Oregon Landowner Incentive Program
Final Report
Sycan Marsh: Increasing Bull Trout Habitat – Long Creek
1.
State:
Oregon
Grant number:
I-6-TP
Grant name:
Landowner Incentive Program
Project number
and name:
Segment 6; Sycan Marsh: Increasing Bull Trout Habitat – Long Creek
2.
Grant Period:
01/11/07 – 12/31/08 amended to 09/30/09
3.
Location of work: Long Creek, Klamath Basin Watershed; Lake County, Oregon; Second
Congressional District
4.
Costs:
Budgeted
Actual
Grant
$ 125,611
$
Other
$ 42,554
$
Total
$168,165
$
5.
Objectives (from grant proposal)
Administrative summary: ODFW is contracting with The Nature Conservancy to provide
connectivity and passage for bull trout and redband trout from Long Creek into Sycan Marsh
as well as remove competing brook trout from the system. This will be accomplished by
removing a diversion that is preventing fish movement and replacing it two miles downstream
with a fish passing diversion. Competing brook trout will be removed from Long Creek by
operate fish traps for two years pre-construction. These actions are a top priority in the Bull
Trout Recovery Plan.
Objective 1: Increase salmonid instream habitat by two miles in Long Creek by removing a
point of diversion and moving this point two miles downstream.
Task 1.1:
Engineering and design for diversion removal and installation of a new diversion two
miles downstream.
Products:
Designs for a properly engineered diversion removal and construction of a new
diversion two miles downstream.
Costs:
$16,000
Accomplishments: Removal of the existing water control structures and restoring the historic south
fork channel to allow for fish passage followed the design that was provided with the
Joint Permit applications. The engineering design provided detailed information needed
to remove the existing Point of Diversion, and to construct a new channel. The new
channel connected the South Fork of Long Creek with the mainstem of Long Creek. An
example of the engineering and design information is provided as follows:
Task 1.2:
Remove and relocate point of diversion on South Fork Long Creek.
Products:
Two additional miles of stream as a result of removing old diversion and installing new
diversion two miles downstream.
Cost:
$53,500
Accomplishments: Removal of the water control structures in the South Fork of Long Creek has
provided more than two miles of new habitat. Bull trout moved into the new habitat
within two months of the removal of the structures. Information provided from The
Nature Conservancy to the US Fish and Wildlife Service was used to expand bull trout
critical habitat, although still in draft format. The proposed addition is illustrated in the
following map developed by the USFWS in August 2009. This project has provided
more than two miles of new habitat, providing a fluvial life history for bull trout.
Objective 2: Install fish traps to remove brook trout as they migrate through the lower reaches
of Long Creek.
Task 2.1:
Operate fish traps for two years pre-construction to remove brook trout.
Products:
Increased survival of bull trout populations, increased health and increased productivity
with pure bull trout genetic material.
Cost:
$23,346 per year, $46,692 total.
Accomplishments: Fish traps were operated in two locations in Long Creek: approximately river mile RM
17 immediately downstream of the passage improvement project, and upstream of the project at USFS Rt. 27
crossing at RM 15. Traps were operated from late May through mid November, 2007 and from mid June
through mid November, 2008. The in-stream box traps span the stream collecting all fish (greater than 130mm
in length), and the north fork weir trap at RM 15 captures downstream moving fish of all sizes. Traps were
checked every 24 hours. Salmonids were weighed and measured; fish data was recorded and native fish were
released. Brook trout were killed.
RM 17 North Fork: Fifteen bull trout were captured moving downstream at this location in 2008. Nineteen
were captured here in 2007. Additionally, in 2008 two young of the year bull trout and one hybrid moved
downstream in the early summer. Upstream movements of brook trout (13) were similar to 2007, but no
redband trout were captured in the upstream trap in 2008. The numbers of brook trout emigrating in OctoberNovember were less than 2007.
RM 15 South Fork: The bi-directional trap at the head of the south fork of Long Creek captured six redband
trout in 2008, similar to 2007. The majority of the brook trout were traveling upstream in September and
downstream in October-November. This information was pre-treatment data prior to the culvert removal
upstream of this location in 2009.
Results: In 2008, a total of 953 brook trout (42.5 kg) were removed from Long Creek. The majority of the fish
(77%) and 56% of the biomass were emigrating downstream at RM 15 in the fall. In 2007 66% of the biomass
removed was at this site. Factors associated with emigration are complex, as they are associated with population
level genetic expression, as well as physiological conditions, and annual changes in habitat.
