Status and Conservation of Oregon’s Interior Redband Trout

Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeNative Fish Investigations Project

OregonOregon ’’s Inland Redband Trouts Inland Redband Trout

Legend

Lakes

Streams

Klamath

Great Basin

Snake

Great Basin Redband TroutOncorhynchus mykiss newberrii

Rainbow trout and cutthroat trout diverge: late Plio cene (~2,000,000 ya)

Rainbow trout invade the Great Basin: Pleistocene ( ~70,000 ya)

Warming and drying of the Great Basin isolates rainb ow trout

Great Basin redband trout occur in 6 isolated basins wi th no connectivity

Redband Trout are isolated above dams and diversions in Klamath and

Snake

Redband Trout SMUs and PopulationsRedband Trout SMUs and Populations

Blitzen

Lost River

Lower Sprague

SIlver

Jenny

Chewaucan

Upper Williamson

Upper Sprague

McCoy

Honey

Wood

Klamath River

Upper Sycan

Upper Deep

Riddle

Dry

WillowSkull

Silvies

Silver

CascadeComplex

Rock

UpperDrews

Guano

Poison

Cow

Buck

Crooked

LowerWilliamson

Twentymile

Thomas-Bauers Complex

Bridge

Home

Cottonwood

CraneLowerDrews

RattlesnakeCoffeepot

Antelope

Prater

Kelley

Muddy

Threemile

Deadman

Cogswell

Fall

Foster

Tandy

Lower Deep

Fort Rock Malheur Lakes

Upper Klamath Basin

Catlow Valley

Warner Lakes

Chewaucan

Goose Lake

Great Basin Redband TroutSMU's and Populations

Species Management Units Species Management Units and Populationsand Populations

� Species Management Units are defined as the major pluvial lake basins of the Great Basin. � Are geographically isolated from populations in

other SMUs and may be genetically distinct.� Coincide with ODFW management plans and

the USFWS Status Review of Great Basin redband Trout.

� Populations were based on geography, movement patterns and genetic data.

• Area: 40,000 km 2

• 16% of Oregon’s area

• Pop: 14,000 people

• 0.4% of Oregon’s pop

• 6 interior basins with

redband trout

• Northern Basin & Range

• Elevation: 1,246 - 2,964 m

(4,088 - 9,725 ft)

• Annual ppt: 17 - 130 cm

(6 - 51 in)

distribution of redband troutin wadable streams

Oregon Great Basin

Great Basin Redband Trout

stream resident formadfluvial form

Redband trout persist in areas of higher elevation/preci pitation

Diverse habitats gave rise to diverse life histories

Majority of redband trout inhabit headwater streams

- stream resident form

Pluvial lakes present in Goose, Warner, and Malheur Lak es basins

- adfluvial form

Previous Redband Trout Assessments

1997: Redband trout petitioned to be listed under E SA

1999: ODFW surveys Great Basin redband trout

- 950,000 fish (± 21%)

2000: USFWS denies listing of redband trout

2005: Status Review of Oregon’s Native Fishes

ODFW Status ReviewODFW Status Review

Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria

1.1. Existing PopulationsExisting Populations

2.2. Habitat Use DistributionHabitat Use Distribution

3.3. AbundanceAbundance

4.4. ProductivityProductivity

5.5. Reproductive IndependenceReproductive Independence

6.6. HybridizationHybridization

Trout Status Criteria

Existing Populations• Extinct or functionally extinct• Population delineation based on Bowers et al, input from regional staff

Distribution

• Pass if meet two of three criteria:1) > 10% of total stream distance 2) Greater than 5 miles3) Connected to other populations

Redband Status CriteriaAbundance

•Data from Dambacher 2001, and district staff • Guidelines based on Dambacher and Jones 2007

Low <0.059 fish m-2Moderate 0.06 – 0.19 fish m-2High >0.2 fish m-2•Pass if moderate or high in 3 of the past 5 yrs.

Productivity• Not quantitatively assessed due to a lack of or inconsistent data

• Consider distribution and abundance• high densities with adequate distribution = pass• isolated populations (no migratory life history) = fail• presence of non-native salmonids = ?

Reproductive Independence

• Current and historic stocking records

• Failed if currently stocked, or if genetic analysis indicates significant interaction

Hybridization

• Pass if hybrids are rare or non-existent

• If data are not specific, then fail if con-generic non-native fish are sympatric

Redband Status Criteria

Conservation Status Score for SMUConservation Status Score for SMU

� Each of these attributes was evaluated for every population based on benchmark values related to species viability, persistence probability, and conservation risks.

