DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Klamath Lake Water Quality Jacob Kann, Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Klamath Lake Water Quality Jacob Kann, Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences Independent Scientific Review Panel Mark Buettner, US Fish and Wildlife Service Michael Cooperman, Oregon State University Dept. of Fish and Wildlife John Crandall, The Nature Conservancy Larry Dunsmoor, The Klamath Tribes Charles Hanson, Hanson Environmental, Langell Valley Irrigation District Doug Markle, Oregon State University, Department of Fish and Wildlife Rich Piaskowski, US Bureau of Reclamation Dudley Reiser, R2 Resource Consultants Michael Rode, California Department of Fish and Game Rip Shively, US Geological Survey Roger Smith, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Dave Vogel, Natural Resource Scientists, Inc., Klamath Water Users Assn. Jack Williams, Trout Unlimited THE CURRENT RISK OF EXTINCTION OF THE LOST RIVER AND SHORTNOSE SUCKERS Independent Scientific Review Panel August 2005 Prepared by: Prepared for: Cascade Quality Solutions US Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resource Mediation & Facilitation Klamath Falls Field Office 700 Main Street, Suite 203 6610 Washburn Way Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603 3 Table of Contents Presenters......................................................................................................................... iv Preface................................................................................................................................ v Section 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Section Summary............................................................................................................ 1 Introduction to the 5-Year Review Ron Larson, USFWS ............................................................................................... 2 Historic and Prelisting Status and Distribution Mark Buettner, USFWS .......................................................................................... 5 Facilitated Discussion ..................................................................................................... 8 Section 2 Taxonomy and Genetics................................................................................. 10 Section Summary.......................................................................................................... 10 Klamath Basin Sucker Taxonomy and Genetics Doug Markle, OSU ............................................................................................... 12 Klamath Basin Sucker Genetics Thomas Dowling, ASU.......................................................................................... 16 Facilitated Discussion ................................................................................................... 19 Section 3 Population Dynamics...................................................................................... 22 Section Summary.......................................................................................................... 22 Monitoring Trends in Early Life History Stages Doug Markle, OSU ............................................................................................... 24 Overview of Adult Sucker Monitoring and Trends in the Upper Klamath Basin Rip Shively, USGS with input Eric Janney, USGS................................................ 26 Facilitated Discussion ................................................................................................... 31 Section 4 Water Quality ................................................................................................. 32 Section Summary.......................................................................................................... 32 Background Information on Upper Klamath Lake Water Quality Jacob Kann, Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences ............................................................ 34 Comparison of the Dissolved Oxygen Conditions in the Northern Third of Upper Klamath Lake, 2002-2004 Tamara Wood, USGS............................................................................................ 36 Distribution and Behavior of Adult Lost River and Shortnose Suckers with Respect to Water Quality in Northern Upper Klamath Lake Rip Shively and Barbara Adams, USGS ............................................................... 38 An Approach and Analysis Using US Bureau of Reclamation and Klamath Tribes Water Quality Data in Assessing Suckers’ Low Dissolved Oxygen Risk in Upper Klamath Lake Noble Hendrix, Michael Loftus and Thomas Helser, R2 Resource Consultants.. 42 Review of Lost River and Shortnose Sucker Water Quality Tolerances and Summary of Known Fish Die-Offs i Scott VanderKooi, USGS ...................................................................................... 44 Review of Water Quality Conditions during the 1990s Die-Offs Jacob Kann, Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences ............................................................ 46 Stress Levels Associated with Water Quality Conditions in the Habitat Regime of Lost River and Shortnose Suckers in Upper Klamath Lake Michael Loftus, R2 Resource Consultants............................................................ 47 Facilitated Discussion ................................................................................................... 49 Section 5 Other Threats.................................................................................................. 52 Section Summary.......................................................................................................... 52 Fish Health Review: Upper Klamath Lake J. Scott Foott, USFWS .......................................................................................... 53 Lab Studies of Fathead Minnow Predation upon Endangered Suckers Larry Dunsmoor, The Klamath Tribes ................................................................. 54 Section 6 Habitat Restoration........................................................................................ 57 Section Summary.......................................................................................................... 