after Agency Lake 2004 temperatures entering UKL restoration monitoring 3. Determine effects of Hourly data acquisition. An array of 2000- relocating the mouth of the Control and Treatment stations in 2004 Wood River on water sites, Before and After Agency Lake temperatures in Agency Lake restoration monitoring adjacent to delta near Wood River Delta wetland
Methods
Temperature loggers were set to collect water temperature at hourly intervals. This data was aggregated to daily mean temperatures for analysis and display. Water temperature data loggers were deployed at two stations in 1997 (North Boundary Station and Dike Bridge.) A third water temperature station was added in 1998 below the confluence of Crooked Creek at the top of the channel construction reach (Figure C. Logger Station Location Map). The objective of the temperature data collection was to measure the effects of channel narrowing and deepening on the rate of stream warming through the project reach.
Eight water temperature stations were located in the near shore areas of the old Wood River mouth and the new mouth (see photograph, Figure D). These temperature loggers were placed on the bottom of the lake at varying elevations depending on the location. Two years of pre- channel relocation data were obtained (2000 and 2001). No data was collected from these stations in 2002. Data collection in 2004 was the second year since the channel was completely re-located. Two additional water temperature stations were added in 2003 in the Wood River (Figure E) to determine the warming rate in the lengthened Wood River delta channel below Dike Road. One new station was added at the upstream end of the new channel and one at the new mouth of the river at the confluence of Agency Lake.
Calibration and deployment of temperature loggers followed methods described in “Water Quality Monitoring Technical Guide Book, Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, 1999" (OWEB. 1999).
Page 12 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
The temperature loggers used in this study have a manufacturer’s stated accuracy of +/- 0.25 degrees Celsius.
Figure C. Logger Station Location Map
Results
Factors Potentially Affecting Rates Of Stream Warming Channel surface area upstream of Dike Bridge was reduced from 36 acres to 16 acres (Figure F. Change in Channel Surface). This reduced water surface area subjected to solar radiation by approximately 66%. Channel cross sectional area was also reduced, thus increasing average stream velocity and reducing warming potential. Differences in river flows, lake levels, meteorological factors, and upstream water temperatures all add uncertainty to direct comparisons between years, making it difficult to attribute changes in warming rate only to channel restoration.
Page 13 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Figure D. Temperature Monitoring Stations in Wood River Delta/Agency Lake
Wood River, 2003
Figure E. New Temperature Monitoring Stations in Lower Wood River
Page 14 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Data Logger 1.1 miles Channel Restoration Reach
1998 1999 1997 (October) (August) AREA 1568154 1172112 714115 AREA 36.00 26.91 16.39 Mean width 238.6 154.5 84.7
Figure F. Change In Channel Surface Area Before and After Restoration Work.
Higher discharge flows in the years before the project was completed (Figure G) would theoretically raise potential warming rates after project completion. Lower lake levels for Agency Lake during all years after project completion (Figure H) could reduce the rate of stream warming by increasing water surface slope thus increasing water velocity.
Page 15 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Statistics for July and August Wood River Discharge (Q) 400
350 Stdv.- Minimum
300 Mean Maximum 250 Stdv.+
200
Discharge (CFS) 150
100 Q_1998 Q_1999 Q_2000 Q_2001 Q_2002 Q_2003 Q_2004
Figure G. Wood River Discharge, 1998-2004
Statistics for July and August Lake Elevation 4145
4144
4143 Stdv.- Minim um 4142 Mean Maxim um 4141 Stdv.+ 4140
Feet (BOR datum) 4139
4138 4137
8 9 0 1 2 3 4
9 9 0 0 0 0 0
9 9 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 2 2 2 2 2
______
V V V V V V V
E E E E E E E
L L L L L L L
E E E E E E E
Figure H. Agency Lake Level (Elevation), 1998-2004
Page 16 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Water temperatures at the upstream boundary of the project area which were unaffected by BLM management were considerably higher in 2004 than in 1998 (Figure I), however, water temperatures at Dike Bridge were lower in 2004 than in 1998 (Figure J). A lower thermal gradient between water temperature and ambient air temperature would theoretically result in reduced warming potential. Air temperatures in 1998 at the nearby Chiloquin Weather Station were similar to air temperatures in 2004 but have been trending upward since 1999 (Figure K). Vegetation and channel morphology which affect the amount of solar radiation on water surfaces could have also changed since 1998 affecting both the upstream reach (control reach) and the treatment reach.
Descriptive Statistics for July and August Stream Temperatures at Upstream Property Boundary 70
65
60
55
50
45
Temperature(degrees F) Std- 40 Minim um
8 9 0 3 4 Mean 9 9 0 0 0
_ _ _ _ _
y y y y y r r r r r Maxim um d d d d d
n n n n n
B B B B B Std+
. . . . . N N N N N
Figure I. Stream Temperatures, North Boundary, 1998-2004
Page 17 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Descriptive Statistics for July and August Stream Temperatures at Dik e Br idge 70
65
60
55
50
Std-
Temperature(degrees F) 45 Minim um 40 Mean
8 9 0 2 3 4 9 9 0 0 0 0 Maxim um ______r r r r r r
B B B B B B Std+
e e e e e e
k k k k k k i i i i i i
D D D D D D
Figure J. Stream Temperatures, Dike Bridge, 1998-2004
Average July and August Air Temperatures at Chiloquin Weather Station 90
80
70 Maximum Average 60 Minimum 50
Air Temp (degrees F) 40
30 ir_2000 ir_2001 ir_2003 ir_1999 ir_2004 ir_1998 Air_2002 A A A A A A
Figure K. Air Temperatures, Chiloquin Weather Station, 1998-2004
Page 18 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Analysis and Interpretation
Two types of statistical analysis were performed to determine if there is a difference in stream warming rates resulting from channel restoration work. The first was a simple regression curve which compared pre-project warming to post-project warming in July and August (Figure L). Water temperature near the confluence of Crooked Creek was an excellent predictor of water temperature at Dike Bridge in 1998 before channel re-construction and in 2004 after reconstruction (r2 = .97 and r2 =.94 respectively). The difference between the 1998 model equation and the actual 2004 temperature at Dike Bridge could be considered a measure of the change in potential warming due to a change in stream characteristics or other environmental factors. To reduce bias in the model prediction from other environmental factors that may affect stream warming, temperature data was excluded for days that had lake elevations, air temperatures, and upstream water temperatures that were not in the range of common values for both years. A paired T-test was performed showing a significant difference in mean temperature of -2.00 degrees Fahrenheit (p <.001) and lower and upper 95% confidence limits of -2.27 and - 1.74 respectively.
Relationship between mean daily water temperatures at upper boundry of channel reconstruction and Dike Road pre and post project.
70
Pre-project-1998_model 65 R2 = 0.97 60 R2 = 0.94
55
Temp at DikeBridge 2004 1998 50 50 55 60 65 Temp at Upstream Project Boundary
Figure L. Pre- and Post-Treatment Water Temperatures
The second type of analysis was to compare mean warming rates between years in the treatment reach and within years for the treatment reach compared to the upstream control reach. Independent sample T-tests were performed with the following results.
The mean warming in the control reach (3.15) was similar (no significant difference, p > .05) from the treatment reach in 1998 (mean warming 3.35) before channel reconstruction (Figure M). After channel reconstruction, warming in the treatment area was significantly less than the control area in both 1999 (mean warming 1.52) and in 2004 (mean warming 1.02). Mean warming in the control reach in 1999 was not statistically different from mean warming in the control reach in 2004. However, mean warming in the treatment reach was significantly less in 1999 than in 1998 and significantly less in 2004 than in 1999. This pattern may be due to channel reconstruction being only partially completed in 1999. Because mean warming in the control reach was significantly less after restoration occurred, year to year comparisons between
Page 19 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
the control and the treatment area is more difficult to interpret. Comparing the control reach to the treatment reach (within years) yielded a post treatment average difference of -.80 degrees Fahrenheit. Comparing between years in the control reach yielded an average difference of -.90 degrees Fahrenheit after restoration. Comparing between years in the treatment reach yielded an average difference of -2.08 after restoration. This difference agrees very well with the -2.00 degree difference calculated from the regression model above.
