Proposal

Cooperative Agreement #1434-03HQRU1584

Effects Of Push-Up Dams on Redband/Steelhead Trout (*Oncorhynchus
mykiss*) Production in the Mid-Columbia Basin

### Proposed by:

Hiram W. Li

Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Oregon State University

104 Nash Hall

Corvallis OR 97331-3803

### Requested Duration of Project:

     

### Requested Amount:

\$     

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

### Hiram W. Li      Date

Email: hiram.li@oregonstate.edu Hiram W. Li

Oregon Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit

Oregon State University

104 Nash Hall

Corvallis OR 97331-3803

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Peggy S. Lowry, Director Office of Sponsored Programs Date

Email: sponsored.programs@orst.edu

All contracts, grants, purchase orders and award letters should be
addressed to:

Clem LaCava, Assistant Contract Manager

306 Kerr Administration Building

Corvallis OR 97331-2147

Information regarding Oregon State University policy on indirect cost
rates, tuition and fringe benefits contact:

OSU Research Office Tel[: 541.737.3437]{.smallcaps}

312 Kerr Administration Building Fax: 541.737.3093

Corvallis OR 97331

Technical and budget detail questions should be directed to:

Hiram Li Tel: 541.737.1963

Fax: 541.737.3590

Research Work Order #     

Cooperative Agreement #1434-03HQRU1584

Effects Of Push-Up Dams on Redband/Steelhead Trout (*Oncorhynchus
mykiss*) Production in the Mid-Columbia Basin

### Principal Investigator:

Hiram W. Li

Oregon State University

104 Nash Hall

Corvallis OR 97331-3803

Tel: 541.737.1963

Fax: 541.737.3590

Email: hiram.li@oregonstate.edu      

### Co-Principal Investigators

Guillermo Giannico

Oregon State University

104 Nash Hall

Corvallis OR 97331-3803

Tel. 541.737.2479

Fax 541.737.3590

Email: giannico@oregonstate.edu

Scott Heppell

Oregon State University

104 Nash Hall

Corvallis OR 97331-3803

Tel. 541.737.1086

Fax 541.737.3590

Email: scott.heppell@oregonstate.edu

Peter Bayley

Oregon State University

104 Nash Hall

Corvallis OR 97331-3803

Tel. 541.737.0569

Fax 541.737.3590

Email: peter.bayley@oregonstate.edu

### 

### Duration of Project

     

### Cost

     

### Funding Agency

Bureau of Reclamation

Project Description

Elevated stream temperatures are thought to limit salmonid carrying
capacity in many sub-basins of the Columbia River Plateau. High
temperatures can decrease salmonid growth and survival rates by
increasing individual metabolic costs (Li et al. 1994), and by altering
trophic webs and limiting prey availability (Tait et al. 1994). Most
streams in eastern Oregon are included in the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 303D list of water quality limited water
bodies (http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/WQLData/SearchChoice02.htm).

Wurtsbaugh and Davis (1977) have determined that the Upper Incipient
Lethal Temperature for steelhead/redband trout (O. mykiss) is 25^o^C,
and that at or above this temperature the fish have a limited amount of
"exposure-hours" they can accumulate before dying. To take into account
the requirements of other salmonid species, and the fact that various
types of stress increase fish temperature susceptibility, Oregon's Water
Quality Standards set maximum temperatures below such lethal limits.
Thus, for "core" juvenile salmonid rearing habitats these standards set
the limit at 16^o^C, for "non-core" juvenile rearing habitats and
migratory corridors at 18^o^C, and for lower watershed reaches at 20^o^C
(to allow for migration and coldwater refugia).

In previous studies, we have observed behavioral responses that allow
salmonids to survive high stream temperatures. For example, adult spring
chinook (O. tshawytscha) cope with high stream temperatures by finding
areas of coldwater input. We tracked these fish by means of
temperature-sensitive radio tags to the "temperature refugia" within
plumes of coldwater, which was 1-3^o^C cooler than the mainstream
(Torgersen et al. 1995 &1999). These plumes were apparently connected to
groundwater inputs and we hypothesized that the dynamics of water
routing and storage, particularly hyporheic water, was critical for
these fish.

Stream temperature patterns result from the interaction of important
physical and ecological processes acting within the landscape (Ward
1985). Geomorphic conditions affect stream temperature through a variety
of ways. Solar input to the streams is affected by aspect and
topographic shading. Stream temperatures can be moderated by groundwater
inputs and hyporheic exchange, the quantity of which may be influenced
by the width and composition of the alluvial floodplain. Stream channel
structure influences the extent of floodplain aquifer recharge during
seasonal floods, hyporheic exchange, hydraulic conductivity, flow,
retention time, heat gained by the stream from solar radiation, and heat
lost through evaporative processes (Stanford and Ward 1993). Riparian
structure, both above and below ground, also affects temperature in
multiple ways, such as: shading of stream by vegetation canopy, and
changing of water infiltration, runoff rates, and hydraulic connectivity
by root network development (Beschta and Taylor 1988; Beschta 1997).