� Criteria for individual SMUs were met when at least 80% of existing constituent populations met the standard.

� Risk categories were assigned based on the number of interim criteria met by each SMU.

Implementation of CriteriaImplementation of CriteriaScoring of Interim Criteria Scoring of Interim Criteria

place SMUs in one of three place SMUs in one of three ““conservation riskconservation risk””categories:categories:

–– ““ At RiskAt Risk ””SMU does not meet at least four of the six criteria.SMU does not meet at least four of the six criteria.

–– ““ Potentially at RiskPotentially at Risk ””SMU meets four or five criteria.SMU meets four or five criteria.

–– ““ Not at RiskNot at Risk ””SMU meets all criteria.SMU meets all criteria.

Status of Redband Trout

Klamath

Malheur

Catlow

Fort Rock

WarnerGoose

Chewaucan

Potentially at riskAt riskExtinct

Not at risk

Scoring of Status Criteria for Redband Trout SMUsScoring of Status Criteria for Redband Trout SMUs

0%

40%

80%

0%40%80%

ExistingPopulations

Distribution Abundance Productivity ReproductiveIndependence

Hybridization

0%

40%

80%

0%

40%

80%

0%

40%

80%

0%

40%

80%

0%

40%

80%

Per

cent

of P

opul

atio

ns M

eetin

g C

riter

ion

Upper KlamathUpper Klamath 1010

Goose LakeGoose Lake 13 13

ChewaucanChewaucan44

Fort RockFort Rock 33

Warner LakesWarner Lakes 44

Catlow ValleyCatlow Valley 55

Malheur LakesMalheur Lakes 1010

Factors Limiting Redband ProductivityFactors Limiting Redband Productivity

�� Flow diversionFlow diversion

�� Degraded Stream & Riparian HabitatDegraded Stream & Riparian Habitat

�� Migration BarriersMigration Barriers

�� Competition with exotic salmonidsCompetition with exotic salmonids

�� Climate regimeClimate regime

ODFW Redband Trout Study2007: ODFW’s Native Fish Investigations Project init iates a six-year

study to assess status and trends of Great Basin redb and trout

Key Objective:

- To assess the response of fish populations to chan ges in climatic

conditions and evaluate subsequent shifts in popula tion

abundance and structure

Great Basin Redband StudyGreat Basin Redband Study�� To address data gaps outlined in the Native Fish Status To address data gaps outlined in the Native Fish Status

Review (ODFW 2005).Review (ODFW 2005).

�� To assess the response of fish populations to changes in To assess the response of fish populations to changes in climatic conditions. climatic conditions.

�� To provide better management for future fishing To provide better management for future fishing opportunities.opportunities.

�� To write effective conservation plans for all Great Basin To write effective conservation plans for all Great Basin SMUs.SMUs.

EPA’s Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS ) design

- probabilistic surveys

- spatially balanced, representative sample

30 sites per basin every year

Density estimates at randomly selected sites

- 2-pass removal electrofishing

Calibrate removal estimates

- mark-recapture at sub-sample of sites

Collect stream habitat data at each site

ODFW Redband Trout Study

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!( !( !(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!( !(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!(!(

!(!(

!( !( !( !(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

30 sites per population every 3 years

Land Ownership of Great Basin Land Ownership of Great Basin Redband Trout HabitatRedband Trout Habitat

Fort Rock

Malheur Lakes

Cat low Valley

Warner Lakes

Chewaucan

Goose Lake

Legend

Redband Trout Populations Land OwnershipLand Ownseship

BLM

ODF

PVT

USFS

USFWS

0 40 8020 Kilometers

Sampling SuccessSampling Success

Warner Lakes, 2007

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Completed (53)

Did Not Survey (1)Access Denied (21)

Failed Estimate (2)

Dry Channel (13)

Site Status ( n = 90)

All SMUs 2007-08

Calibration of Removal EstimatesCalibration of Removal Estimates

y = 1.55x + 5.98

R2 = 0.86

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200

Removal Estimate

Mar

k-R

ecap

ture

Est

imat

e• ~ 10 % of sample sites calibrated with mark-recapture techniques.

• Removal estimates underestimated abundance by 37%, a 0.63 bias.

• Develop predictive models based on channel complexity and fish attributes.

• Preliminary analysis of 2006 data show bias correlated to in-stream wood and fish size.