Descriptive Statistics for July and August Stream Warming above (control) and within (treatment) channel restoration area 6
5 Before 4 After 3 2
1 95% Lower Confid. Min 0 Mean l t l t l t
o n o n o n r r r -1 t e t e t e Max n n n m m m o t o t o t Stream Warming (degrees F) (degrees Warming Stream 95% Upper Confid a a a C C C -2 e e e r r r
T T T 1998 1999 2004
Figure M. Pre- and Post-Treatment Stream Warming, Restoration Area
Channel Relocation Area (Dike Bridge to Mouth of River)
Channel relocation was completed in the winter of 2001. The restoration of the historic delta channel resulted in an increase in the length of the Wood River of approximately 0.7 miles. Temperatures in the reach below Dike Bridge were monitored in 2001, before channel lengthening, and in 2003-2004 to investigate potential effects of lengthening the channel on water temperatures reaching Agency Lake. Figure N displays daily average values for the three stations between Dike Bridge and Agency Lake. This warming rate is very similar to the post restoration warming rates observed in the area upstream of Dike Bridge (approximately 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit per mile). Figure O displays cumulative stream warming over the BLM project area and the reduction in water temperature increases from the confluence with Crooked Creek to Dike Bridge to Agency Lake for the pre- and post treatment years (1997-2004).
Page 20 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Year Year Year 2001 2003 2004 3
2
1 Stdv- 0 Min Average -1 Max Warming (degrees F) Srdv+ -2
-3
Figure N. July and August warming from Dike Bridge to Agency Lake, 2001-2004
Confluence w/ Crooked Creek Dike Bridge Mouth 7 6 5 Y_1997 4 Y_1998 3 Y_1999 2 Y_2004 1
Cumulative Warming (F) Warming Cumulative 0 0 2.5 3.7 4.6 012345 Distance Downstream BLM Boundary
Figure O. Cumulative Stream Warming, 1997-2004
Page 21 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Agency Lake Temperature Stations Data was retrieved from only four of the eight lake stations due to instrument failure and loss of deployment anchors in 2003. Only two stations of the four were retrieved in 2004. The results in Table 3 are given only for the stations in which 2003 or 2004 data was available for comparison to 2000 or 2001. As expected, stations near the new mouth (WRD 5, WRD 6, and WRD 8) show a decrease in temperatures post project and stations near the old mouth (WRD 2, WRD 4) show an increase post project. There is an apparent shift in cooler waters from the west side of the Wood River delta to the east side. Factors that may affect direct year to year comparisons may include differences in Wood River flow, wind generated currents, lake levels, and vertical temperature stratification patterns.
Table 3. Agency Lake Water Temperatures Before lower After lower Difference channel work channel work Month Station 2000 2001 2003 2004 2000/2003 2001/2003 2000/2004 July Air 83.1 80.8 88.8 - 5.7 8.0 WRD 2 63.8 70.6 6.8 - WRD 4 59.2 64.1 4.9 - WRD 5 69.8 68.2 -1.6 - WRD 6 68.0 66.6 -1.4 - WRD 8 72.9 68.8 -4.1 August Air 84.0 85.4 82.1 85.3 -1.9 -3.3 WRD 2 62.2 67.4 68.4 6.3 1.0 WRD 4 56.6 59.3 59.3 2.7 0.0 WRD 5 69.6 65.8 64.1 -5.5 -1.7 WRD 6 68.0 62.8 62.2 -5.8 -0.6 WRD 8 72.9 62.4 -10.5 Water temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) shown as monthly averages with differences before and after lower channel relocation.
In 2000, there was a strong linear relationship between a USGS temperature monitoring station in Upper Klamath Lake and station WRD 8. The mean difference between the 2000 model prediction and actual 2004 WRD 8 temperature measurements is -8.2 degrees Fahrenheit suggesting that cool water from the new mouth of the Wood River is reaching at least as far as WRD 8.
The relationship between the mean daily water temperatures at Upper Klamath Lake and Wood River Delta monitoring sites is displayed in Figure P.
Page 22 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Relationship between mean daily water temperatures at Upper Klamath Lake (UKL07) and Wood River Delta (WRD_08) pre and post channel mouth relocation.
80 R2 = 0.8325 Pre-Project-model 75
70
65 R2 = 0.2902 Post-Project 60 Temp WRD_08 Temp
55 2004 2000 50 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 Temp- Upper Klamath Lake
Figure P. Mean Daily Water Temperatures, Upper Klamath Lake and Wood River Delta
Nutrient Loading Data for Wood River
The Klamath Tribes, under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation, have been collecting bi- weekly nutrient data since the mid-1990s at several sites along major Upper Klamath Lake tributaries. Two of those sites on the Wood River are well positioned to investigate whether nutrient loading and/or concentrations area reflected in changes in management at the BLM Wood River Wetland. Figure Q plots change in phosphorus concentration and Figure R plots change in nitrogen concentration between Weed Road at RM 5 and Dike Road at RM 0.5. Potential nutrient sources and sinks between the two sites include discharge pumps at the BLM wetland and private lands on the East side of the Wood River, Crooked Creek at RM 2.5, and extensive riparian wetlands. Data were included only if there was less than 24 hours between upstream and downstream samples. A downward trend in concentrations may be attributable to the change in pumping rates by BLM after 1998.
Nutrient Data for Wood River Wetland Discharge Pumping
At two sites in the Wood River Wetland, the concentrations of total phosphorous (TP) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) were measured from 1993 to 1995 and from 1999 to 2000 (Snyder and Morace, 1997; Rykbost and Charlton, 2001). A total of 44 samples were taken at the pumps that discharge into Sevenmile Canal and the Wood River (see Table 4).
Page 23 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
700 Q at Weed Road 400 Tribe Measured Q 350 600 Delta TP Trend line 300
500 250
200 400 150 Q (cfs) 300 100
200 50 TN Concentration (ug/L) TN Concentration 0 100 -50
0 -100 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04
Note: Nutrient data collected by Klamath Tribes under contract with USBR is provisional and subject to revision.
Figure Q. Change in Total Phosphorus Concentration (TP), Weed Road and Dike Bridge.
Q at Weed Road 700 600 Tribe Measured Q Delta TN 500 600 Trend Line 400
500 300 200 400 100
0 300 Q (cfs) -100 TN Concentration (ug/L) TN Concentration 200 -200
-300 100 -400
0 -500 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04
Note: Nutrient data collected by Klamath Tribes under contract with USBR is provisional and subject to revision.
Figure R. Change in Total Nitrogen concentration (TN), Weed Road and Dike Bridge.