In addition to these natural processes, stream temperature is also
influenced by various human activities, which alter soil cover and
structure, reduce water flow, and interfere with the connectivity of the
stream. This combination of high summer water temperatures and loss of
stream connectivity represents a serious threat to salmonids, which are
dependent on dispersal and access to resources in nearby seasonal
refugia to cope with unfavorable local conditions. Moreover, the
interaction of natural regional conditions and local effects of human
land use can have cumulative impacts on fish populations that are more
severe and spatially widespread than expected when local actions are
considered independently.

In the high desert region of the Columbia River Plateau, water diversion
for irrigation of grazing pastures and hay/alfalfa fields is common
practice. To divert water from stream channels into fields, irrigators
commonly use "push-up" dams, which are temporary gravel and earthen
dikes that typically span the stream's width. These structures tend to
be raised in the spring, ideally after fish migrations cease, and are
removed by early fall before the peak of fish migration starts. Thus,
push-up dams represent seasonal barriers that potentially can:

-   Prevent adult salmonid access to spawning grounds (which may not be
    a serious factor if appropriate schedules are followed to erecting
    and lowering the dams.)

-   Inhibit annual migration cycles of salmonids with potamodromous life
    histories (i.e., with migration restricted to river), such as
    juvenile steelhead and juvenile and adult redband trout.

-   Constrain the ability of resident salmonids to behaviorally
    thermoregulate by moving to habitats that offer temperature refugia.

-   Fragment the habitat in such a way that fish production is reduced
    because habitats that offer more favorable growth conditions (i.e.,
    greater prey availability, lower metabolic costs and morality risks)
    are not within reach.

-   Increase the width-to-depth ratio and/or decrease discharge of the
    stream, either of which decreases the physical quality of salmonid
    habitat.

One means to ameliorate the problem of fish passage is to replace
push-up dams with other structures, such as lay-flat stanchion (LFS)
dams, which have been designed to facilitate fish movement by being more
easily raised and lowered than traditional push-up dams. Although the
LFS dams have not been tested in the field yet, there are plans to
install some in the John Day River, a sub-basin of the Mid-Columbia
Plateau where NOAA Fisheries has listed steelhead trout populations as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The South Fork of the John Day River (SFJD) is an arid basin, which
receives approximately 12-14" (305-355 mm) of annual precipitation. Its
geographical setting provides an opportunity to rigorously test the
effects of push-up dam replacement on the movement and survival on
listed steelhead trout in high desert streams. In dry years Deer Creek,
which is a major tributary of the SFJD, can become stagnant,
intermittent, and even dry. Records within the basin are spotty, but the
July 15^th^. 1926 to 1999 USGS stream gauge records at the South Fork
and John Day mainstem confluence, by Dayville, show an order of
magnitude range in annual discharge from 220 to 1,223 cfs. During this
period flows less than 300 cfs recurred more frequently (22%) than those
above 1000 cfs (5%). High flows characterized 1996 and 1998 in several
parts of the basin **(**Tables 1, 2, 3). By comparison, flows dropped an
order of magnitude from 2000 to 2003. The year 2004 was one of
relatively high flow, but was still only a quarter of the discharge of
1998. In some years, the discharge from another SFJS tributary,
Murderers Creek, was higher than that flowing in the mainstem above Izee
Falls (a natural barrier to anadromous fish migration). This, we
believe, is likely due to irrigation withdrawal above the falls. Thermal
temperature profiles from remotely sensed thermal infrared imagery (TIR)
are shown for the summers of 2003 and 2004 in Table 4. Stream
temperatures in the SFJD were high during 2003, and Deer Creek had many
reaches dry. At low summer discharge, water temperature problems
increase in the mainstem (Table 1, 4 ); however, they do not in the
tributaries. In summer 2004, temperatures were cool, and discharge was
presumably higher than normal (gauging data are unavailable). Data from
summer 2005, suggest a record low discharge for this season.

Table 1. July 15 Discharge and Temperatures above Izee Falls. Note that
stream temperatures are partially correlated with air temperatures
reflecting the influence of warm and cold days. Blanks denote missing
data.

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Year**    | **          | **Ave**     | **Max**     | **Ave**     |
|             | Discharge** |             |             |             |
|             |             | **Air Temp  | **Stream    | **Stream    |
|             | **cfs**     | (^o^F)**    | (^o^F)**    | (^o^F)**    |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1996**    | 14.62       | 71.0        | 70.6        | 66.7        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1997**    |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1998**    | 23.20       | 70.6        | 74.4        | 67.6        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1999**    | 9.77        | 58.1        | 70.4        | 62.9        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2000**    | 2.53        | 63.3        | 70.1        | 65.0        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2001**    | 0.45        | 61.8        | 74.3        | 67.4        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2002**    | 0.19        | 73.2        | 79.9        | 71.3        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2003**    | 0.63        | 69.9        | 74.0        | 68.4        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2004**    | 6.08        | 69.6        | 73.4        | 66.6        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Table 2. July 15 Discharge and Temperatures near the Mouth of Deer
Creek. Note that stream temperatures are partially correlated with air
temperatures reflecting the influence of warm and cold days. Blanks
denote missing data.