Fish/m 2

0.0 (n = 59)

0.01 – 0.15 (n = 107)

0.16 – 0.40 (n = 52)

0.41 – 1.00 (n = 17)

2008 Site Densities

ODFW Redband Trout Study

• High variability

•Some areas of high

density

ODFW Redband Trout Study2008 Site Densities

Fish/m 2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Per

cent

age

of S

ites

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Cum

ulat

ive

Per

cent

of S

ites

20

40

60

80

100

Blitzen Population Length Frequency

0

10

20

30

40

50

6030 50 70 90 11

0

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

290

310

330

350

370

390

410

Fork Length (mm)

Fre

quen

cy

n = 9181+ > 85mm

ODFW Redband Trout Study

• Dominated by smaller, younger fish

• High productivity?

Occurrence of Brook TroutOccurrence of Brook Trout

LegendBrook Trout

Redband Trout Distribution

Other Streams

2008 population estimates

2007 population estimates

ODFW Redband Trout StudySMUSMU nn EstimateEstimate 95% CI95% CI

Catlow ValleyCatlow Valley 77 24,53924,539 65%65%

ChewaucanChewaucan 3131 120,577120,577 50%50%

Fort RockFort Rock 2727 70,31570,315 28%28%

Goose LakeGoose Lake 9090 102,855102,855 36%36%

Malheur LakesMalheur Lakes 3939 447,970447,970 37%37%

Warner LakesWarner Lakes 5353 221,985221,985 50%50%

TotalTotal 247247 988,241988,241 22%22%

SMUSMU nn EstimateEstimate 95% CI95% CI

Catlow ValleyCatlow Valley -- -- --

ChewaucanChewaucan 2525 112,275112,275 38%38%

Fort RockFort Rock 2424 39,83339,833 42%42%

Goose LakeGoose Lake 2424 36,26636,266 47%47%

Malheur LakesMalheur Lakes 138138 395,855395,855 19%19%

Warner LakesWarner Lakes 2424 396,580396,580 41%41%

TotalTotal 235235 980,810980,810 19%19%

Trends in AbundanceTrends in Abundance

Chewaucan Warner Lakes Malheur Lakes

Year

Age

1+

Fis

h x

1000

Fort Rock120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Goose Lake200

160

120

80

40

0

Catlow Valley80

60

40

20

0

1999 2007 2008

250

200

150

100

50

01999 2007 2008

800

600

400

200

01999 2007 2008

800

600

400

200

0

SMUSMU PopulationPopulation nn EstimateEstimate 95% CI95% CI

Goose Lake Drews 20 16,477 69%

2007 Dry 12 2,749 163%

Eastside 17 21,613 28%

Thomas 21 38,309 58%

West Goose 20 41,146 84%

Warner Lakes Deep 18 163,565 75%

2007 Honey 17 16,247 60%

Twentymile 18 79,808 58%

Malheur Lakes Blitzen 23 106,807 36%

2008 East Burns 25 27,940 45%

McCoy 24 124,255 35%

Riddle 18 45,938 51%

Silver 25 41,161 49%

Silvies 23 112,074 52%

Population Abundance

Application of Results Application of Results

ODFW Redband Trout Study- Possible Outcomes -

Abundance of redband trout as it relates to stream flow

Mean Annual Precipitation (inches)years i-1 and i-2

Age

1+

LCT

abu

ndan

ce x

100

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

105 15 20 25 30

R2 = 0.89p = 0.055

1989

2005

1994

1999

1941 19611951 1971 19911981 2001

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

CF

SMean Annual Flow

years i-1 and i-2Donner und Blitzen River

Fish/m 2

no fish

low density

high density

Wet

ODFW Redband Trout Study- Possible Outcomes -

Changes in Distribution of redband trout relative to climate cycles

Dry

Redband Trout DensityRedband Trout DensityMalheur River, 2007Malheur River, 2007

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

Malheur R

iver

Willow Creek

Bully Creek

Cotto

nwoo

d Cre

ek

So

uth

Fo

rk M

alh

eur

Ri v

er

North

Fork M

alheu

r River

L itt le Malh

eur R

iv er

WarmSprings

Reservoir