Page 24 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Table 4. Nutrient concentrations and loading at two pump sites
Load Delivered to Concentration Agency Lake Total Average Duration Total Kjeldahl Number Pump of Total Kjeldahl Total Nitrogen Pump of Rate Pumping Phosphorous Nitrogen Phosphorous Load Site Year Samples (cfs) (Days) (mg/L) (mg/L) Load (lbs.) (lbs.) 1993- Sevenmile 1995 6 20 60 0.93 3.3 1241.1 4403.9 Canal 1999- 2000 22 N/A 0 0.49 3.0 0.0 0.0
1993- Wood 1995 6 20 60 0.98 2.7 1307.8 3603.2 River 1999- 2000 10 25 10 0.86 3.5 239.1 973.1
At both sites, the concentration of TP was lower in 1999/2000 than it was in 1993/1995. TKN concentrations decreased slightly at the Sevenmile site but increased at the Wood River site. Because of these decreased concentrations, and because much less water is pumped from the wetland under its current management program, the estimated total load of TP and TKN delivered to Agency Lake has decreased (Figure S). This is estimate based on presumed pumping and nutrient concentration data (2000 (Snyder and Morace, 1997; Rykbost and Charlton, 2001).
Wood River Wetland Nutrient Loading - Discharge Pumping
10000
8000 Total Phosphorous Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 6000
4000
2000
0
Estimated Nutrient Loading (lbs.) Loading Nutrient Estimated 1975- 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1994
Figure S. Estimated Nutrient Loading Due to Decreased Pumping
Page 25 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Fisheries Monitoring
Interior Wetland Fish Sampling
Sampling was conducted in the interior wetland area to reassess fish species composition and size distribution. This study compared fish assemblage data that was collected in 1995 and 1998. Oregon Institute of Technology student Mike Hiatt conducted the study and produced a report for his sophomore project which is available at the Klamath Falls BLM office (Hiatt, 2004. Wood River Restoration Project: Fish Species Assemblage).
Methods Six sites throughout the interior wetland were sampled. These six sites were selected for accessibility and adequate depth for trap efficiency (Figure T). Each site was sampled two times in July, 2004. Trap nets were left in the water over night for approximately seventeen to twenty hours. Trap net mesh were 12.5 mm bar mesh. Trap nets consist of a lead (1.2 m deep x 30.5 m long) followed by a rectangular frame (1.2 m x 1.8 m x 1 m). The trap frame leads into four circular hoops (1m diameter, 1 m apart), which contain three internal fykes. All fish were identified to species level, measured to fork length, and released.
Figure T. Interior Marsh Trap Net Locations
Page 26 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Figure U. Deployed Marsh Trap Net At Site 20A
Results Figures V and W summarize species composition and relative abundance for 1995, 1998, and 2004. The most striking change in species composition and catch per unit effort (CPUE) was the appearance and dominance of bullfrog tadpoles and metamorphs (probably 1+ age frogs) in the catch.
1.0
0.8 Brow n Bullhead Chub Species 0.6 Bullfrog
Pumkinseed 0.4 Yellow Perch 0.2 Fathead Minnow
Relative Abundance Abundance Relative 0.0
Y 1995 Y 1998 Y 2004
Figure V. Relative Abundance in Trap Net Surveys, Interior Marsh Wetland
Page 27 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Chub Species
CPUE 2004 Pumkinseed CPUE 1998
Fathead Minnow CPUE 1995
0246810121416 Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
Figure W. Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) Trap Net Surveys in Interior Marsh Wetland
Endangered Sucker Investigations
Surveys 1998
Bureau of Land Management biologists conducted exploratory sucker larvae sampling in June and July of 1998 (before channel restoration construction) using night-time fyke net sets in the main channel, larvae drift nets in the wetland fringes, and daytime visual and dip net searches along the shoreline. The purpose of the surveys was to establish sample locations and standardize methods to monitor habitat change and sucker use over time as the Wood River channel restoration project progressed. Unfortunately, no sucker larvae were found and therefore, BLM decided not to conduct before and after project studies on larvae use. The absence of sucker larvae could have been due to low reproduction, inadequate sample frequency and intensity, or timing of sampling relative to larvae outmigration.
Surveys 1999
Incidental information related to sucker use of the restoration area was obtained during fish salvage operations that occurred in late summer and fall of 1999 when sections of the old river channel were isolated and drained for subsequent backfilling. Several hundred Klamath largescale and/or shortnose suckers were salvaged. No positive identifications were performed on sucker species because these species can be difficult to separate in the field. The dominant age class was 0+ but included several 1+ fish and a few adult largescale suckers.
Other work has indicated that there is spawning use by shortnose and Lost River suckers in the Wood River. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) implanted radio transmitters in seven shortnose and one Lost River suckers off the mouth of the Wood River in March 1996 and April 1999. Adult suckers entered the Wood River in late April, spent approximately 2 weeks (1-3 weeks) in the River and left the river system in early June. The few fish that remained in Agency Lake spent the majority of their time near the mouth of the Wood River (BOR, 2001 Biological Assessment on Project Operations).
Page 28 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Surveys 2003
During the first week of July of 2003, BLM fish biologists observed sucker larvae throughout the wetland fringe habitats from just below Dike Bridge up to the confluence of Crooked Creek. Sucker larvae were particularly abundant in the back-filled former dredged channel in shallow, emergent vegetated areas. Larvae were more detectable in the sparsely vegetated area at the upstream end of the restored floodplain than in the densely vegetated areas in the middle and downstream end of the project area. No larvae were detected upstream of the confluence with Crooked creek. Many of the sucker larvae were in advanced larvae stages with full stomachs.
Surveys 2004
A more systematic survey for the presence of endangered sucker larvae was conducted in 2004. Weekly visual surveys were conducted between April 15 and July 8 from the North BLM property line to just below Dike Bridge. Two surveyors conducted spot checks in slow water areas in the margins of the Wood River channel and in the adjacent wetland areas along the west side of the Wood River. Surveyors walked slowly looking for larvae and then dip netted fish for identification.
No sucker larvae were detected until June 16, 2004. A total of 6 larvae were detected during 120 minutes of search time. Larvae were located only in slow water margins of the main Wood River channel between Dike Bridge and the confluence of Crooked Creek. No larvae were detected more than 20 yards interior of the main channel. A more thorough search was conducted on June 28, including a search of the lower 1/3 mile of Crooked Creek. No sucker larvae were detected in Crooked Creek. Three sucker larvae were detected in the Wood River upstream of the confluence with Crooked Creek indicating that reproduction was occurring in the Wood River rather than Crooked Creek. The final survey was conducted on July 8, 2004. No larvae were detected. The density of larvae observed in 2004 was extremely low compared to the 100’s of sucker larvae observed in the Dike Bridge area in 2003.
Snorkeling Surveys
The BLM contracted with Fisheries Ecologist Gary Reedy, to conduct visual surveys and to test and develop methodologies for future monitoring of fish use in restored sections of the Wood River channel based on visual survey methods. The following section summarizes his findings (Reedy, 2004).
A continuous downstream survey of the lower Wood River from the old channel dam to the mouth on July 26, 2004 yielded observations of habitat, but no accurate count of fish due to poor underwater visibility. Approximately 35% of the thalweg in the lower Wood River is greater than 6’ in depth, and the entire channel is greater than 25’ in width. During the entire one-hour downstream survey, a total of one adult trout and approximately 100 chub were incidentally observed.
Page 29 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Habitat Observations
Water temperature in the lower Wood River, taken at a three-foot depth by a hand-held thermometer, was 62 degrees F at the old channel dam and 63 degrees near the mouth. The water was fairly well mixed throughout this segment where habitat was observed by snorkelers and noted on maps by Wedge Watkins (BLM Biologist). Substrate in this segment is made up almost entirely of silt and sand. Attached algae and aquatic vegetation covered approximately 50% of the bed.
Snorkelers noted a total of six sections of undercut bank useful to large trout as cover. The length of the sections ranged from 10 to 100 feet and were located, three to each bank, where width was narrower or at a bend in the channel. The undercuts were found at a depth of 4-6 feet below the water surface, and cut beneath the bank to a maximum depth of 3’. These undercuts are assumed to be “in formation” as they did not exist upon completion of channel construction in 2001.