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Year**    | **          | **Ave**     | **Max**     | **Ave**     |
|             | Discharge** |             |             |             |
|             |             | **Air Temp  | **Stream    | **Stream    |
|             | **cfs**     | (^o^F)**    | (^o^F)**    | (^o^F)**    |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1996**    | 5.83        | 69.5        | 63.3        | 59.5        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1997**    |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1998**    | 6.94        | 68.4        | 64.8        | 58.2        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1999**    | 2.7         | 56.3        | 62.3        | 54.8        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2000**    | 0.84        | 58.4        | 61.4        | 57.2        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2001**    | 0.28        | 60.1        | 66.7        | 59.4        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2002**    | 0.05        | 66.2        | 69.0        | 62.4        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2003**    | 0.41        | 61.1        | 62.3        | 62.2        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2004**    | 3.07        | 68.4        | 63.7        | 57.4        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Table 3. July 15 Discharge and Temperatures Near the Mouth of Murderers
Creek. Note that stream temperatures are partially correlated with air
temperatures reflecting the influence of warm and cold days. Blanks
denote missing data.

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Year**    | **          | **Ave**     | **Max**     | **Ave**     |
|             | Discharge** |             |             |             |
|             |             | **Air Temp  | **Stream    | **Stream    |
|             | **cfs**     | (^o^F)**    | (^o^F)**    | (^o^F)**    |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1996**    | 8.32        | 77.5        | 74.7        | 69.8        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1997**    |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1998**    | 15.6        | 74.7        | 77.3        | 68.9        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **1999**    | 8.25        | 64.3        | 73.9        | 64.6        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2000**    | 4.14        | 66.7        | 69.8        | 64.3        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2001**    | 3.36        | 64.8        | 76.8        | 67.8        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2002**    | 1.16        | 76.1        | 89.9        | 83          |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2003**    |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **2004**    | 13.36       | 75.2        | 76.0        | 76.0        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Table 4. Comparison of stream temperatures taken at the confluence of
the South Fork John Day River and each tributary in August of 2003 vs.
2004. Tributaries are shown in upstream to downstream order.

  --------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Tributary**   **Trib C^o^    **Trib C^o^    **SFJD C^o^    **SFJD C^o^
                  2003**         2004**         2003**         2004**

  **Deer Creek**  dry            19.8           25.5           20.4

  **Wind Creek**  20             20.4           24.1           20.4

  **Murderers     22.8           22.9           24.2           23.3
  C.**                                                         

  **B. Canyon     19.7           20.1           22.8           22.0
  C.**                                                         
  --------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

     

### Application of Research

This is an application of the Research and Monitoring Framework that we
developed in our previously funded project, *Indexing Carrying
Capacities of Salmonids on the Basis of Stream Temperatures*. It is part
of an overall program to develop strategies and protocols for
restoration and monitoring activities for the recovery of salmon. Based
upon previous study, we proposed that (1) bioenergetic measures could be
melded with concepts of the Ideal Free Distribution to measure habitat
quality. Moreover, temperature has a large influence on the
bioenergetics of salmonids. (2) Salmonids will move to maximize growth
given local circumstances (e.g., distribution and availability of food
and habitat) and we can measure both movement and growth (4) We can
measure the distribution, quality and quantity of habitat by remotely
sensing temperature.

This study posits that push-up irrigation diversion dams interfere with
fish movement and thereby lower their production through greater
mortality and less growth. We suggest that this is especially true
during summer base flow. One mitigation technique is being tested in the
South Fork John Day Basin. Lay Flat Stanchion Dams have fish passage
facilities that purported will solve the problem of dams as barriers. We
will apply our approach to the analysis of

We and our partners are part of a pilot project to integrate research as
an aspect of restoration projects to determine if they ameliorate
barrier problems confronted by redband trout. In this document steelhead
and redband trout are used interchangeably. Redband trout (*Oncorhynchis
mykiss gairdneri*) are a subspecies of rainbow trout found east of the
Cascade Mountain Range (Behnke 2002). It has both resident and
anadromous phenotypes in the John Day Basin.

**Deliverables**

1.  Semiannual Reports

2.  Completion Report

3.  We anticipate 6 or more peer review publications will be published.

4.  We have already presented 5 papers at scientific meetings.

5.  2 Ph.D. and 2 M.S. students will receive their training.

