DOCSLIB.ORG

Lewis River Bull Trout: a Synthesis of Known Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lewis River Bull Trout: a Synthesis of Known Information Lewis River Bull Trout: A Synthesis of Known Information J. Michael Hudson1, Jeremiah Doyle2, Jamie Lamperth3, Robert Al-Chokhachy4, Greg Robertson5, Tom Wadsworth3 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 2 PacifiCorp 3 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 4 U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center 5 U.S. Forest Service, Gifford-Pinchot National Forest April 4, 2019 1 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 2 Table of Contents I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 II. Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ 8 a. Subbasin Description ......................................................................................................... 8 b. Bull trout populations and life-history types present in the Lewis River subbasin ......... 10 c. Habitat ............................................................................................................................. 10 i. Stream Temperature .................................................................................................................... 10 ii. In-stream Habitat ........................................................................................................................ 11 d. Fishery management ........................................................................................................ 12 III. Demographic characteristics ........................................................................................................ 13 a. Abundance ....................................................................................................................... 13 i. Estimates of abundance from mark/resight in Swift reservoir .................................................... 13 ii. Estimates of abundance from redd counts in Cougar Creek and P8 ........................................... 15 b. Effective population size ................................................................................................. 17 i. Estimates of effective number of breeders (Nb) ......................................................................... 17 c. Sex ratio ........................................................................................................................... 19 d. Age structure ................................................................................................................... 19 e. Age at maturity ................................................................................................................ 19 IV. Vital Rates ...................................................................................................................................... 21 a. Survival ........................................................................................................................... 21 b. Growth ............................................................................................................................. 22 c. Fecundity ......................................................................................................................... 23 V. Spatial Distribution ....................................................................................................................... 23 a. Length-frequency of bull trout in tributaries ................................................................... 23 b. eDNA ............................................................................................................................... 24 c. Occupancy and distribution ............................................................................................. 25 VI. Movement patterns ........................................................................................................................ 28 a. PIT monitoring ................................................................................................................ 28 b. Radiotelemetry ................................................................................................................ 32 c. Screw traps ...................................................................................................................... 34 VII. Genetic diversity ............................................................................................................................ 36 VIII. Limiting factors ............................................................................................................................. 37 3 a. Evaluation of three proposed management scenarios to enhance three potential bull trout nursery habitats accessible to Lake Merwin and Yale Lake, Lewis River ...................... 38 b. Lake Merwin and Swift Creek Reservoir tributary streams: bull trout limiting factors analysis ............................................................................................................................ 39 c. Lewis River bull trout habitat restoration project identification assessment .................. 42 IX. Data gaps and Research Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) needs ......................................... 48 X. Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... 49 XI. Literature cited .............................................................................................................................. 49 Table of Tables Table 1. Estimates of annual bull trout (>360 mm FL) staging at the head of Swift reservoir in the upper Lewis River ..................................................................................................................... 