A beaver lodge was found mid-segment on the right bank with several tunnels nearby that potentially provided very deep and dark cover for fish. Also, some dead willow on the right bank near the top of the segment provided cover. Approximately 10 single logs were observed in the segment, but no wood accumulations. Apparently, each of these logs had been exposed through natural scouring of the bed and bank over the last four years.
Boat Surveys
After snorkeling the segment described above, the segment was surveyed for fish by motoring upstream with two observers on the bow. This method enabled visualization of nearly the entire river. Fish were observed fleeing out of and through deeper areas indicating that the method might involve high probability of observing all large trout (see Table 5). The same method was applied to two other sections of the lower Wood River from above the bridge to Crooked Creek. The size classes chosen for trout represent an apparent bimodal distribution in size that could correspond with large juveniles and adults. No juvenile trout less than 7” were identified, but these fish would not be easily distinguished. The largest trout seen were approximately 24” in length.
Table 5. Fish Counted in Lower Wood River by Boat, July 27, 2004 Segment Trout < 15” Trout > 15” Chub Mouth to Dam 18 20 “Hundreds” Dam to Bridge 2 5 “Thousands” Bridge to Crooked Creek 57 48 None
Recommendations for Future Monitoring
Surveys by boat are an efficient way to monitor the abundance of fish in the lower Wood River. Single passes by this method do not, however, represent the actual number of fish present due to the fact that some fish can evade counting in pockets of deep water or other cover. The Bounded
Page 30 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Count Procedure is used in wildlife population science to estimate actual abundance in such circumstances (Overton 1971). The procedure involves multiple passes or count, and estimates the lower limit for the actual number by adding to the largest count a factor reflective of the variation in highest counts. The procedure estimates an upper range for the number of fish based on a chosen level of confidence.
If the next survey of fish in the lower Wood River used multiple passes, then not only could it estimate the actual number of fish present on that occasion, but the repeated counts could be used to calculate the negative bias of the method for the lower Wood River (or for each reach, if necessary). The calculated negative bias could be used to adjust subsequent single-pass counts or even past counts. Adjusted counts would enable more accurate comparison of abundance among reaches and evaluation of trends over time. However, recalculation of bias would be necessary whenever habitat changes or other conditions affected observation probability.
ODFW Redband Trout Spawning Surveys
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife provided redband trout adult visual count data which is summarized below (Figures X, Y, Z and AA). The numbers of adult redband trout were counted while an observer floated down the river between Kimball Park and the confluence of Annie Creek. Caution should be used in interpreting this information for population trends because observation conditions were variable and sample frequency was not consistent.
Peak Spawning Counts 1994-2004 350 No counts in Jan or Feb 300
250
200
# Fish 150
Based100 on one count in Dec 50 # fish counted 0
5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 Spawning Year Figure X. The Highest (Peak) Count For Each Spawning Season In The Record
Page 31 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Average, Minimum, and Maximum Counts (1995-2003) 350 300 Maximum 250 Minimum 200 Average 150 # Fish 100 50 0 Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Figure Y. Monthly spawning statistics for all spawning counts combined.
350
300 Stdv- Min 250 Average Max 200 stdv+ 150 # Adults # 100
50
0 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Aug Oct 1994-1998
Figure Z. Spawning numbers 1994-1998 (pre BLM project).
Page 32 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
350
300 Stdv- Min Average Max 250 Stdv+ 200
150 100
50
0 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Jul Aug Sep 1999-2004
Figure AA. Spawning numbers (Adults) 1999-2004 (post BLM project work).
Spotted Frog Populations
Oregon Spotted Frog Egg Mass Survey
In 2003, Christine Glass, an OIT student, conducted a survey of the Wood River Ditch for spotted frog egg masses. This was intended to be preliminary survey, and not a comprehensive, detailed survey of the entire Wood River Wetland. Her completed report, although not published, provides valuable information and is available from the BLM.
Methods Habitats were searched in March and April of 2003. Water and air temperatures were determined with a pocket thermometer. Egg masses were enumerated using a visual encounter survey technique at the breeding site (Crump and Scott 1994) with a minimum of two visits to ensure a complete egg count (Thoms et al. 1997). Linear aquatic habitats (ditches, streams) and large, contiguous aquatic habitats (marshes, ponds), first described by Hayes (Hayes 1998), were surveyed by slowly walking along the edge of the aquatic habitat, enumerating egg masses and documenting locations with correctable Rockwell Plugger and Trimble GeoExplorer GPS units and a datasheet (modified “Corn” form, Olsen et al. 1997).
Results An egg mass site is defined as a site with at least one egg mass that is at least 4 meters from another egg mass. Egg masses were recorded at 15 sites along the Wood River Ditch. Egg mass numbers ranged from 1 to 27 egg masses per site. A total of 84 egg masses were enumerated within the Wood River Ditch.
Page 33 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
This compares well with other data obtained for the Wood River Ditch. In 2004, biologists from BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service, surveyed the Wood River Ditch during a training exercise. Two weeks later, an additional follow-up survey was conducted by BLM. Egg masses were recorded at 22 sites along the Wood River Ditch. Egg mass numbers ranged from 1 to 16 egg masses per site. A total of 83 egg masses were enumerated within the Wood River Ditch.
Bat Populations
Study Area The access road between the main gate/parking area and the Wood River Bridge is about five tenths of a mile in length and separates Petric Canal (to the north) from Agency Lake (to the south). Dense riparian vegetation borders the north and south edges of this levee road. These diverse strips of vegetation create a highly suitable foraging and flight corridor for bats since aquatic insects emerge from the surrounding water bodies and congregate in this zone. The walls of vegetation also act as wind breaks allowing the interior air space to remain calm, increasing suitability for insect swarms and bats. This riparian corridor was the primary survey area in 2004.
Methods Mist-netting and acoustic recording were the methods utilized. One twelve meter and one nine meter mist net were deployed. The twelve meter net was set 150 meters west of the main gate and the nine meter was set 100 meters further west toward the bridge. The nets were stretched up to the maximum height that the poles would allow (around three meters) in order to sample as high into the flight corridor as possible. The nets were set against vegetation on each end in order to prevent bats from flying around the ends. Two surveyors constantly monitored each net for three hours of sample time. Peterson 240x time expansion detectors were used to record free flight bat calls near the net sites. SonoBat II software was used to analyze call sequences.
Data Summary Four investigators spent three hours (2050 to 2350 hours) monitoring the two mist nets. Although hundreds of bats were observed and heard via the detector, only four individuals were captured. They included two Myotis lucifugus (little brown bat), one Lasionycteris noctivagans (silver-haired bat), and one Myotis californicas (California myotis). A suite of measurements and other data were recorded for each individual and are available from the BLM.
The surveyors noticed that a majority of the bats using the corridor tended to forage/pass from two to eight feet above the top of the nets. In 2005, the plan is to monitor the same area, but extend the mist net poles and in turn raise the net in order to try and cover a higher percentage of the flight corridor.
Page 34 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Recreation and Outreach
Visitation Monitoring
The KFRA conducted both informal and formal efforts to monitor visitation and recreation use in 2004 (see Table 6). Employees working onsite at Wood River informally observed the number and type of visitors and vehicles parked in the lot, and talked with visitors to learn more about their interest in the wetland and satisfaction with their visit. Employees also fielded questions, complaints and comments about WRW at the BLM office in Klamath Falls. General conclusions from this monitoring indicate that visitor use of the wetland is slowly increasing, occurs during every month of the year and on every day of the year, and that the wetland is used both as a destination for out of area visitors, and as a nearby park area for local residents.