     

### 

### Objectives

In order to evaluate the benefits to steelhead of replacing push-up dams
with LFS dams, we propose to:

1.  Characterize movement and habitat use patterns of juvenile
    steelhead.

2.  Determine habitat quality in terms of its capacity to produce
    juvenile steelhead (individual growth and survival will be used as
    the main indicators of this).

3.  Compare movement and distribution patterns between juvenile
    steelhead not affected by movement barriers and those that may be
    affected by partial and total barriers.

4.  Estimate the loss of production that can result from the direct
    effect of barriers.

5.  Examine the influences on steelhead production of potentially
    indirect factors, such as:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Stream temperature.

b.  Prey availability and distribution.

c.  Fish community structure and dynamics.

d.  Geomorphic features, riparian conditions, and land uses.

### Methods

**Project Design**

*Constraints*

The replacement of push-up dams could not be planned for the convenience
of rigorous evaluation. It is an *ad hoc* process: an agreement between
willing land owners and the agency sponsor. The number and distribution
of replacement dams were subject to the budgets of the respective
parties. Moreover, there is no stipulation for the land owner to
cooperate in the monitoring of the project. Strong feelings about
private property rights and research access has been restrictive. It
takes time to develop land owner trust. This has affected the sampling
design in the following ways: (1) limited time to develop base line
data, (2) the construction schedule resulted in lost opportunities to
test the efficacy of LFS dams on the spring migration from winter
habitats to summer rearing grounds by potamodromous trout, and (3)
active push-up dams are located on only one stream (mainstem SFJD),
eliminating the possibility of applying a BACI (Before After Comparison
Impact) or alternative approaches (Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986, Underwood
1995) because there is no similar watershed that is unaffected by
push-up dams to serve as a reference stream. Below we describe a
compromise study design that circumvents those constraints.

*Proposed Design*

The study of push-up dams in the mainstem SFJD (Figure 1) has two Parts.

In Part 1 we will analyze fish movement under different dam conditions
in a section of the lower mainstem SFJD. In Part 2 of the study we shall
estimate the cost to trout production by documenting migrations in
unrestricted streams in the basin, and will estimate the effect that LSF
dams placed in these streams would have on the redband population(s).

Part 1. Redband trout passage through push-up and Lay Flat Stanchion
dams

The objective is to estimate probabilities of upstream and downstream
passage of redband trout in the lower SFJD through a set of LFS dams. We
cannot account for the effects of individual dams, because they will be
located close together and cannot be considered as independent units
without excessively increasing costs. Therefore we consider a complex or
set of LFS dams. Several push-up dams were operational in the lower SFJD
during 2004. Our observations of those dams that could be accessed
indicated that salmonids could not pass the barriers. During summer 2005
one LFS dam has been installed so far. We expect to obtain estimates of
probability of passage from October 2005 through 2006.

Quantifying fish movement and prevention of movement upstream or
downstream past barriers is not simply measured by the appearance of
tagged individuals on the other side of the barrier, because some fish
may not have intended to migrate. Moreover, we have a limited number of
PIT-tagged fish released below the dams. While tagged fish movement will
provide a first estimate, this will be refined using a probabilistic
approach that requires estimates of the proportion of the population
that wouldn't be expected to migrate under the prevailing stream
conditions and time of year.

Consider two events:

Wm = a fish wants to move past the dams

Pu = a fish passes the dams

We need to estimate the probability of a fish passing the set of dams
(upstream or downstream) given that the fish intended to do so: Applying
Bayes rule:

P(Pu\|Wm) = P(Wm\|Pu)P(Pu)/\[(P(Wm\|Pu)P(Pu) + P(Wm\|\~Pu)P(\~Pu)\]

Where

P(Pu\|Wm) = probability ('pr') of fish passing all dams, given the
intention, (i.e., based only on the number intending to pass)

P(Wm\|Pu) = pr of desire to move upstream, given subsequent passage (=1)

P(Pu) = unconditional pr of passing dams

P(Wm\|\~Pu) = pr of wanting to move, given it fails to pass dams

P(\~Pu)\] = unconditional pr of not passing dams (=1- P(Pu))

The prior, P(Pu), can be estimated empirically by the proportion of fish
tagged on one side being detected on the other side. Because the tagged
fish include a portion that stayed or moved downstream, this is a prior
estimate that needs to be refined by estimating P(Wm\|\~Pu).
Effectively, P(Wm\|\~Pu) is a measure of the excess number of fish below
the dams compared with the number that would normally occupy the reach
under similar habitat conditions but without the dams. It could be
estimated by (a) tracking PIT-tagged and/or radio-tagged fish movements
at the local scale and short time periods, (b) comparing relative
densities during LFS dam operation (with only the slot for passage) with
a period when all dams are laid flat, or (c) modeling the expected
numbers of fish, based on habitat and seasonally-based information from
unrestricted reaches, and comparing this to the observed numbers during
dam deployment. Option (a) may prove to be feasible for downstream
passage, given the relatively large numbers of PIT-tagged fish upstream.
For example, we are well-positioned to document the downstream movement
of potamodromous/anadromous [O. mykiss]{.underline} to over-wintering
habitats in fall 2005.