15 Table 2. Number of age-0 bull trout collected by spawn year and spawning tributary to estimate effective number of breeders (Nb) ............................................................................................ 18 Table 3. Estimates of the effective number of breeders (Nb) with 95% confidence intervals (in parentheses) from bull trout spawning tributaries on the Lewis River in southwest WA. ........ 18 Table 4. Number of juvenile bull trout captured and length statistics of the captured fish by year and trap location. Length was measured from each captured bull trout. Eagle Cliff is the Lewis River near the head of Swift Reservoir. ......................................................................... 35 Table 5. Initial sample sizes from each tributary, number of full sibling families detected, adjusted sample sizes, and estimates of genetic diversity including the mean number of alleles per locus (A), allelic richness (AR), expected heterozygosity (Hexp), and observed heterozygosity (Hobs) for bull trout collected from three Lewis River tributaries. .................... 36 Table 6. Pairwise estimates of genetic variation (pairwise FST) among bull trout collected from three Lewis River tributaries. Estimates are based on 16 microsatellite loci. .......................... 36 Table 7. Initial bull trout habitat ranking categories. .............................................................................. 40 Table 8. Factors likely preventing the occurrence of an established bull trout population in the four streams with marginal or optimal habitat potential. .................................................................. 41 Table 9. List of habitat variables used to develop a redd occurrence model for bull trout in the upper Lewis River subbasin, WA. The variables were summarized at 100 m reaches. ........... 43 4 Table 10. Parameter estimates and scaled odds ratios for the global model relating bull trout redd occurrence to physical habitat variables in the upper Lewis River subbasin, WA. Log- 2 2 2 transformed (loge(x+1)) values of Boulder (m ), Fines (m ), and Pool (m ) were used in model. ........................................................................................................................................ 44 Table 11. Parameter estimates and odds ratios for the bull trout redd occurrence model with the lowest AICc score. .................................................................................................................... 45 Table of Figures Figure 1. Spatial distribution of adfluvial bull trout, the only life history that has been documented in the Lewis River basin based on field sampling over the past four decades (1979 – 2016). Map inset shows the Lewis River basin (white polygon in southwest WA) in relation to the distribution of bull trout (dark stream lines) in the coterminous United States. ......................... 9 Figure 2. Location and number of years of available stream temperature data in the upper Lewis River basin. ............................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3. Location and number of years of data available from USDA-Forest Service stream inventory surveys. ..................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4. Annual estimates of bull trout (>360 mm) staging at the head of Swift reservoir in the upper Lewis River (bars represent the 95% confidence intervals). ........................................... 14 Figure 5. Annual cumulative bull trout redd counts from Cougar Creek. ^shortened
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington by Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein
    Prepared in Cooperation with the Water Resources Program of the Yakama Nation Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington By Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3315 Photograph showing Mount Adams andesitic stratovolcano and Signal Peak mafic shield volcano viewed westward from near Mill Creek Guard Station. Low-relief rocky meadows and modest forested ridges marked by scattered cinder cones and shields are common landforms in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field. Mount Adams (elevation: 12,276 ft; 3,742 m) is centered 50 km west and 2.8 km higher than foreground meadow (elevation: 2,950 ft.; 900 m); its eruptions began ~520 ka, its upper cone was built in late Pleistocene, and several eruptions have taken place in the Holocene. Signal Peak (elevation: 5,100 ft; 1,555 m), 20 km west of camera, is one of largest and highest eruptive centers in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field; short-lived shield, built around 3.7 Ma, is seven times older than Mount Adams. 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introductory Overview for Non-Geologists ...............................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Physiography, Environment, Boundary Surveys, and Access ......................................................6 Previous Geologic
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe
