Watershed Bull Trout

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Joseph Tomelleri

Upper Malheur

Watershed Bull Trout

Conservation Strategy

Malheur River Bull Trout Technical Advisory Committee - Prepared with

assistance provided by QW Consulting, LLC

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 1

Part I – Strategy Background ...................................................................................................... 5

A. Contributing Agencies and Participants ..................................................................................... 5

B. Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 5

C. Background and Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 6

C.1 Bull Trout Recovery Chronology............................................................................................. 6

C.2 Malheur River Bull Trout Technical Advisory Committee Chronology ................................. 7

C.3 Upper Malheur River Bull Trout Status and Trends ................................................................ 7

C.4 Bull Trout Timing and Movement in the Upper Fork Malheur River ..................................... 8

C.5 Brook Trout/Bull Trout Interactions in the Upper Malheur River ........................................... 9

C.5.1 Brook Trout Introductions ..................................................................................................... 9

C.5.2 High Lake and Upper Lake Creek: Brook Trout Seed Sources ............................................ 9

C.5.3 Big Creek............................................................................................................................. 11

C.5.4 Bull Trout and Brook Trout Interactions: Hybridization .................................................... 11

C.5.5 Bull Trout and Brook Trout Interactions: Competitive Advantages ................................... 12

C.6 Genetics and Small Populations ............................................................................................. 12

C.7 Environmental Variations ...................................................................................................... 13

C.8 Timeline of Past Brook Trout Removal Efforts ..................................................................... 13

C.9 Climate Change Resilience and Habitat Restoration ............................................................. 14

D. Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................... 14

D.1 General Summary of Precedent Projects ............................................................................... 17

D.2 General Summary of Relevant Policies ................................................................................. 17

D.3 Action Areas .......................................................................................................................... 18

D.3.1 Upper Action Area .............................................................................................................. 19

D.3.2 Middle Action Area ............................................................................................................ 19

D.3.3 Lower Action Area.............................................................................................................. 20

D.4 Effects to Other Species and Native Salvages ....................................................................... 20

D.4.1 Amphibians ......................................................................................................................... 20

D.4.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates ................................................................................................ 21

D.4.3 Native Fish Salvage ............................................................................................................ 25

D.5 Upper Malheur Species Presence/Absence ............................................................................ 25

E. Alternative Actions Considered ............................................................................................... 25

E.1 No Action ............................................................................................................................... 25

E.2 Mechanical Removal .............................................................................................................. 26

E.3 Biological Control .................................................................................................................. 27

E.4 Chemical Control.................................................................................................................... 27

E.4.1 Antimycin ............................................................................................................................ 27

E.4.2 Rotenone .............................................................................................................................. 27

F. Outreach and Education ............................................................................................................ 28

F.1 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................... 28

F.2 Communication and Education............................................................................................... 29

G. 10-year Implementation Plan (Upper Action Area) ................................................................. 30

H. Monitoring & Recovery Actions.............................................................................................. 30

H.1 Short-term Monitoring (<10 years) ........................................................................................ 30

H.2 Long-term Monitoring (>10 years) ........................................................................................ 31

H.3 Habitat Restoration ................................................................................................................ 31

I. Temporary Barriers and Fish Passage for Migratory Native Fish ............................................. 31

I.1 Temporary Barriers.................................................................................................................. 32

I.2 Permanent Fish Traps at Barrier Sites ..................................................................................... 32

I.3 Trap and Haul .......................................................................................................................... 32

J. References ................................................................................................................................. 34

K. Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 40

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 41

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 43

Part II – Supplement 1 ............................................................................................................... 44

A. Contributing Agencies and Participants ................................................................................... 44

B. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 44

C. Planning Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 44

D. Probability of Success .............................................................................................................. 46

E. Application of Rotenone........................................................................................................... 47

E.1 Rotenone Project Phases......................................................................................................... 47