Visitation was formally monitored by means of a visitor registration box at the entrance area. The registration form asks visitors to record the number of hours spent at various activities, their home zip code, the number in their group, and has room for comments and suggestions. Because visitor registration was voluntary and unobserved for the most part, the rate of registration by various user groups is unknown, and therefore any results or conclusions must be interpreted very generally. Some of the activities listed on the form as “other” include mountain biking, picnicking, and fishing. The wetland appears to be used for a diversity of recreational activities, with wildlife viewing appearing to be the most popular. Management efforts should continue to focus on those recreational opportunities that are most popular and suitable for the area.
Table 6. 2004 Wood River Recreation Use by Activity (hours per month) Month Activity Wildlife Hiking Non- Waterfowl Other Total Viewing Motorized Hunting Hours Boating April 7 12 *** 5 24 May 19 2 *** 1 22 June 10 4 14 *** 7 35 July 9 8 *** 19 36 August 32 8 3 *** 17 60 September 16 7 6 4 34 October 20 9 48 7 84 Total Hours/ 113/ 50/ 17/ 54/ 60/ Percentage of total 39% 17% 6% 18% 20% ***Months when the area is closed to hunting
Many comments were received on the registration forms; they were generally favorable and appreciative of the work done to the area and the recreational facilities provided. Visitors were concerned about future maintenance to the wetland, the amount of water they saw or didn’t see on the wetland and its impact to basin agriculture or hunting conditions, litter they saw while visiting, and some requested more trash cans and more frequent trash pickup.
Page 35 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
The visitor count data were used to refine the estimate of annual visitation to the wetland. For 2004, annual use is estimated at 8,000 visitors. The vast majority of recorded visitors are Oregon residents; however visits from other states, predominantly California and Washington, were recorded. Visitation to the wetland appears to be equally split between weekend and weekday use, and occurs in most if not all months of the year. Future monitoring of recreation visitation should include periods of direct observation of visitors to establish a compliance/use rate of the registration box. The registration form may also be revised to better capture visitor information.
Outreach/Environmental Education Activity A total of 18 outreach activities (presentations, classes and tours) occurred at Wood River Wetland in 2003 and 2004 with a total of 373 people participating (Table 7).
Table 7. Wood River Environmental Education And Outreach Fiscal Year 2003 What Was Presented Date Group / Age # People Wood River Wetland 10/01/02 NRCS employees 10 Management Wood River Wetland SE Oregon Resource Advisory 10/18/02 20 Management Committee Restoration Ecology 10/29/02 Adults 30 Wetland Management 01/14/03 Adults 9 Wetland Management 3/20/03 Ducks Unlimited/Adults 6 Wetland Management 03/18/03 Herald & News (newspaper) 1 River Restoration 04/12/03 River Guides/Adult 20 Management Overview to 05/01/03 Adults 75 “Conference on the Environment” Wetland Management Restoration 7/18/03 Adults 75 Wetland Management 9/12/03 Humboldt State University 6 Total for Fiscal Year 2003 = 252 Fiscal Year 2004 What Was Presented Date Group / Age # People Oregon Institute of Technology Wetland Field Trip 10/28/03 15 Students Wetland Restoration 4/21/04 Adults 8 Wetland Ecology 4/27/04 6th Grade Students 30 Restoration, Wildlife, Botany 5/5/04 Girl Scouts and Parents 15 Watershed Wonders 8/18/04 Girl Scouts Ages 9-15 20 Wetland Restoration 10/7/04 OSU Extension teachers 10 Wetland Restoration 10/26/04 OIT Students/ Adult 10 Wetland Restoration 11/6/04 Rogue Valley Audubon/ Adult 13 Total for Fiscal Year 2004-5 = 121
Page 36 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Volunteer Work A local group (called “The Usual Suspects”) has “adopted” Wood River Wetland, and maintains the parking lot, bathroom and canoe launch facilities. Oregon Institute of Technology students continue to provide information on a variety of parameters as they complete sophomore and senior projects for the Applied Environmental Science major.
Recreation Projects Repair work was done to canal crossings that hunters use to access the wetland interior. Ongoing trail and facility maintenance occurred throughout year.
Visual Resources
The Wood River channel restoration project was completed at the end of year 2000. The area next to the river that was re-vegetated in 1999 have recovered rapidly as willows, cattails and other vegetation become established. The wetland area continues to show significant improvement in scenic quality and is more naturally appearing now that the native vegetation is becoming established. It is expected that these improvements in scenic quality will continue as additional areas along the river are re-vegetated and the disturbed areas show recovery.
Lands
Land Sales When Congress instructed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to purchase the Wood River property, it also instructed the BLM to dispose of public lands in Klamath County to offset potential losses in property tax revenue from the acquisition. In 1998 the Klamath Falls Resource Area sold 1,600 acres of public land to the American Land Conservancy for the appraised fair market value of $625,400.00. The American Land Conservancy subsequently sold the property to the JELD-WEN Corporation. In 2001, an additional 80 acres was sold for $10,000.00. In 2002, another 200.12 acres was sold for $23,900.00. In 2003 1.01 acres was sold for $2,050.00 and another 119.76 acres was sold for 10,950.00. In 2004, 8.78 acres were sold for $3,210.00, and an addition 40 acres were sold for $3,650.00. The mineral estate, except for the oil, gas and geothermal resources, was conveyed in all sales.
Lands Actions in Support of Restoration
Land surveys by the BLM Cadastral Surveyors were programmed for the summer of 1999 to identify small slivers of private lands that needed to be acquired to facilitate the completion of phase 3 of the Wood River channel restoration. The surveys were delayed due to the timing of construction work and the availability of the Cadastral Surveyors. In 2004, these lands were surveyed under contract with a local surveyor and three parcels were identified amounting to 2.29 total acres. These 2.29 acres will be acquired in 2005 from Jim Root for $1,000.00.
Grazing
The BLM is currently in the process of assessing all grazing allotments to ascertain if current grazing use is meeting the five Standards for Rangeland Health and meeting the Guidelines for
Page 37 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
grazing management (S&Gs). This process is required by the grazing regulations resulting from the Bureau's "Healthy Rangelands" initiative (aka "Rangeland Reform '94"). An S&G assessment analyses existing information (i.e. rangeland monitoring studies or surveys, riparian studies, etc.) to characterize the general health of a grazing allotment within the framework of the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health. The 5 Standards are summarized as follows: Standard 1 - Watershed Function - Uplands; Standard 2 - Watershed Function - Riparian/Wetland Areas; Standard 3 - Ecological Processes; Standard 4 - Water Quality; and Standard 5 - Native, T&E, and Locally Important Species. The S&Gs assessments identify if the Standards are being met and if not, the significant factors contributing to failure to meet Standards. The S&Gs process is, by policy, currently directed at only livestock grazing.
The Wood River ROD/RMP states, "If and where appropriate, use livestock grazing as a vegetation management tool to support the primary goal of wetland restoration." Since 1994, livestock use has been considered incompatible with the ongoing wetland restoration activities and is expected to continue to be considered such in the foreseeable future. However, since the Wood River property is still a potential grazing allotment - and grazing could be used as a management tool - an S&Gs assessment was scheduled and completed in FY 2000. Since no licensed grazing use has been authorized on the property since November 1994, livestock were not considered to factor in to the current attainment or non-attainment of any of the five Standards. A copy of the Wood River property S&G assessment is available upon request.
Cultural Resource Management
The KFRA BLM Cultural Resources Program continued to provide support for restoration activities conducted at the Wood River Wetland during 2003-2005. Activities largely concentrated on ensuring that restoration activities did not affect archaeological and historical sites.