    1 Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe: Traditional Resource Harvest Sites West of the Crest of the Cascades Mountains in Washington State and below the Cascades of the Columbia River Eugene Hunn Department of Anthropology Box 353100 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-3100 [email protected] for State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW contract # 38030449 preliminary draft October 11, 2003 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 Map 1 5f 1. Goals and scope of this report 6 2. Defining the relevant Indian groups 7 2.1. How Sahaptin names for Indian groups are formed 7 2.2. The Yakama Nation 8 Table 1: Yakama signatory tribes and bands 8 Table 2: Yakama headmen and chiefs 8-9 2.3. Who are the ―Klickitat‖? 10 2.4. Who are the ―Cascade Indians‖? 11 2.5. Who are the ―Cowlitz‖/Taitnapam? 11 2.6. The Plateau/Northwest Coast cultural divide: Treaty lines versus cultural 12 divides 2.6.1. The Handbook of North American Indians: Northwest Coast versus 13 Plateau 2.7. Conclusions 14 3. Historical questions 15 3.1. A brief summary of early Euroamerican influences in the region 15 3.2. How did Sahaptin-speakers end up west of the Cascade crest? 17 Map 2 18f 3.3. James Teit‘s hypothesis 18 3.4. Melville Jacobs‘s counter argument 19 4. The Taitnapam 21 4.1. Taitnapam sources 21 4.2. Taitnapam affiliations 22 4.3. Taitnapam territory 23 4.3.1. Jim Yoke and Lewy Costima on Taitnapam territory 24 4.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing
    United StatesDepartment of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 DesmondDr. SE, Suite 102 Lacey,Washington 98503 In ReplyRefer To: SCANNED 1-3-06-F-0177 sEPI 5 2006 MagalieR. Salas,Secretary F6deralEnergy Regulatory Commission 888First Sffeet,NE WashingtonD.C. 24426 Attention:Ann Ariel Vecchio DearSecretary Salas: This documenttransmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's(Service) Biological Opinion on the effectsto bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus),northern spotted owls (Srrlxoccidentalis caurina)and bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) fromthe relicensingof the Lewis River HydroeiectricProjects: Merwin (FERC No. 935),Yale (FERC No. 2071),Swift No. 1 (FERC No. Zr 11),and swift No. 2 (FERCNo. 2213). Theaction that comprises this consultationunder theEndangered Species Act of 1973,as amended (16 U.S.C. l53I et seq.)is therelicensing of the Lewis-RiverHydroelectric Projects by the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission and the interdependentactions contained in the SettlementAgreement (PacifiCorp et aL.2004e),dated November30,2004,and Washington Department of Ecology's401 Certifications. Consultationfor the relicensingof the Lewis River Plojectswas initiated by the Commission's letterto the Servicewhich was received in our officeon October11,2005. Based on our letter datedMarch15,2006,the deadline for completingthis consultationwas extended by mutual agreementuntil May 5, 2006. On June12,2006,with concurrenceby thelicensees,we submittedanother request for an extensionto SeptemberI,2006, to
    [Show full text]
  • Soc 1-1 10.1 Socioeconomics Resource Study (Soc 1)
    PacifiCorp/Cowlitz PUD Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects FERC Project Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.0 SOCIOECONOMICS.................................................................................... SOC 1-1 10.1 SOCIOECONOMICS RESOURCE STUDY (SOC 1).......................... SOC 1-1 10.1.1 Study Objectives......................................................................... SOC 1-1 10.1.2 Study Area .................................................................................. SOC 1-2 10.1.3 Methods ...................................................................................... SOC 1-5 10.1.4 Key Questions............................................................................. SOC 1-7 10.1.5 Results......................................................................................... SOC 1-8 10.1.6 Discussion................................................................................. SOC 1-49 10.1.7 Schedule.................................................................................... SOC 1-51 10.1.8 References................................................................................. SOC 1-52 10.1.9 Comments and Responses on Draft Report .............................. SOC 1-57 SOC 1 Appendix 1 Text of RCW 54.28.050 SOC 1 Appendix 2 Descriptive Text of Money Generation Model LIST OF TABLES Table 10.1-1. Local sources of socioeconomic information...................................SOC 1-5 Table 10.1-2. 1990 population distribution by age in the secondary study area. ................................................................................................SOC
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects FERC Project Nos
    Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects FERC Project Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 Photo courtesy of Kim McCune, PacifiCorp – June 2018 2018 Annual Report Annual Summary of License Implementation and Compliance: Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources April 12, 2019 Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects FERC Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 Annual Summary of License Implementation and Compliance: Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources 2018 Annual Report ©2005 PACIFICORP | PAGE 1 Lewis River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Nos. 935, 2071, 2111 & 2213) Annual Report 2018 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 7 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.1.1 Lewis River Settlement Agreement ............................................................................................. 8 1.1.2 Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................................................... 8 1.1.3 Agency Terms and Conditions ................................................................................................... 8 1.1.4 Endangered Species Act Consultations ...................................................................................... 9 1.1.5 Water Quality Certifications .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Clark County, Washington: a Preliminary Report