57 Restoring Lake and River Fringe Wetlands at the Williamson River Delta John Crandall, The Nature Conservancy ............................................................. 59 Sprague River: Existing Conditions and Enhancement Needs Larry Dunsmoor, The Klamath Tribes ................................................................. 61 Restoration in Response to Listing Factors Dave Ross, USFWS, Jim Regan-Vienop and Cliff Fox, NRCS, Danette Watson, Klamath Watershed Council................................................................................. 62 Upper Klamath Basin Fish Passage Recovery Activities Rich Piaskowski, USBR ........................................................................................ 67 Water Quality Improvements on Bureau of Land Management Lands in the Upper Klamath Basin Andy Hamilton and Liz Berger, BLM ................................................................... 68 Oregon State Government Responsibilities in Water Quality Protection and Restoring Water Quality Tim Stevenson, Oregon Department of Agriculture ............................................. 70 Water Quality on National Forest Service Lands Relating to Endangered Suckers in the Upper Klamath Basin Dave Pawelek, Fremont-Winema National Forest............................................... 71 Section 7 Evaluating the Threats................................................................................... 73 Section Summary.......................................................................................................... 73 Facilitated Discussion ................................................................................................... 74 Section 8 Panel Assessments .......................................................................................... 84 Narrative Summary of the Independent Scientific Review Panel Members’ Assessments of Current Threats to the Lost River and Shortnose Suckers .................. 84 Table B: Summary of ISRP Threat Matrices for Lost River and Shortnose Suckers.. 90 Individual Panel Members' Assessments...................................................................... 95 Mark Buettner ....................................................................................................... 95 Michael Cooperman,........................................................................................... 108 John Crandall ..................................................................................................... 110 Larry Dunsmoor.................................................................................................. 121 ii Charles Hanson, ................................................................................................. 133 Douglas Markle ................................................................................................. 135 Richard Piaskowski............................................................................................. 139 Dudley Reiser...................................................................................................... 149 Rip Shively .......................................................................................................... 176 Roger Smith......................................................................................................... 180 Dave Vogel.......................................................................................................... 188 Jack Williams.....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Status Review and Management Outline for Quality Bluegill and Black Crappie Populations in the Grand Rapids Area
    Status Review and Management Outline for Quality Bluegill and Black Crappie Populations in the Grand Rapids Area. Revised in 2013 By David L. Weitzel Assistant Area Fisheries Supervisor MN DNR, Grand Rapids Area Fisheries Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Bass Lake ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Blackwater, Jay Gould, and Little Jay Gould lakes ...................................................................................... 10 Cut Foot and Little Cut Foot Sioux lakes ..................................................................................................... 18 Deer, Pickerel, and Battle lakes .................................................................................................................. 23 Dixon Lake ................................................................................................................................................... 31 Grave Lake ................................................................................................................................................... 37 Split Hand and Little Split Hand Lakes ........................................................................................................ 41 Sand Lake ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEW of the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION's INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN for SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus Acanthias)
    REVIEW OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION'S INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus acanthias) May 2004 – April 2005 FISHING YEAR Board Approved: February 2006 Prepared by the Spiny Dogfish Plan Review Team: Ruth Christiansen, ASMFC, Chair I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: November 2002 Date of Addendum I Approval: November 2005 Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine - Florida Active Boards/Committees: Spiny Dogfish and Coastal Shark Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Subcommittee, and Plan Review Team In April 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) declared spiny dogfish overfished. The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils jointly manage the federal spiny dogfish fishery. NMFS partially approved the federal FMP in September 1999, but implementation did not begin until the May 2000, the start of the 2000-2001 fishing year. The federal FMP uses a target fishing mortality to specify a coastwide commercial quota and splits this quota into two seasonal periods (Period 1: May 1 to October 31 and Period 2: November 1 to April 30). The seasonal periods also have separate possession limits that are specified on an annual basis. In August 2000, ASMFC took emergency action to close state waters to the commercial harvest, landing, and possession of spiny dogfish when federal waters closed because the quota was fully harvested. With the emergency action in place, the Commission had time to develop an interstate FMP, which prevented the undermining of the federal FMP and prevented further overharvest of the coastwide spiny dogfish population.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) Under the Endangered Species Act