The National Historic Preservation Act, in addition to other laws and regulations, requires that potential impacts to cultural resources be addressed prior to and during the implementation of construction. Cultural resource surveys had been conducted along and near the Wood River prior to river restoration construction. Though no cultural resources were located during these surveys, four archaeological sites were encountered during phase I and II construction in 1998. Construction impacts were minimized at all four of these cultural sites.
Several projects were proposed that required cultural resource investigation. These projects included installation of a vault toilet adjacent to the Agency Lake dike bridge, installation of interpretive signs, and bank stabilization. Other projects within the Wood River Wetland did not require cultural resource fieldwork including drilling of temperature gradient monitoring wells within previously surveyed and previously disturbed areas.
A cultural resource survey was conducted in FY02 in support of the installation of a vault toilet located just west of the Agency dike bridge. During this same survey the proposed location for installation of the Wood River interpretation sign was inspected. No cultural resources were discovered during this survey. However, because archaeological sites were known to exist in the vicinity, construction activities were monitored during vault toilet installation in 2003. Installation (and monitoring) of the interpretation signs is now scheduled for FY05. During FY04 the west bank of the river just downstream from the Agency Lake dike bridge was
Page 38 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005 observed to be failing. The main channel of the river was eroding the bank allowing water to begin flowing into Agency Lake rather than continuing downstream to the mouth. This entire area had been previously surveyed for cultural resources and no known sites were affected. Emergency stabilization of the bank was initiated with cultural resource monitoring of all construction activities. Additional stabilization efforts were planned at several locations in FY05.
The Klamath Tribes have been active participants throughout this entire process. A Memorandum of Agreement between the Klamath Tribes and Oregon Trout had been previously signed which provided for monitoring support and the protection of cultural sites. Extensive monitoring by Klamath tribal members was conducted in 1998 and continued through 2000. Regular bi-monthly consultation meetings with the Tribes have been held through 2004 and will continue to be held. Each of the construction projects discussed above was presented to the Tribes at one of the bi-monthly meetings. During these meetings the Klamath Tribes agreed with our recommendations for construction monitoring.
Page 39 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
APPENDICES
Page 40 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Appendix A – Supplementary Tables
Table A-1. Total Waterfowl (Ducks and Geese) - Aerial Surveys Date Total Date Total Date Total 03/19/93 400 10/12/98 5,300 01/30/02 0 (frozen) 04/04/93 20,100 10/28/98 10,130 02/22/02 4,100 09/03/93 150 11/16/98 16,900 03/13/02 50,440 01/09/94 1,040 12/11/98 1,560 04/17/02 3,220 02/25/94 16,300 01/04/99 470 09/03/02 125,380 09/02/94 6,950 03/01/99 21,630 10/03/02 37,300 03/02/95 7,300 03/15/99 19,280 10/16/02 13,960 04/14/95 20,100 09/07/99 3,240 10/30/02 450 09/07/95 35,160 09/22/99 22,200 11/14/02 5,400 09/19/95 104,700 10/05/99 0 12/04/02 20 10/04/95 54,900 10/20/99 4,660 01/5/03 920 10/25/95 4,180 11/02/99 3,400 02/22/03 84,600 11/01/95 5,210 11/15/99 8,200 03/17/03 6,420 11/22/95 21,800 12/04/99 1,160 04/07/03 11,910 01/22/96 470 12/04/99 1,160 04/17/03 14,230 02/05/96 980 01/07/00 300 05/01/03 9,770 03/03/96 3,400 02/04/00 700 09/15/03 8,500 03/21/96 32,370 02/18/00 18,710 09/24/03 47,020 09/03/96 13,800 03/07/00 22,600 10/08/03 7,860 09/19/96 8,500 04/21/00 8,400 10/20/03 6,000 10/03/96 14,400 09/05/00 7,710 11/06/03 3,200 10/16/96 6,400 0915/00 12,460 11/18/03 1,390 10/30/96 4,500 09/27/00 5,090 12/02/03 1,090 11/06/96 4,500 10/10/00 15,830 01/13/04 0 (frozen) 01/06/97 0 (frozen) 10/25/00 540 02/10/04 0 (frozen) 03/03/97 39,010 11/07/00 2,960 02/28/04 42,080 09/09/97 4,800 11/22/00 0 (frozen)03/11/04 62,720 10/02/97 29,100 01/13/01 0 (frozen)04/07/04 12,870 10/16/97 2,500 02/14/01 0 (frozen)04/22/04 19,270 01/07/98 830 03/08/01 34,700 09/08/04 1,890 02/26/98 3,520 03/25/01 31,700 10/06/04 13,300 03/18/98 24,020 09/06/01 4600 10/21/04 28,900 04/20/98 13,100 09/21/01 18,760 11/04/04 900 09/02/98 3,790 10/24/01 500 11/19/04 800 09/30/98 24,400 01/04/02 120 (frozen) 12/02/04 0 (frozen)
Page 41 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Table A-2. Abundance of Birds 1997-2001 1997-2001 2002 2002 CODE SPECIES CONSERVATION STATUS* BRD MIG BRD MIG SOSP Song Sparrow 244.69 43.82 267.84 48.08 YRWA Yellow-rumped Warbler 12.08 208.58 2.50 36.06 YWAR Yellow Warbler East, Valley 65.46 11.68 87.61 24.04 AMRO American Robin 91.56 4.67 70.09 8.01 RWBL Red-winged Blackbird 74.03 0.58 90.11 0.00 WIWA Wilson's Warbler Westside 24.55 4.09 65.08 16.03 HETH Hermit Thrush Cascade 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 BHCO Brown-headed Cowbird 51.04 0.00 47.56 0.00 AMGO American Goldfinch 25.72 0.00 65.08 0.00 OCWA Orange-crowned Warbler Westside 11.30 33.30 25.03 16.03 TRES Tree Swallow Valley 7.40 0.00 72.59 0.00 WIFL Willow Flycatcher East, Rocky, Valley 15.59 4.09 40.05 12.02 MAWR Marsh Wren 26.50 16.94 12.52 4.01 BHGR Black-headed Grosbeak 23.77 0.00 25.03 0.00 COYE Common Yellowthroat 10.13 8.76 15.02 12.02 BCCH Black-capped Chick. 7.79 13.44 12.52 12.02 HEWA Hermit Warbler Westside 0.78 0.00 0.00 44.07 DOWO Downy Woodpecker Valley 7.40 5.26 27.54 0.00 HOWR House Wren Valleys 2.73 2.34 25.03 8.01 WEWP Western Wood-Pewee Valley 16.75 1.17 20.03 0.00 RCKI Ruby-crowned Kinglet 0.00 18.11 0.00 0.00 MGWA MacGillivray’s Warbler Rocky 8.18 8.18 17.52 0.00 GCSP Golden-crowned Sparrow 0.00 11.68 0.00 20.03 FOSP Fox Sparrow 0.39 18.11 0.00 12.02 LISP Lincoln's Sparrow Westside 2.34 18.70 2.50 4.01 MOCH Mountain Chickadee 1.17 9.35 5.01 8.01 PUFI Purple Finch Valley 10.13 1.17 10.01 0.00 VATH Varied Thrush Rocky, Westside 0.00 15.77 0.00 4.01 NAWA Nashville Warbler Cascade, Valley 6.62 0.58 12.52 0.00 WETA Western Tanager 3.90 1.75 10.01 0.00 BUOR Bullock's Oriole East, Valley 7.