    Portland State University PDXScholar Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations Anthropology 1999 Archaeological Investigations at 45CL1 Cathlapotle (1991-1996) , Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Clark County, Washington: a Preliminary Report Kenneth M. Ames Portland State University, [email protected] Cameron M. Smith Portland State University William L. Cornett Portland State University Elizabeth A. Sobel Portland State University Stephen C. Hamilton Portland State University SeeFollow next this page and for additional additional works authors at: https:/ /pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/anth_fac Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Ames, K. M., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., & Portland State University. (1999). Archaeological investigations at 45CL1 Cathlapotle (1991-1996), Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, Clark County, Washington: A preliminary report. Portland, Or: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Authors Kenneth M. Ames; Cameron M. Smith; William L. Cornett; Elizabeth A. Sobel; Stephen C. Hamilton; John Wolf; Doria Raetz; United States. Department of the Interior; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1; and Portland State University. Department of Anthropology This technical report is available at PDXScholar: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/anth_fac/61 Archaeological Investigations at 45CL1 Cathlapotle (1991-1996) , Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Clark County, Washington A Preliminary Report by Kenneth M. Ames, Cameron M. Smith, William L.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOLOGIC MAP of the MOUNT ADAMS VOLCANIC FIELD, CASCADE RANGE of SOUTHERN WASHINGTON by Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP 1-2460 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE MOUNT ADAMS VOLCANIC FIELD, CASCADE RANGE OF SOUTHERN WASHINGTON By Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein When I climbed Mount Adams {17-18 August 1945] about 1950 m (6400') most of the landscape is mantled I think I found the answer to the question of why men by dense forests and huckleberry thickets. Ten radial stake everything to reach these peaks, yet obtain no glaciers and the summit icecap today cover only about visible reward for their exhaustion... Man's greatest 2.5 percent (16 km2) of the cone, but in latest Pleis­ experience-the one that brings supreme exultation­ tocene time (25-11 ka) as much as 80 percent of Mount is spiritual, not physical. It is the catching of some Adams was under ice. The volcano is drained radially vision of the universe and translating it into a poem by numerous tributaries of the Klickitat, White Salmon, or work of art ... Lewis, and Cis pus Rivers (figs. 1, 2), all of which ulti­ William 0. Douglas mately flow into the Columbia. Most of Mount Adams and a vast area west of it are Of Men and Mountains administered by the U.S. Forest Service, which has long had the dual charge of protecting the Wilderness Area and of providing a network of logging roads almost INTRODUCTION everywhere else. The northeast quadrant of the moun­ One of the dominating peaks of the Pacific North­ tain, however, lies within a part of the Yakima Indian west, Mount Adams, stands astride the Cascade crest, Reservation that is open solely to enrolled members of towering 3 km above the surrounding valleys.
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis River ~ Including Clear, Quartz, Siouxon, Pine, Rush, Smith Creeks & the Muddy River
    Photo by Susan Saul Wild and Scenic Rivers Support Local Communities The legendary volcanoes in southwestern Washington and the spectacular rivers that originate on their slopes are valuable to the health, economy, and cultural identity of local communities. Rivers like the Green, Cispus, and Lewis provide drinking water to thousands of local residents, world-class recreation, and a high quality of life for local residents. Designating the rivers and key tributaries in Volcano Country under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act will increase long- term potential for recreation and tourism in the area, ensure cool clean water for fish and people, and protect these natural treasures for future generations. Just a few of the benefits of Wild and Scenic designation include: RECREATION, TOURISM, AND THE ECONOMY: According to the Outdoor Industry Association, outdoor recreation brings in more than $11.7 billion annually to our state, supports an estimated 115,000 jobs, and generates $650 million in annual sales tax revenue. Travel and tourism provide nearly 8000 jobs – or 14 percent of jobs across all economic sectors – in Lewis, Cowlitz, and Skamania counties. In addition to putting a river “on the map” for visitors and outdoor enthusiasts, a Wild and Scenic River designation can lead to access improvements and foster growth in river-based outdoor recreation and tourism. For example, a recent study of the Wild and Scenic section of the Rogue River found that commercial rafting, fishing, and other recreation contributed $30 million a year to the State of Oregon’s economy. The White Salmon and the Klickitat River are two positive examples of Wild and Scenic Rivers in Washington that benefit local recreation economies.