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act December 2004 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue infor- mal scientific and technical publications when com- plete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Docu- ments published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Krahn, M.M., M.J. Ford, W.F. Perrin, P.R. Wade, R.P. Angliss, M.B. Hanson, B.L. Taylor, G.M. Ylitalo, M.E. Dahlheim, J.E. Stein, and R.S. Waples. 2004. 2004 Status review of Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-62, 73 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act Margaret M.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Based Characterization of Resident Fish Entrainment-Turbine
    Draft Technical Memorandum Literature Based Characterization of Resident Fish Entrainment and Turbine-Induced Mortality Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2082) Prepared for PacifiCorp Prepared by CH2M HILL September 2003 Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................1 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................1 Study Approach ............................................................................................................................2 Fish Entrainment ..............................................................................................................2 Turbine-induced Mortality .............................................................................................2 Characterization of Fish Entrainment ......................................................................................2 Magnitude of Annual Entrainment ...............................................................................9 Size Composition............................................................................................................10 Species Composition ......................................................................................................10 Seasonal and Diurnal Distribution...............................................................................15 Turbine Mortality.......................................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Country Welcome To
    Travel Guide To OREGON Indian Country Welcome to OREGON Indian Country he members of Oregon’s nine federally recognized Ttribes and Travel Oregon invite you to explore our diverse cultures in what is today the state of Oregon. Hundreds of centuries before Lewis & Clark laid eyes on the Pacific Ocean, native peoples lived here – they explored; hunted, gathered and fished; passed along the ancestral ways and observed the ancient rites. The many tribes that once called this land home developed distinct lifestyles and traditions that were passed down generation to generation. Today these traditions are still practiced by our people, and visitors have a special opportunity to experience our unique cultures and distinct histories – a rare glimpse of ancient civilizations that have survived since the beginning of time. You’ll also discover that our rich heritage is being honored alongside new enterprises and technologies that will carry our people forward for centuries to come. The following pages highlight a few of the many attractions available on and around our tribal centers. We encourage you to visit our award-winning native museums and heritage centers and to experience our powwows and cultural events. (You can learn more about scheduled powwows at www.traveloregon.com/powwow.) We hope you’ll also take time to appreciate the natural wonders that make Oregon such an enchanting place to visit – the same mountains, coastline, rivers and valleys that have always provided for our people. Few places in the world offer such a diversity of landscapes, wildlife and culture within such a short drive. Many visitors may choose to visit all nine of Oregon’s federally recognized tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Eagle Creek Radio Telemetry Report
    Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Jeff Hogle and Ken Lujan collecting genetic and fish health samples in Eagle Creek, Oregon. Photo Credit: Maureen Kavanagh Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Prepared by: Maureen Kavanagh, William R. Brignon and Doug Olson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia River Fisheries Program Office Hatchery Assessment Team Vancouver, WA 98683 -and- Susan Gutenberger U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center Willard, WA 98605 -and- Andrew Matala and William Ardren U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Abernathy Fish Technology Center Applied Research Program in Conservation Genetics Longview, WA 98632 July 23, 2009 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 9 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 10 3.0 Geographic Area ................................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 Background Information on Winter Steelhead in the Clackamas River & Eagle Creek ....................... 13 5.0 Methods ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Best Indiana Panfishing Lakes