Beulah Reservoir

Bully Creek

Reservoir

!(

!(

!(!(!(

0.0

0.01 – 0.10

0.11 – 0.19

0.20 – 0.39

0.40 – 1.30

Estimated Abundance

298,250 ± 29%

Migratory PopulationsMigratory Populations

Upper Klamath BasinUpper Klamath Basin

�� Complex life historiesComplex life histories�� Lake rearingLake rearing

�� Stream residentsStream residents

�� Connected PopulationsConnected Populations

�� Sampling IssuesSampling Issues

Klamath Basin PopulationsKlamath Basin Populations

Oregon

California

N. Fk.

Sprague R

iver

Trout Cr

S. Fk. Sprague River

Sycan River

Mer

yl C

r

4-mile Cr

Spencer Creek

Shovel Creek

Klamath Rive

r

Will

i am

son

Riv

er

Sycan River

Sun Creek

Merritt Creek

Annie Creek

Wood R

iver

Fishhole Creek

Rock C

reek

Lost Rive

r

4-mile Cr

Jack

son C

reek

5-m

il e C

reekCherry Cr

7-mile Canal

7-mile Cr

Sprague River

Snake Cr

Roc

k C

reek

Rock C

reek

Lost

Riv

er

Spring C

r

William

son River

Rock Creek

Fou

rmile

Cre

ek

Rock Cr

Crys ta l C

ree k

Rock Creek

Long Creek

U Klamath Lake

Crater Lake

Agency L.

Lost River

Lower Sprague

Jenny

Upper Williamson

Upper Sprague

Wood

Klamath River

Upper Sycan

Cascade Complex

Lower Williamson

*B

*A

KLAMATH R

SPRAGUE R

LOST R

*C

SYCAN

CR

WILLIA

MS

ON

RJENNY CR

LON

G C

R

TOM

CR

MERRIT CR

FISHHOLE CR

JAC

K C

R

MILLER CR

FALL

CR

LON

G P

RA

IRIE

CR

BOGUS CR

CRATER L

WIL

LOW

CR

AS

PE

N L

AK

E

GER

BER R

ES

*B

*A

WILLOW CR

•10 Populations•4 Adfluvial

Klamath Redband TrendsKlamath Redband Trends

Klamath Redband Genetic StudyKlamath Redband Genetic Study

�� Better define population structureBetter define population structure

�� Mine samples collected in 2000Mine samples collected in 2000

�� Also compare with other populationsAlso compare with other populations

�� Analyzed by Devon Pearce, NOAA, UCSCAnalyzed by Devon Pearce, NOAA, UCSC

�� 18 microsatellite loci18 microsatellite loci

Klamath Redband Genetic Population StructureKlamath Redband Genetic Population Structure

Goose Goose LakeLake

Klamath Klamath Lake BasinLake Basin

Upper Klamath RiverUpper Klamath River

Lower Klamath Lower Klamath River & Jenny CrRiver & Jenny Cr

Wood Wood RiverRiver

Lower Lower Sprague Sprague RiverRiver

Trout Cr, Trout Cr, Lower Lower Sprague Sprague RiverRiver

Rock Cr, Lower Sprague RiverRock Cr, Lower Sprague River

Lost Lost RiverRiver

Scott Cr, central Scott Cr, central CA coastCA coast

Movement and Passage of Movement and Passage of Redband Trout in the Blitzen RiverRedband Trout in the Blitzen River

Study LocationStudy Location

Blitzen R Diversion DamsSodhouse Busse

Grain Camp Page

1.1. Determine movement patterns of fluvial Determine movement patterns of fluvial life historylife history

2.2. Investigate migratory delays at diversion Investigate migratory delays at diversion damsdams

Objectives

MethodsMethods

�� Trout caught in traps and by Trout caught in traps and by anglingangling

�� Radio telemetryRadio telemetry

�� PIT tagsPIT tags

�� Stream temperature and flowStream temperature and flow

�� Fish scale interpretationFish scale interpretation

Trout Size and Age DistributionsTrout Size and Age Distributions

Age:

Nu

mb

er

of

tro

ut

pa

ssin

g P

IT r

ea

de

r

Grain Camp

Busse

Cato Bridge

(N = 24)

PageT

em

p ⁰

CF

low

CF

S

died

Upstream Migration Extent and Arrival Timing

Passage Delay at DamsPassage Delay at DamsP

rop

ort

ion

of

tro

ut

be

low

da

m

Time (days)