Option (b) may produce a good estimate for upstream movement, but
requires simultaneous cooperation from all landowners, whereas (c) may
be feasible if sufficient data from comparable but unrestricted valley
segments are available. It is important to realize that P(Wm\|\~Pu) is a
ratio, and therefore estimates of absolute fish numbers are not
necessary, meaning that catch per effort comparisons under similar
physical conditions may suffice for (b) and (c). In all cases,
qualifying the results according to discharge, water temperature, and
time of year is important. Also the results will only apply to sets of
dams on the SFJD.

Trout passage estimation represents a considerable challenge given the
design limitations forced on us, and we cannot expect more than strongly
qualified results for a small subset of all possible conditions.
Nevertheless, an attempt is justified in order to provide some
scientific backing for The Best Management Practices that are required
for LFS dams. In this we are in general accord with the philosophy of
Carpenter (1989, 1999) who recommends a similar approach under
comparable circumstances. We will put more emphasis on passage of the
upstream and downstream migrations early and late in the season, but
also hope to ascertain if the dams impede potential redband trout
movements in search of better habitats during low flow in the summer.

*Part 2: Effects of Barriers on Trout Production*

The objective of Part 2 is to estimate the degree of reduction of fish
production caused by the hypothetical installation of LFS dams or
push-up dams in two contrasting streams. PIT-tag detection sites can act
as"virtual" push-up dams. We do this by documenting the movements of *O.
mykiss* upstream and downstream of unimpeded locations in two subbasins.
These data are combined with subasinwide estimates of *O. mykiss*
biomass and production, so that the observed migrations, corrected for
efficiency, can be expressed as a proportion of the total biomass and
production. Applying the most relevant results from Part 1, we can
estimate how much, if any, an LFS or push-up dam at each location would
affect the total biomass and production of in each subbasin.

"Virtual" push-up dams is an approach similar to the concept of testing
for artifacts of exclosures in ecological studies of aquatic processes
(Pringle and Blake 1994, Johnson et al. 1995, Silviera and Moulton
2005). We shall study Murderers and Black Canyon Creeks and their
associated subbasins. In addition to the expected anodromous phenotype,
we found that both creeks have a potamodromous phenotype, implying that
longitudinal migrations are important for the species in these
subbasins. Murderers Creek basin is the largest subbasin within the SFJD
system. Relative to Black Canyon Creek, it has large alluvial valleys in
the lower basin which favors its use for grazing cattle. Grazing is
managed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Murderers
Creek subbasin was irrigated, but the push-up dams are not functioning
presently and no longer constitute barriers for movement (Figure 2). The
number of potomadromous [O. mykiss]{.underline} is larger, approximately
9% of its population. Black Canyon Creek is designated as a wilderness
stream. It has a higher gradient, much of the stream is constrained by
narrow valleys confined by canyon walls stream is characterized by
slower growth rates and a small proportion of potamodromous fall
migrants, approximately 3%of its population. No irrigation dams are
within the boundaries of the wilderness area

The most critical activity of Part 2 is to install PIT-tag detection
stations to monitor immigration and emigration from each subbasin by
identifying tagged fish passing upstream during the spring and
downstream during the fall (Figure 3).

Figure 1. Research layout. Vertical arrow represents fish movement up
and down the South Fork John Day River. Side arrows represent movement
up and downstream in each tributary. Dashed lines represent PIT-tag
detectors. The Detectors can also act as "virtual" push-up dams and
detect tagged fish that would otherwise be blocked to and from rearing
areas.

Figure 2. Location of the architectural remains of push-up dams in
Murderers Creek. The stream flows from the lower right hand corner to
the upper left. Antennas will be placed below the lowest push-up dam.

> ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.991666666666666in"
> height="4.565277777777778in"}

Figure 3. Design to examine the effectss of push-up or LFS dams with
regard to production of juvenile [O.]{.underline}in Murderers and Black
Canyon Creeks. Resident and migratory [O. mykiss]{.underline} will be
distinguished by their tags and patterns of movement.

> Paired Before-After Study Design to Examine the Effect of Push-up Dams
> on Reducing Rearing Production

Sentinel detection sites where stationary PIT-Tag readers are located
will be used to determine the effects of hypothetical dams in each
sub-basin. We assume that push-up dams block all potomadromous migrants
and therefore have a measurable impact on fish production. In the case
of LFS dams we expect that any detrimental effect on fish production
will turn out to be smaller than that of push-up dams. The direction of
fish movement can be determined by using pairs of stationary PIT-tag
reader arrays. Movement patterns due to seasonal life history needs or
thermal behavioral regulation can be deduced from successive locations
of capture and recapture of PIT-tagged fishes. Thus, it will be possible
to detect potamodromous/anadromous fish, recapture them and allow them
to pass the dams if necessary. In this manner, our design has comparable
power to a Before-And-After Paired Comparison experiment. The advantage
of this approach is that we can make predictions for whole sub-basins,
accounting for potamodromous/anadromous and sedentary trout.