    15 best Indiana panfishing lakes This information has been shared numerous places but somehow we’ve missed putting it on our own website. If you’ve been looking for a place to catch some dinner, our fisheries biologists have compiled a list of the 15 best panfishing lakes throughout Indiana. Enjoy! Northern Indiana Sylvan Lake Sylvan Lake is a 669-acre man made reservoir near Rome City. It is best known for its bluegill fishing with some reaching 9 inches. About one third of the adult bluegill population are 7 inches or larger. The best places to catch bluegill are the Cain Basin at the east end of the lake and along the 8 to 10 foot drop-offs in the western basin. Red-worms, flies, and crickets are the most effective baits. Skinner Lake Skinner Lake is a 125-acre natural lake near Albion. The lake is known for crappie fishing for both black and white crappies. Most crappies are in the 8 to 9 inch range, with some reaching 16 inches long. Don’t expect to catch lots of big crappies, but you can expect to catch plenty that are keeper-size. The best crappie fishing is in May over developing lily pads in the four corners of the lake. Live minnows and small white jigs are the most effective baits. J. C. Murphey Lake J. C. Murphey Lake is located on Willow Slough Fish and Wildlife Area in Newton County. Following this winter, there was minimal ice fishing (due to lack of ice) and the spring fishing should be phenomenal especially for bluegills.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Species
    Wildlife Species This chapter contains information on species featured in each of the ecoregions. Species are grouped by Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Fish. Species are listed alphabetically within each group. A general description, habitat requirements, and possible wildlife management practices are provided for each species. Wildlife management practices for a particular species may vary among ecoregions, so not all of the wildlife management practices listed for a species may be applicable for that species in all ecoregions. Refer to the WMP charts within a particular ecoregion to determine which practices are appropriate for species included in that ecoregion. The species descriptions contain all the information needed about a particular species for the WHEP contest. However, additional reading should be encouraged for participants that want more detailed information. Field guides to North American wildlife and fish are good sources for information and pictures of the species listed. There also are many Web sites available for wildlife species identification by sight and sound. Information from this section will be used in the Wildlife Challenge at the National Invitational. Participants should be familiar with the information presented within the species accounts for those species included within the ecoregions used at the Invitational. It is important to understand that when assessing habitat for a particular wildlife species and considering various WMPs for recommendation, current conditions should be evaluated. That is, WMPs should be recommended based on the current habitat conditions within the year. Also, it is important to realize the benefit of a WMP may not be realized soon. For example, trees or shrubs planted for mast may not provide cover or bear fruit for several years.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of Upper Klamath Lake Shortnose and Lost River Suckers
    ECOLOGY OF UPPER KLAMATH LAKE SHORTNOSE AND LOST RIVER SUCKERS 4. The Klamath Basin sucker species complex 1999 ANNUAL REPORT (partial) SUBMITTED TO U. S. Biological Resources Division US Geological Survey 104 Nash Hall Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-3803 & Klamath Project U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 6600 Washburn Way Klamath Falls, OR 97603 by Douglas F. ~arkle', Martin R. ~avalluzzi~,Thomas E. owli in^^ and David .Simon1 1Oregon Cooperative Research Unit 104 Nash Hall Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-3803 E -mai1 : douglas.markle@,orst.edu 2Department of Biology Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-1501 Phone: 480-965-1626 Fax: 480-965-2519 E -mai 1 : [email protected] July 26, 2000 There are 13 genera and 68 species of catostomids (Nelson 1994) with three genera and four species occurring in Klamath Basin (Bond 1994)- Catostomus rimiculus Gilbert and Snyder, 1898 (Klamath smallscale sucker, KSS), C. snyderi Gilbert 1898 (Klamath largescale sucker, KLS), Chasmistes brevirostris Cope, 1879 (shortnose sucker, SNS), and Deltistes luxatus (Cope, 1879) (Lost River sucker, LRS). Lost River and shortnose suckers are federally listed endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). The four Klamath Basin suckers are similar in overall body shape, but highly variable, and are distinguished by feeding-related structures, adult habitat and geography. The two Catostomus species have large lips, widely-spaced gillrakers, and are primarily river dwellers with C. snyderi mostly found in the upper basin and C. rimiculus in the lower basin and adjacent Rogue River. Deltistes luxatus has smaller lips, short "deltoid" Catostomus-like gillrakers, and is primariliy a lake dweller.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09
    Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09 Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Inset: Larval sucker from Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Allison Estergard, Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 2011.) Top: Photograph taken from the air of the flooded Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Charles Erdman, Fisheries Technician, Williamson River Delta Preserve, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2008.) Bottom left: Photograph of a pop net used by The Nature Conservancy to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Heather Hendrixson, Director, Williamson River Delta Preserve, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2006.) Bottom middle: Photograph of a larval trawl used by Oregon State University to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photograph taken by David Simon, Senior Faculty Research Assistant, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 2010.) Bottom right: Photograph of a plankton net used by the U.S. Geological Survey to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photographer unknown, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2009.) Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09 By Tamara M. Wood, U.S. Geological Survey, Heather A. Hendrixson, The Nature Conservancy, Douglas F. Markle, Oregon State University, Charles S. Erdman, The Nature Conservancy, Summer M. Burdick, U.S. Geological Survey, Craig M. Ellsworth, U.S. Geological Survey, and Norman L.