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEJU Dark-eyed Junco 0.00 7.60 0.00 0.00 STJA Steller's Jay 0.00 2.34 0.00 12.02 SWTH Swainson's Thrush Valley 4.68 0.58 5.01 4.01 SPTO Spotted Towhee 0.39 5.26 0.00 8.01 WCSP White-crowned Sparrow 0.00 6.43 0.00 0.00 DUFL Dusky Flycatcher 1.56 0.00 7.51 0.00 HOSP House Sparrow 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.01 SSHA Sharp-shinned Hawk 1.17 4.09 2.50 0.00 RBSA Red-breasted Sapsucker 1.17 1.75 0.00 4.01 WAVI Warbling Vireo Rocky 1.95 1.75 2.50 0.00 TRBL Tricolored Blackbird 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 42 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Table A-2. Abundance of Birds 1997-2001 1997-2001 2002 2002 BRCR Brown Creeper Cascade, Westside 0.00 2.92 2.50 0.00 NOFL Northern Flicker 1.17 1.75 2.50 0.00 GCKI Golden-crowned Kinglet 0.00 1.75 0.00 0.00 WTSP White-throated Sparrow 0.00 1.75 0.00 0.00 CEDW Cedar Waxwing 0.78 0.00 2.50 0.00 EUST European Starling 0.78 0.00 2.50 0.00 LAZB Lazuli Bunting East 0.39 0.00 2.50 0.00 BBMA Black-billed Magpie 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 PYNU Pygmy Nuthatch Cascade, ODFW 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 YHBL Yellow-headed Black. 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 BUSH Bushtit Valley 0.39 0.58 0.00 0.00 WEFL Western Flycatcher 0.39 0.58 0.00 0.00 CAVI Cassin's Vireo 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 YBCH Yellow-breasted Chat East, Valley, ODFW 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEOW Long-eared Owl 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 PSFL Pacific-sl. Flycatcher Westside 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 SAVS Savannah Sparrow 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 WIWR Winter Wren Westside 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 AMRE American Redstart 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 BAWW Black and White Warbler 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 BRBL Brewer's Blackbird 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 GTTO Green-tailed Towhee 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 HAFL Hammond's Flycatcher Westside 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEGO Lesser Goldfinch 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 NSWO Northern Saw-whet Owl 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 PISI Pine Siskin 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 RNSA Red-naped Sapsucker East, Cascade, Rocky 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 This table displays the relative abundance (number of individuals captured per 1000 net hours between) of bird species captured during the breeding (BRD= May-August) and migration (MIG= September-October) seasons between 1997 and 2001, and during 2002 at the Wood River Constant Effort Mist Netting Stations. • Conservation Status: Cascade, Columbia, Rocky, Valleys, Westside = Partners In Flight Focal Species as identified by East-Slope Cascade, Columbia Plateau, Northern Rocky Mountains, Lowlands and Valleys, and Westside Coniferous Forest Landbird Conservation Plans for Oregon and Washington (Altman 1999, Altman 2000a-c, Altman and Holmes 2000); • ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish and Game sensitive, threatened or endangered species (ODFW 1997, ODFW 2000).
Page 43 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Table A-3. List of All Bird Species documented at the Wood River Wetland American avocet Common loon Lesser yellowlegs Say’s phoebe American bittern Common merganser Lincoln’s sparrow Sharp-shinned hawk American coot Common nighthawk Loggerhead shrike Short-billed dowitcher American crow Common raven Long-billed dowitcher Short-eared owl American goldfinch Common snipe Long-eared owl Snow bunting American kestrel Common yellowthroat MacGillivray's warbler Snow goose American redstart Cooper’s hawk Mallard Snowy egret American robin Dark-eyed junco Marsh Wren Song sparrow American white pelican Double-crested cormorant Merlin Sora American widgeon Downy woodpecker Mountain bluebird Spotted sandpiper Bald eagle Dusky flycatcher Mountain chickadee Spotted towhee Barn owl Eared grebe Mourning dove Stellar’s jay Barn swallow European starling Nashville warbler Swainson’s thrush Bewick’s Wren* Evening grosbeak Northern flicker Townsend’s solitaire Belted kingfisher Ferruginous hawk Northern harrier Tree swallow Black-&-white warbler Forster's tern Northern pintail Tri-colored blackbird Black-billed magpie Fox sparrow Northern rough-winged Tundra swan swallow Black-capped chickadee Franklin's gull Northern saw-whet owl Turkey vulture Black-crowned night heron Gadwall Northern screech owl Varied thrush Black-headed grosbeak Golden-crowned kinglet Northern shoveler Violet-green swallow Black-necked stilt Golden-crowned sparrow Northern shrike Virginia rail Black tern Goldeneye Olive-sided flycatcher Warbling vireo Black-throated gray Grasshopper sparrow Orange-crowned Western flycatcher warbler* warbler Blue-winged teal Gray jay* Osprey Western grebe Bonaparte's gull Great blue heron Peeps Western kingbird Brant Great egret Peregrine falcon Western meadowlark Brewer's blackbird Great horned owl Pied-billed grebe Western sandpiper Brewer’s sparrow* Great-tailed grackle Pine siskin Western tanager Brown creeper Greater scaup Prairie falcon Western wood-pewee Brown-headed cowbird Greater white-fronted Purple finch White-breasted nuthatch goose Bufflehead Greater yellowlegs Pygmy nuthatch White-crowned sparrow (gambelii) Bullock’s oriole Green-backed heron Red-breasted nuthatch White-faced ibis Bushtit Green-tailed towhee Red-breasted sapsucker White-throated sparrow California gull Green-winged teal Red crossbill* Willow flycatcher California quail Hammond’s flycatcher Redhead Willet Canada goose Hairy woodpecker Red-naped sapsucker Wilson's phalarope Canvasback Hermit thrush Red-tailed hawk Wilson's warbler Caspian tern Hermit warbler Red-winged blackbird Winter wren Cassin’s vireo Hooded merganser Ring-billed gull Wood duck Cedar waxwing Horned grebe Ring-necked duck Yellow-breasted chat Chestnut-backed chickadee Horned lark Ross’ goose Yellow-headed blackbird Chipping sparrow House finch Ruby-crowned kinglet Yellow rail Cinnamon teal Least flycatcher Ruddy duck Yellow-rumped warbler Clark's grebe Least sandpiper Rufous hummingbird* aka: Audubon’s warbler, Cliff swallow Lesser goldfinch Sandhill crane aka: Myrtle warbler Common barn owl Lesser scaup Savannah sparrow Yellow warbler
List as of November 2002. *Species not previously documented at Wood River, which were detected during 2002.