*Activities Common to Both Study Parts*

Temperature loggers will be placed following the templates provided by
TIR imagery from the previous two years. This will allow us to classify
habitats by temperature, and determine the frequency and spatial
distribution of habitats with different temperatures. Selection of
sentinel sites -through a random stratified process- will allow us to
obtain a sample of optimal, acceptable, marginal and sub-lethal habitats
to be monitored. In addition collecting data on fish presence, movement
and growth, we will monitor temperature and other habitat quality
factors (e.g., discharge, substrate characteristics, fish food
availability, etc.) at these sites.

Elevated stream temperatures impose increased costs and risks to
juvenile redband/steelhead trout. Evidence of this is the induction of
Hsp~70~ by elevated temperatures mentioned earlier. Costs to individual
fish can be measured in terms of growth (i.e., reduced growth due to
metabolic losses), and risks are assessed by lower survival (e.g.,
caused by suppressed autoimmune response to diseases, or lower winter
survival --- see Schreck and Li 1991). Fish tags will allow us to
measure individual growth as a function of habitats chosen, and possibly
to make mark-and-recapture estimates of population size at a larger
scale.

**Community effects on redband trout.**

> The behavior and production of [O. Mykiss]{.underline} is not only a
> function of the array of physical habitats and their connectivity, but
> also of other elements of their environment, including other fish
> species. Dams can affect the distribution of predators, competitors
> and prey of [O. Mykiss]{.underline}. For example, we have
> circumstantial evidence that the availability of redside shiners
> (*Richardsonius balteatus)* as prey may account for the high winter
> production of [O. Mykiss]{.underline} that migrated down to the
> mainstem SFJD. It is likely that there are several, non-physical
> factors influencing [O. Mykiss]{.underline} in the SFJD basin, that in
> turn may be affected by dams. We are ignorant of the great majority,
> and have a poor understanding of the significance of those that have
> been indicated qualitatively. Consequently, several aspects of the
> following activities are exploratory.

1.  As temperature and discharge are powerful influences on the
    distribution of fishes, we need to examine how their changing
    patterns affect community composition in space and time. As shown in
    the introduction, inter-annual stream discharges and temperatures
    are highly variable. We can compare movement of fishes among years
    (2004, 2005) along the longitudinal profile of the stream in
    relation to stream temperatures and discharge. Visual estimates of
    each species will be conducted during summer on a nearly spatially
    continuous inventory of pools in the mainstem SFJD, Murderers and
    Black Canyon creeks. Sentinel pools established for the SFJD basin
    will be sampled on a regular basis during different seasons. Radio
    and PIT tags will be used to track movement.

2.  Interpretation of observed changes in community distribution can be
    assisted by behavioral observations (as described by Alcock, J.
    1988, Brown and Downhour 1988**):**

> \(a\) feeding modes to assess potential competition
>
> \(b\) time budgets (feeding, not feeding, moving-exploring, home
> range, etc.)
>
> \(c\) Agonistic behaviors among species (displace, charge, nipping,
> chase, etc.)
>
> \(d\) Effects on microhabitat selection (aggregate, displace).
>
> \(e\) Estimates ofpredator-prey interactions from stomach content
> analyses (Cooperative study with Nick Bouwes).
>
> \(f\) Transfer and removal experiments wil be conducted to determine
> its affect on community stability and on redband trout.
>
> In order to understand the significance of composition and movement
> information (see 1.) we need to place it in the context of the biomass
> and production of the community and its dominant species. Site-based
> biomass and production will be estimated at sentinel pools over time,
> and at other pools, and subsequently generalized to subbasin and
> seasonal scales where possible. Standardized sampling from snorkeling
> (see 1.b.) and from snorkel-herding, corrected by calibrations that
> estimate the efficiencies of those techniques, will provide standing
> crop estimates by number and weight. Individual growth rates will be
> estimated using several methods depending on species and age-group.
>
> Ultimately, production estimates of warm-water, cool-water, and
> cold-water species will be the basis for assessing interspecific
> interactions on the various phenotypes or life history patterns of [O.
> mykiss]{.underline} populations and how they may be modified by
> barriers. It may reveal that O. mykiss production is affected in
> different ways by different species depending on the distribution of
> barriers, the season, and the available habitats. We need to account
> for this because habitat restoration that only considers the physical
> requirements [of O. mykiss]{.underline} may produce unintended
> consequences that may not benefit the species to the extent expected.
>
> **Landscape Perspective of Irrigation Dam Impacts**
>
> Barriers increase habitat fragmentation by impeding movement. When
> populations are isolated by barriers, source populations may be unable
> to find cold water refugia during summer base flows or to recolonize
> disturbed habitats. Thus population structure within a basin can be
> fragile and possibilities of extinction can increase if barriers to
> movement are not addressed.
>
> At the outset, we posed that longitudinal temperature profiles are
> important because they may reflect habitat quality for salmonids. If
> stream temperatures reach lethal limits, they can act as barriers to
> dispersal. Therefore it is not only the thermal composition of the
> stream reaches but their distribution that is important. For that
> reason, we are using analysis of the physical attributes of the stream
> reaches of which its thermal characteristics are but one attribute. By
> examining more than one attribute, we are protecting ourselves from
> becoming enamored with our "pet" hypothesis. We are collaborating with
> other research teams to examine factors such as stream incision
> (Michael Pollack), and silt deposition (John Faustini). We are
> comparing natural geomorphic and topographic properties in comparison
> with changes in geomorphology, riparian condition, and discharge
> patterns that may be affected by human activities. We then apply a
> series of geostatistical tools to check for spatial autocorrelation,
> and from which explanatory hypotheses will be developed. We will
> integrate information concerning the barriers with other, independent
> habitat descriptors using the Akaike Information Criterion in ortder
> to derive more parsimonious linear models. These models will enable us
> to explain trout distribution and abundance at several spatial scales.