    [Show full text]
  • 4-H-993-W, Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Food Flash Cards
    Purdue extension 4-H-993-W Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Food Flash Cards Authors: Natalie Carroll, Professor, Youth Development right, it goes in the “fast” pile. If it takes a little and Agricultural Education longer, put the card in the “medium” pile. And if Brian Miller, Director, Illinois–Indiana Sea Grant College the learner does not know, put the card in the “no” Program Photos by the authors, unless otherwise noted. pile. Concentrate follow-up study efforts on the “medium” and “no” piles. These flash cards can help youth learn about the foods that wildlife eat. This will help them assign THE CONTEST individual food items to the appropriate food When youth attend the WHEP Career Development categories and identify which wildlife species Event (CDE), actual food specimens—not eat those foods during the Foods Activity of the pictures—will be displayed on a table (see Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Program (WHEP) Figure 1). Participants need to identify which contest. While there may be some disagreement food category is represented by the specimen. about which wildlife eat foods from the category Participants will write this food category on the top represented by the picture, the authors feel that the of the score sheet (Scantron sheet, see Figure 2) and species listed give a good representation. then mark the appropriate boxes that represent the wildlife species which eat this category of food. The Use the following pages to make flash cards by same species are listed on the flash cards, making it cutting along the dotted lines, then fold the papers much easier for the students to learn this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Acipenser Brevirostrum
    AR-405 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORTNOSE STURGEON Acipenser brevirostrum Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration November 1, 2010 Acknowledgements i The biological review of shortnose sturgeon was conducted by a team of scientists from state and Federal natural resource agencies that manage and conduct research on shortnose sturgeon along their range of the United States east coast. This review was dependent on the expertise of this status review team and from information obtained from scientific literature and data provided by various other state and Federal agencies and individuals. In addition to the biologists who contributed to this report (noted below), the Shortnose Stugeon Status Review Team would like to acknowledge the contributions of Mary Colligan, Julie Crocker, Michael Dadswell, Kim Damon-Randall, Michael Erwin, Amanda Frick, Jeff Guyon, Robert Hoffman, Kristen Koyama, Christine Lipsky, Sarah Laporte, Sean McDermott, Steve Mierzykowski, Wesley Patrick, Pat Scida, Tim Sheehan, and Mary Tshikaya. The Status Review Team would also like to thank the peer reviewers, Dr. Mark Bain, Dr. Matthew Litvak, Dr. David Secor, and Dr. John Waldman for their helpful comments and suggestions. Finally, the SRT is indebted to Jessica Pruden who greatly assisted the team in finding the energy to finalize the review – her continued support and encouragement was invaluable. Due to some of the similarities between shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon life history strategies, this document includes text that was taken directly from the 2007 Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Report (ASSRT 2007), with consent from the authors, to expedite the writing process.
    [Show full text]