Residents vs. Emigrants: Fish trapping provided the opportunity to monitor the patterns of emigration expressed
in brook trout and native salmonids and investigate their physiological condition to examine the complex
relationships between abiotic and biotic factors influencing salmonid condition. Physiological ondition was
greater for resident salmonids (captured via electrofishing) than for those emigrating in the fall (captured in
downstream traps). The samples for this comparison were all taken in the Sept.-November timeframe and from
the same stream region (RM 15). ANOVA tests showed a significant difference in condition between
electrofished and trapped redband trout (p<0.0001), and brook trout (p < 0.0001), 2000-2008. Brook trout in
Long Creek appear to avoid the stress of limited habitat or sympatry by emigrating. Brook trout captured
emigrating have a Fulton’s Condition Factor at or below 1 whereas those that remain as residence have a
condition > 1. Redband trout also exhibit this behavior, with emigrating fish having a statistically significantly
lower condition than residents.
Conditions of habitat quality and quantity are associated with annual changes in carrying capacity. We have
found that the kg of fish caught in emigration has a strong relationship to annual precipitation (Y=1.44x,-43.71;
R2 = 0.80, P=0.001). We have found that habitat quality is strongly associated with precipitation (R2 = 0.87,
P=0.001) when the habitat condition is above an environmental threshold. Fish relocate downstream when they
are in poorer physiological condition. Bull trout physiological condition increased during the period when brook
trout were removed. With increased bull trout size and condition there will be an increased fecundity, and
resilience to environmental or sympatric stresses.
Objective 3: Conduct cultural resource survey.
Task 3.1:
Provide onsite archeological and cultural monitoring and reporting of the Long Creek
fish habitat restoration project Objectives include: (1) conduct a pre-field monitoring
review to write a Phase 1 cultural resource survey that will fulfill requirements of the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and consultation requirements of the US Fish
and Wildlife Service, (2) based on the findings of the pre-field survey, report and
comments provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service following consultation with
affected Native American Tribes monitor all ground disturbing activities within the permit
area to ensure an archeological site or cultural resource in not adversely affected. (3)
upon completion of the Long Creek restoration project complete the “Compliance
Certification” for Corps permit number NWP-2008-5555, including signing the
compliance certification and submit the form to Brian Wilson, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Eugene Field Office, 1600 Executive Parkway, Suite210, Eugene, Oregon
97410-2156.
Product(s): Provide Phase I cultural resources survey to SHPO (re: 08-2093) and USFWS based on
review of existing documentation (SHPO and federal surveys) and field reconnaissance
of the permit area.
Monitor all ground disturbing activities to ensure that cultural resources are not
impacted. Should cultural resources be discovered, project construction will stop until
the cultural resources at risk can be assessed and appropriate protection can be
provided
Upon completion of the restoration, Compliance Certification notification will be provided
to the USFWS and the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Schedule:
Conduct literature review for Cultural and historical resources in the Long Creek Project
area (March – April, 2009).
Conduct a pre-field monitoring of the project permit area, when the site is free of snow
and would allow for a through site-survey. Provide a Phase I Cultural Resources survey
report to SHPO and the USFWS (April – May, 2009).
Monitor all ground disturbing activities (May – August, 2009).
Provide Compliance Certification to the US Army Corps of Engineers and USFWS
(June – September, 2009).
Cost:
$11,500
Accomplishments: The survey was conducted to ensure compliance with the regulations of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NRHP) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The Oregon Revised Statutes also provides direction for protection of
archaeological resources - “ORS 358.920 Prohibited conduct. (1)(a) A person may not
excavate, injure, destroy or alter an archaeological site or object or remove an
archaeological object located on public or private lands in Oregon unless that activity is
authorized by a permit issued under ORS 390.235.”
A certified archeologist was hired to conduct the cultural survey to determine the impact
of ground disturbing activities on properties eligible to or included in the National
Historic Preservation Act (NRHP). The survey identified a prehistoric archaeological site
that may be eligible to the NRHP. Isolate finds were not eligible to the NRHP. As a
result of the survey it was recommended that the prehistoric archaeological site TNC
001-09 be tested to determine the horizontal and vertical boundaries as well as address
NRHP eligibility. It was also necessary to determine any measure of protection needed
for this resource if determined eligible. It is important to note that as a result of this
survey the staging area and access to the project were relocated to an area that would
protect buried cultural materials which may have been encountered during the
implementation of ground disturbing activities. The area containing the isolate resources
and the adjacent areas within the APE were monitored by a professional archaeologist
to ensure the protection of the isolates and evaluate any possible inadvertent discovery.
This recommendation is made to ensure that the project comply with the NRHP and
ORS 358.920. During construction, no additional archeological materials were found. A
Compliance Certification was provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to certify
that the work authorized under this permit was completed in accordance with the permit
conditions of this restoration project.
6.
Discuss differences between work anticipated in the grant narrative approved by
USFWS and that actually carried out with Grant funds; include differences between
expected and actual costs.
Accomplishments: restoring the historic Long Creek channel to provide two miles of habitat was
accomplished in 2009 through the removal of a water control structure, and channel
restoration. Restoration actions were in compliance with the Joint Permit application and
regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act,
the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act. The project was completed within the
original budget.
Name and email address of report author:
Report date: November 2, 2009
Craig Bienz, cbienz@tnc.org