### Progress/Results

We consider these objectives achievable due to the results of previous
work we have carried out regarding steelhead ecology in the SFJD. The
research we propose will be built on these earlier findings:

1.  SFJD redband/steelhead juveniles appear to be as sensitive to high
    water temperature as other salmonids. They do not appear to be as
    tolerant as redband trout of the Great Basin (Gamperl et al. 2002,
    Rodnick et al 2004). Redband/steelhead trout in the SFJD begin to
    experience heat stress at approximately 22-23^o^C, as indicated by
    the induction of heat shock protein (Hsp ~70~) we determined through
    field and laboratory tests. This protein helps other proteins
    maintain their shape and integrity in the face of various insults:
    physical damage, infections, and direct heat damage.

2.  Hsp ~70~ is inversely related to percentage of body lipids (Fig. 4),
    which in turn is related to seasonal stream temperatures (Fig. 5).
    The increased levels of Hsp ~70~ in fish with lower body lipid
    reserves suggests that fish were stressed in habitats with high
    water temperatures.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.25in" height="4.374409448818898in"}Figure
4. Percent body lipids at different stream reaches and periods within
the SFJD

Figure 5. Regression of relative Hsp70 expression on % body lipids from
redband trout in different stream reaches.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="4.25in" height="2.6720472440944882in"}

1.  Given this information, the lower basins of the SFJD and Murderers
    Creek, are marginal habitats during the summer. SFJD reaches above
    Wind Creek may also be marginal or have exceeded the Upper Incipient
    Lethal Temperatures for redband steelhead juveniles (Fig. 4).

2.  Stream habitat conditions that represent different classes of
    physiological tolerance will vary in frequency and distribution from
    year to year due to variation of discharge. Arid basins are
    extremely sensitive to annual patterns of precipitation. For
    instance, if the typically dry conditions continue in summer 2005,
    we shall have two relatively hot years (2003 & 2005) with a wetter,
    cooler year in between.

3.  These observations suggestthat ability to move during warm summers
    may be more important for survival and feeding than during cooler
    ones. Interestingly, most fish showed high site fidelity during the
    cool summer of 2004. Redband juveniles may abandon warmer sites for
    cooler ones during warmer years. Alternatively we may find that some
    redband trout haver a higher temperature tolerance than that
    indicated in the laboratory and may remain in local refuges.

4.  Migration during the fall is important for production of juvenile
    redbands.

5.  We found that the potomadromous phenotype, indicated by movements
    during fall and winter, constituted about 2% to 9% of the
    population, which are minimum estimates.

6.  All tagged fish migrated downstream of all irrigation diversions.

7.  A radio-tagging study (12 tags) indicated that 80% of tributary
    trout migrated into the Mainstem John Day between summer and fall or
    early winter.

8.  There is no evidence of fish emigrating from the John Day into SFJD.

9.  The potamodromous phenotype grows [approximately twice as fast in
    length]{.underline} as the sedentary form during winter after
    migrating to the overwintering grounds, and can catch-up to overall
    growth rates of sedentary types that grow faster in the summer (Fig.
    6, 7, 8).

10. Faster growth rates may in part be a function of prey abundance.
    Preliminary dietary analysis suggests that redband trout inhabiting
    the SFJD in winter prey upon redside shiners (*Richardsonius
    balteatus,)* which are most abundant in the SFJD.

Figure 6. Fall growths of rate (MM day^-1^) of relatively sedentary vs.
potamodromous redband trout from Murderers Creek.

Figure 7. Growth rates (mm day^-1^) of sedentary (short) vs.
potamodromous (long) phenotypes from Black Canyon (BC) and Murderers
Creek (MC).