E.1.1 Pre-Treatment Phase ............................................................................................................ 47

E.1.2 Treatment Phase .................................................................................................................. 48

E.1.3 Post-Treatment Phase .......................................................................................................... 48

E.1.3.1 Short-term Monitoring (<10 years) .................................................................................. 48

E.1.3.2 Long-term Monitoring (>10 years) .................................................................................. 49

F. References................................................................................................................................. 50

G. Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 50

Part III – Supplement 2 .............................................................................................................. 51

A. Contributing Agencies and Participants ................................................................................... 51

B. Rotenone Project Planning Stages............................................................................................ 51

B.1 Stage 1 - Internal Review and Approval ................................................................................ 51

B.1.1 Internal Review and Approval ............................................................................................ 51

B.2 Stage 2 - Preliminary Planning and Public Involvement ....................................................... 52

B.2.1 Initial Public Meeting(s)...................................................................................................... 52

B.2.2 Preliminary Treatment and Public Involvement Plans ........................................................ 52

B.2.3 Public Education Meetings.................................................................................................. 53

B.3 Stage 3 - Intermediate Planning and Public Involvement ...................................................... 53

B.4 Stage 4 - Project Implementation and Evaluation .................................................................. 53

C. Project Planning and Public Involvement ................................................................................ 53

C.1 Stage 1 - Project Internal Review and Approval .................................................................... 53

C.1.1 Internal Review and Approval Template ............................................................................ 54

C.2 Stage 2 - Preliminary Treatment and Public Involvement Plan ............................................. 55

C.2.1 Initial Public Meeting (non-NEPA related) ........................................................................ 55

C.2.2 Project Public Meeting Briefing Template.......................................................................... 56

C.2.3 Preliminary Treatment Plan ................................................................................................ 57

C.2.4 Preliminary Treatment Plan Template ................................................................................ 57

C.2.5 Public Involvement Plan ..................................................................................................... 59

C.2.6 Public Involvement Plan Template ..................................................................................... 59

C.2.7 Public Educational Meetings (non-NEPA related) ............................................................. 60

D. Intermediate Planning and Public Involvement Procedures .................................................... 61

D.1 Intermediate Planning and Public Involvement Proposal Template ...................................... 61

D.2 Public Scoping Meetings (during NEPA process) ................................................................. 64

E. Project Implementation and Evaluation ................................................................................... 64

E.1 Project Implementation .......................................................................................................... 64

E.2 Project Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 65

E.3 Project Evaluation Report Template ...................................................................................... 65

F. References................................................................................................................................. 67

G. Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 67

Part IV – Supplement 3 .............................................................................................................. 68

A. Contributing Agencies and Participants ................................................................................... 68

B. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 68

C. Affected Environment and Potential Concerns ........................................................................ 68

C.1 Physical Environment ............................................................................................................ 70

C.1.1 Land Resources ................................................................................................................... 70

C.1.2 Water Resources .................................................................................................................. 71

C.2 Biological Environment ......................................................................................................... 73

C.2.1 Air Resources ...................................................................................................................... 73

C.2.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 74

C.2.3 Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 74

C.3 Human Environment .............................................................................................................. 78

C.3.1 Recreational and Land Use ................................................................................................. 78

C.3.2 Public and Worker Safety and Health ................................................................................. 78

C.3.3 Aesthetics and Recreation ................................................................................................... 80

C.3.4 Evaluation of Significance .................................................................................................. 81

D. References ................................................................................................................................ 82

F. Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. 84

Part I – Strategy Background

Upper Malheur Watershed

Bull Trout Conservation Strategy

Malheur River Bull Trout Technical Advisory Committee

A. Contributing Agencies and Participants

Burns Paiute Tribe (BPT) - Erica Maltz, Kristopher Crowley, and Brandon Haslick

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) - David Banks and Benji Ramirez

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) - Steve Namitz, Kate Olsen, and Hazel Owens

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - Chris Allen, Suzanne Anderson, and Justin Martens

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) - Dmitri Vidergar

B. Purpose

Goal: Restore and protect native fish populations in the Upper Malheur River Watershed while

using native fish to provide angling opportunities in High Lake.