Page 44 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Table A-4. Wood River Vegetation Plots Change Summary: 2002 - 2005
Plant Type Weedy Emergent Aquatic Alga Scientific Name Code* PHAR ELRE CAUR ELMA JUBA SCAC TYLA SPEU CEDE LEMI ELCA APFL
Increase 4 1 1 8 4 3 0 2 0 0 0 0
Decrease 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Added 2 0 3 8 1 0 9 1 0 2 0 0
Removed 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 7 0 2
Same 1 0 2 11 3 1 1 2 0 5 0 0
97 Plots 17 8 7 23 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 Plots 15 3 8 26 18 6 6 3 8 12 3 6
02 Plots 6 1 8 19 12 6 2 4 1 16 0 2
05 Plots 8 1 7 27 9 4 10 5 0 9 0 0 97 Freq (%) 59 28 24 79 55 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 Freq (%) 50 10 27 87 60 20 20 10 27 40 10 20 02 Freq (%) 20 3 27 63 40 20 7 13 3 53 0 7 05 Freq (%) 27 3 23 90 30 13 33 17 0 30 0 0 Scientific Name Code and Common Name PHAR: Reed canary grass ELRE: Quackgrass CAUR: Beaked sedge ELMA: Spike rush JUBA: Baltic rush SCAC: Bulrush TYLA: Cattail SPEU: Burrweed CEDE: Coontail LEMI: Duckweed ELCA: Canadian waterweed APFL: Alga
Page 45 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Table A-5. Wood River Wetland Plant Species List Botanical Name Common Name Achillea millefolium yarrow Agoseris herterophylla annual agoseris Agrostis exarata spike bentgrass Agrostis exarata var. monolepis bentgrass Agrostis idahoensis Idaho bentgrass Agrostis interrupta bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera bentgrass Alisma plantago-aquatica water plantain Alopecurus aequalis shortawn foxtail Alopecurus pratensis meadow foxtail Amsinckia intermedia fireweed fiddleneck Anthemis cotula mayweed Aphanizomenon flos-aquae nostoc Artemisia douglasii Douglas' sagebrush Atriplex patula var. hastata spear oracle Atriplex triangularis spearscale Beckmannia syzignachne American sloughgrass Bidens cernua nodding beggars-tick Bromus tectorum cheat grass Calamagrostis stricta ssp. inexpansa reed grass Capsella bursa-pastoris shepard's purse Cardaria draba hoary cress Carex aquatilis water sedge Carex athrostachya slenderbeaked sedge Carex lasiocarpa slender sedge Carex nebraskensis Nebraska sedge Carex simulata short beaked sedge Carex sitchensis Sitka sedge Carex utriculata beaked sedge Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle Ceratophyllum demersum coontail Chenopodium album white goosefoot Chenopodium berlandieri pitseed goosefoot Chenopodium foliosum goosefoot Cicuta douglasii water hemlock Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Cirsium scariosum elk thistle Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Collomia linearis narrow-leaf collomia Danthonia unispicata one-spike oatgrass Descurainia pinnatum tansy mustard Deschampsia cespitosa tufted hairgrass Deschampsia danthonioides annual hairgrass Elatine rubella waterwort Eleocharis asicularis needle spikerush
Page 46 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Table A-5. Wood River Wetland Plant Species List Botanical Name Common Name Eleocharis macrostachya spikerush Elodea canadensis Canadian waterweed Elymus cinereus giant wildrye Elytrigia repens (Agropyron repens) quack grass Epilobium angustifolium fireweed Epilobium ciliatum var. ciliatum willowherb Epilobium brachycarpum tall annual willowherb Equisetum arvense field horsetail Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia fleabane Erigeron sp. fleabane Eryngium articulatum coyote thistle Erysimum cheiranthoides wormseed mustard Fragaria vesca strawberry Galium aparine bedstraw Galium boreale northern bedstraw Galium trifidum small bedstraw Glyceria borealis mannagrass Glyceria elata tall mannagrass Gnaphalium palustre cudweed Gratiola ebracteata hedge-hyssop Helenium autumnale var. montanum sneezeweed Heracleum lanatum cow parsnip Hippuris vulgaris common mare's tail Hordeum brachyantherum meadow barley Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley Juncus balticus baltic rush Juncus bufonis toad rush Juncus ensifolius dagger leaf rush Juncus nevadensis sierra rush Kochia scoparia red belvedere Lactuca serriola prickley lettuce Lemna minor duckweed Lepidium campestre English pepperweed Lepidium perfoliatum clasping pepperweed Limosella aquatica mudwort Lupinus lepidus prairie lupine Lupinus polyphyllus bigleaf lupine Lythrum portula greenweed Madia glomerata mountain tarweed Matricaria matricarioides pineapple weed Melilotus officionalis sweet clover Mentha arvensis mint Mimulus guttatus monkey flower Muhlenbergia asperifolia scratchgrass Muhlenbergia filiformus pull-up muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis mat muhly
Page 47 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Table A-5. Wood River Wetland Plant Species List Botanical Name Common Name Myosotis laxa forget-me-not, stickseed Myosurus aristatus mouse-tail Nemophila pedunculata nemophila Nuphar polysepalum wocus, spatterdock Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle Phalaris arundinacea canary reed-grass Plagiobothrys cognatus popcorn flower Plantago major plantain Poa palustris bluegrass Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Polygonum amphibium water smartweed Polygonum aviculare common knotweed Polygonum douglasii Douglas' knotweed Polygonum persicaria knotweed Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitfoot grass Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood Potamogeton crispus crispate-leaved pondweed Potamogeton foliosus leafy pondweed Potamogeton natans floating-leaved pondweed Potentilla anserina common silverweed Potentilla norvegica cinquefoil Ranunculus cymbalaria shore buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus buttercup Ribes cereum squaw currant Ribes inerme white-stemmed gooseberry Ribes lacustre swamp currant Rorippa curvilsiliqua watercress Rorippa obtusa cress Rorippa palustrus cress Rumex crispus curly dock Rumex maritimus golden dock Sagittaria latifolia arrowhead, wapato Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra shining willow or Pacific willow Scirpus acutus hardstem bulrush Scutellaria galericulata marsh skullcap Senecio hydrophiloides sweet marsh ragwort Sisymbrium altissimum tumble mustard Solanum dulcamara bitter nightshade Sonchus asper ssp. asper yellow sow thistle Sparganium eurycarpum giant bur-reed Stachys rigida hedge nettle Taraxicum officinale dandelion Thlaspi arvense fan-weed Tragopogon dubius salsify Trifolium microdon clover Trifolium hybridum alsike clover
Page 48 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Table A-5. Wood River Wetland Plant Species List Botanical Name Common Name Trifolium repens white clover Typha latifolia common cattail Urtica diocia stinging nettle Verbascum thapsis common mullein Veronica americana American brooklime Veronica peregrina ssp. xalapensis purslane speedwell
Page 49 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Appendix B - References
Altman, B. 1999. Version 1.0. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners In Flight, American Bird Conservancy. Boring, OR
Altman, B. 2000a. Version 1.0. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners In Flight, American Bird Conservancy. Boring, OR
Altman, B. 2000b. Version 1.0. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the northern Rocky Mountains of eastern Oregon
Altman, B. 2000c. Version 1.0. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the East slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners In Flight, American Bird Conservancy. Boring, OR
Altman, B. and A. Holmes. 2000. Version 1.0. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of eastern Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners In Flight, American Bird Conservancy. Boring, OR
Crump, M.L. and N.J. Scott, Jr. 1994. Visual encounter surveys. Pages 84-92 in Heyer, W.R. et al. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Hayes M.P. 1998. The Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in the vicinity of Jack and Fourmile springs in 1996-97 (Cherry Creek- Fourmile Creek drainages, Klamath County, Oregon) prepared for the Bureau of Land Management and The Nature Conservancy.
ODFW. 1997. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife sensitive species. Portland, Oregon. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrWild/Diversity/senspecies.pdf
ODFW. 2000. Oregon list of threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species. Portland, Oregon. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/Wildlife/t&e.html Oregon-Washington Partners In Flight, American Bird Conservancy. Boring, OR
Olson et al 1997. Olsen, D.H., W.P. Leonard, R.B. Bury, 1997. Sampling Amphibians, In Lentic Habitats. Northwest Fauna No. 4; Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. Olympia, WA.
OWEB.1999. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, 1999. “Water Quality Monitoring Technical Guide Book, Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, 1999".
Rykbost, K.A. and B.A. Charlton, 2001. Nutrient loading of surface waters in the Upper Klamath Basin: agricultural and natural sources. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University. Special Report 1023.
Page 50 Wood River Wetland Monitoring Report 2003-2005
Snyder D.T. and J.L. Morace, 1997. Nitrogen and phosphorous loading from drained wetlands adjacent to Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon. Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4059, US Geological Survey, Portland, OR.
Thoms, C., C.C. Corkran, and D.H. Olson. 1997. Basic amphibian survey for inventorying and monitoring in lentic habitat. Pages 35-46 in Olson et al 1997.
Page 51