Figure 8. Comparison of size ranges (mm FL ) of different phenotypes of
redband trout juveniles rearing in together in Murderers Creek during
the summer and rearing apart in Murderers Creek (Stayers) and in
mainstem SFJD (potamodromous) during the winter.

     

### Partnerships

Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Terry K. Ford,
Jr. (Tel. 208.378.5399) and Michael Newsom (503.872.3720)

Bonneville Power Administration

Oregon Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

(NMFS) NOAA-Fisheries

U.S. EPA

### Literature Cited

Alcock, J. 1975. Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach. Sinauer
Assoc. Sunderland, MA USA.

Brown, L. and J.F. Downhour. 1988. Analyses in behavioral ecology: a
manual for lab and field. Sinauer Assoc. Sunderland, MA USA.

Behnke, R.J. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. The Free Press,
NY, USA.

Beschta, R.L. 1997. Riparian shade and stream temperature: An
alternative perspective. *Rangelands*, 19(2), 25-28.

Beschta, R.L., and R.L. Taylor. 1988. Stream temperature increases and
land use in a forested Oregon watershed. *Water Resources Bulletin*,
24(1), 19-25.

Carpenter, S.R. 1989. Replication and treatment strength in whole lake
experiments. Ecology 70:453-463.

Carpenter, S.R. 1990. Large scale perturbations: opportunities for
innovation. Ecology 71:2038-2043.

Li, H.W., G.A. Lamberti, T.N. Pearsons, C.K. Tait, J.L. Li, and J.C.
Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbance in small
streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 123:627-640.

Gamperl, A.K., K.J. Rodnick, H.A. Faust, E.C. Venn, M.T. Bennett, L.I.
Crawshaw, E.R. Keeley, M.S. Powell, and H.W. Li. 2002. Metabolism,
swimming performance, and tissue biochemistry of high desert redband
trout: evidence for phenotypic differences in physiological function*.
Physiological and Biochemical Zoology* 75:413-431.

Johnson, DM, TH Martin, M. Mahato, LB Crowder, and PH Crowley. 1995.
Predation, density-dependence, and life histories of dragonflies.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society 14:547-562.

Peckarsky, BL 1996. Alternative predator avoidance syndromes of
stream-dwelling mayfly larvae. Ecology 77:18888-1905.

Pringle, CM and GA Blake. 1994. Quantitative effects of atiyid shrimp
(Decapoda: Atiyidae) on the depositional environment in a tropical
stream: use of electricity for experimental exclusion. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:1443-1450.

Rodnick, K.J., A.K. Gamperl, K.R. Lizars, M.T. Bennett, R.N. Rausch and
E.R. Keeley. et al. 2004. Thermal tolerance and metabolic physiology
among redband trout populations in south-eastern Oregon. *Journal of
Fish Biology* 64:310-335.

Schreck, C.B. and H.W. Li. 1991. Performance capacity of fish: stress
and water quality. Pages 21-29, [in]{.underline} D.E. Brune and J.R.
Tomasso (eds), *Aquaculture and Water Quality.* World Aquaculture
Society, Baton Rouge, LA.

Silviera, RML and T.P. Moulton. 2000. Modeling the food web of a stream
in Atlantic Forest. Acta Limnol. Bras. 12:63-71.

> Stewart-Oaten, A., W.M. Murdock, and K.R. Parker. 1986. Environmental
> impact assessment: \"pseudo replication\" in time? Ecology
> 67:929-940.Tait, C.K., J.L. Li, G.A. Lamberti, T.N. Pearsons, and H.W.
> Li. 1994. Influences of riparian cover on benthic community structure
> in high desert streams. Journal of the North American Benthological
> Society 13(1):45-56.

Torgersen, C.E., D.M. Price, B.A. McIntosh, and H.W. Li. 1995. Thermal
refugia and chinook salmon habitat in Oregon: applications of airborne
thermal videography. *In* Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Workshop on
Videography and Color Photography in Resource Assessment./ American
Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Department of Geography,
Geology and Anthropology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute,
Indiana. 167-171 pp.

Torgersen, C.E., C.V. Baxter, H.W. Li, and B.A. McIntosh. *In Press*.
Landscape influences on longitudinal patterns of river fishes: Spatially
continuous analysis of fish-habitat relationships. Pages xxx-xxx in R.
M. Hughes, L. Wang, and P. W. Seelbach, editors. Influences of
landscapes on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American
Fisheries Society, Symposium xx, Bethesda, Maryland.

> Underwood, A.J. 1994. On beyond BACI:sampling designs that might
> reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications
> 4:3-15.

Wurtsbaugh, W.A. and G.E. Davis. 1977. Effects of temperature and ration
level on growth and food conversion efficiency of *Salmo gairdneri,*
Richardso*n. Journal of Fish Biology* 11:87-98.

     

### Budget (attached)