1.0

0.75

0.5

0.25

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Page

Grain Camp

Busse

Page

Grain Camp

Busse

Stream Temperature

UILT

Summer 7-day Max AverageT

em

pe

ratu

re ⁰

C

River km

Conclusions

• Multiple migrations within lifetime

• Migration not exclusively for reproduction

• Seasonal migration pattern

• Spawning had a limited distribution

•Lack of repeat spawning

• Lower river trout arrive later at spawning habitat

• Some dams present passage limitations to trout

- Some delayed up to 40 days

- Some never pass

Conservation Principles forRedband Trout

Keys to persistence (Williams et al, 2007):- Protect current strongholds

- Increase size and extent of existing populations

- Maintain genetic and life historydiversity

- Reconnect stream systems

- Minimize anthropogenic stressors

- Improve adaptive management

ODFW Conservation PlanningODFW Conservation PlanningNative Fish Conservation PolicyNative Fish Conservation Policy

Native Fish Conservation PlansNative Fish Conservation Plans

•• Define desired status relative to biological attributesDefine desired status relative to biological attributes

•• Describe current status at the population levelDescribe current status at the population level

•• Limiting factor analysis including corrective strategiesLimiting factor analysis including corrective strategies

•• Identify monitoring and research needs to evaluate Identify monitoring and research needs to evaluate success of corrective strategiessuccess of corrective strategies

•• Include measurable criteria indicating significant Include measurable criteria indicating significant deterioration in status & triggering recovery actionsdeterioration in status & triggering recovery actions

DistributionDistribution SurvivalSurvival

AbundanceAbundance Rate of Population GrowthRate of Population Growth

Population DiversityPopulation Diversity Forecast of PersistenceForecast of Persistence

Population ConnectivityPopulation Connectivity

ODFW Conservation PlanningODFW Conservation PlanningNative Fish Conservation PolicyNative Fish Conservation Policy

Native Fish Conservation PlansNative Fish Conservation Plans

� Collaborative process� Technical committee� Stakeholder committee� Peer review

Conservation Planning Conservation Planning Challenges for Redband TroutChallenges for Redband Trout

� Limited data available� Abundance & distribution� Lack of long term data sets� Lack of sensitivity to detect trend

� Conflict in scale at which data are collected� Smallest populations aggregated

Silvies

Silver East Burns

North Malheur Lakes

Conservation Planning Conservation Planning Challenges for Redband TroutChallenges for Redband Trout

� High among population variability� Populations differ in potential

� Irregular & sporadic monitoring activities� Limited opportunities to detect deterioration

� Few fishery management options for recovery� Limited harvest, little or no stocking in running waters

Approach

� Evaluate Populations by Potential� Flow - Precipitation & Area� Temperature – Elevation & Aspect

Mean Annual PrecipitationMalheur Lakes SMUPopulation PotentialMalheur Lakes SMU

ApproachDefine desired and current status -

Abundance & DistributionVaries by potentialVaries by water year

High Potential Low Potential

High water years

- 98% of sites with fish- 50% of sites > 8.1 g/m2

- 74% of sites with fish- 50% of sites > 0.31 g/m2

Low Water years

- 58% of sites with fish- 50% of sites > 0.86 g/m2

- 50% of sites with fish- 50% of sites > 0.31 g/m2

Approach� Define desired and current status -

� Reproductive Potential – length frequency� Population diversity – Number of Eco-regions� Spatial diversity – Habitat heterogeneity

Approach• Identify habitat related recovery actions

� Habitat Restoration� Restoration of Passage� Restoration of instream flow

Recent Conservation Actions for Great Recent Conservation Actions for Great Basin Redband TroutBasin Redband Trout

�� Harvest impacts are being minimized.Harvest impacts are being minimized.

�� 20092009--10 Creel Survey in Upper Klamath Lake10 Creel Survey in Upper Klamath Lake

�� Trout stocking in waters containing redband trout will use Trout stocking in waters containing redband trout will use only triploid (sterile) trout.only triploid (sterile) trout.

�� Passage and screening in Chewaucan Basin.Passage and screening in Chewaucan Basin.

�� Screening in Warner Lakes Basin.Screening in Warner Lakes Basin.

�� Collaboration with USGS to analyze redband data to refine Collaboration with USGS to analyze redband data to refine population benchmarks (WNTI)population benchmarks (WNTI)

Parting ShotsParting Shots

�� Progress over last decadeProgress over last decade

�� Overall abundant but disconnected and Overall abundant but disconnected and constrained life history expressionconstrained life history expression

�� Uncertainty of what monitoring can be Uncertainty of what monitoring can be continuedcontinued

�� Appropriate conservation objectives Appropriate conservation objectives

�� Effective monitoring strategiesEffective monitoring strategies

�� Problem of time scaleProblem of time scale