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis River Acclimation Pond Site Recommendation
    Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects FERC Project Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 Lewis River Acclimation Pond Project Final August 8, 2011 Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 General Plan ....................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Site Descriptions ............................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Muddy River Site .................................................................................................................. 7 4.2 Clear Creek Site .................................................................................................................... 8 4.3 Crab Creek Site ..................................................................................................................... 8 4.4 Eagle Cliffs Alternative Site ................................................................................................. 9 5.0 Reporting ........................................................................................................................... 10 6.0 Attachments ..................................................................................................................... 11 ATTACHMENT A ........................................................................................................................ 12 ATTACHMENT B ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II, Chapter 11 Lewis River Subbasin—Lower North Fork
    Volume II, Chapter 11 Lewis River Subbasin—Lower North Fork TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................................................2 11.0 LEWIS RIVER SUBBASIN—LOWER NORTH FORK ........................................ 11-3 11.1 Subbasin Description............................................................................................. 11-3 11.1.1 Topography & Geology ..................................................................................... 11-3 11.1.2 Climate............................................................................................................... 11-3 11.1.3 Land Use/Land Cover........................................................................................ 11-3 11.2 Focal Fish Species ................................................................................................. 11-6 11.2.1 Spring Chinook—Lewis Subbasin...................................................................... 11-6 11.2.2 Fall Chinook—Lewis Subbasin.......................................................................... 11-9 11.2.3 Coho—Lewis Subbasin (North Fork)............................................................... 11-12 11.2.4 Chum—Lewis Subbasin ................................................................................... 11-15 11.2.5 Summer Steelhead—Lewis Subbasin (North Fork).......................................... 11-17 11.2.6 Winter Steelhead—Lewis Subbasin (North Fork)...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Development Following Mudflow Deposition, Mount St. Helens, Washington
    437 Forest development following mudflow deposition, Mount St. Helens, Washington Marc H. Weber, Keith S. Hadley, Peter M. Frenzen, and Jerry F. Franklin Abstract: Volcanic mudflows are locally important disturbance agents in the Pacific Northwest rarely studied within the context of forest succession. We describe 18 years (1981–1999) of forest development on the Muddy River mud- flow deposit following the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens using permanent plot data collected along two transects traversing the Cedar Flats river terrace. We analyze changing forest structure over the study period and compare results with mudflow deposition using correlation and pairwise comparisons, as well as ordination (detrended correspondence analysis) and cluster analysis. Our results show a statistically significant relationship between mudflow deposition and forest change. Following mudflow deposition, the site consisted of patches of high tree mortality caused by deep mudflow deposits in abandoned river channels as well as patches of accelerated regeneration of surviving understory trees in areas of more shallow mudflow deposition and partial overstory mortality. Mudflow deposition at the site initiated multiple stages of stand development with (1) early-colonizing red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.) dominating deep deposition sites with fewer surviving trees, (2) gap recruitment and establishment by western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) and Douglas- fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) on intermediate to deep deposition sites with more postburial surviving trees, and (3) late-seral conditions and accelerated succession on shallow burial sites, where tree mortality was low. The initia- tion of differing succession trajectories, as well as variability in the extent and timing of tree mortality following mudflow deposition, demonstrates a dynamic response to disturbance in relation to small-scale gradients of mudflow deposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis River & Vancouver Lake
    LEWIS RIVER–VANCOUVER LAKE WATER TRAIL P ADDLING GUIDE table Of cOntents overview Map/legend ............................................. 1 welcome .................................................................... 2 How to Use guide ..................................................... 3 safety ......................................................................... 4 etiquette .................................................................... 5 Trail Maps .............................................................. 6-21 n. Fork lewis river: woodland ........................6-7 e. Fork lewis river: la center ..........................8-9 lake river: n. ridgefield ................................ 10-11 Bachelor Island slough/ridgefieldr efuge ....12-13 lake river: s. ridgefield ................................14-15 lake river: s. green lake ...............................16-17 vancouver lake: west ....................................18-19 vancouver lake: east .....................................20-21 gear checklist ......................................................... 22 resources ................................................................ 23 credits & acknowledgements .............................. 24 notes ....................................................................... 25 Overview Map shOwing all rOutes he 32 river miles in this water trail include Vancouver TLake (more than 5 miles to circumnavigate), the full extent of Lake River (~11.5 miles), a section of the Columbia River along the west side of Bachelor
    [Show full text]