Objective: Remove non-native Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) from up to 10 waterways in

the Upper Malheur River Watershed from 2018 to 2028.

Objective: Restore rehabilitated waterways with native species sourced from existing

populations in the Upper Malheur River Watershed.

Objective: Establish angling opportunities for native Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss

gairdneri) and Bull Trout (S. confluentus) in High Lake by 2020.

This conservation strategy identifies geographic areas and actions to support recovery of Bull

Trout in the Upper Malheur River Watershed (Figure 1). The actions are intended to address the

primary threat of Brook Trout as identified in the USFWS’s Recovery Plan for the Coterminous

United States Population of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (Recovery Plan) (USFWS 2015).

This document serves as a foundation for the Malheur River Bull Trout Technical Advisory

Committee’s (TAC) effort to develop site-specific conservation strategies for the eradication of

Brook Trout. Agencies participating in the TAC are also working independently to further Bull

Trout restoration by addressing additional threats.

Figure 1. Map of the Upper Malheur River Watershed where the Malheur River Bull Trout Technical Advisory

Committee plans to implement a Bull Trout conservation strategy.

C. Background and Problem Statement

C.1 Bull Trout Recovery Chronology

The coterminous United States population of Bull Trout was listed as threatened on November 1,

1999 (USFWS 1999). Following the listing, draft recovery plans were completed in 2002

(USFWS 2002) and 2004 (USFWS 2004); however the plans were never finalized. In 2008, a 5year review (USFWS 2008) was released reaffirming the species status as threatened. On

October 18, 2010, the USFWS published a final Critical Habitat designation (USFWS 2010), for

the coterminous United States population of Bull Trout, followed by the release of the Recovery

Plan in 2015.

Although the 2002 and 2004 draft recovery plans were not finalized, they laid the foundation for

the Recovery Plan. At the core of the Recovery Plan are six geographically defined recovery unit

implementation plans (RUIP) that identify conservation actions to address threats (e.g., loss of

habitat connectivity and passage barriers, effects of poor land-management practices, non-native

fish introgression, competition, and predation). To achieve recovery, the Recovery Plan requires

management of primary threats identified in the RUIP. This conservation strategy includes

proposed actions to address threats associated with Brook Trout introgression, competition, and

predation occurring in the Upper Malheur River Core Area.

C.2 Malheur River Bull Trout Technical Advisory Committee Chronology

In an effort to annually convene federal and state agencies to present Malheur River-oriented

Bull Trout recovery work and to coordinate multi-agency monitoring activities, the Malheur

River Bull Trout Forum was initiated in 1997 through the BPT’s Bonneville Power

Administration (BPA)-funded resident fish Project 1997-019-00. Because the annual meetings

were not adequate for developing collaborative actions, particularly those associated with Brook

Trout removal, the USFS, ODFW, USFWS, BOR, and BPT formed the TAC in 2013.

C.3 Upper Malheur River Bull Trout Status and Trends

The Upper Malheur River Bull Trout Core Area represents one of two core areas in the Malheur

River Watershed and includes all possible Bull Trout life history forms (i.e., resident, fluvial, and

adfluvial) (USFWS 2015). Redd count surveys (Perkins 2000-2009) conducted in spawning

tributaries suggest population trends are declining for the migratory life history form. Compared

to other native and non-native species, the relative abundance of Bull Trout is also declining.

Furthermore, introgression with Brook Trout and legacy effects of degraded land use,

exacerbated by changing climate conditions, will likely affect Bull Trout population stability and

growth in the future.

From data collected in 1991 and 1992 during multiple pass removal sampling, ODFW estimated

the population of age-1+ Bull Trout was 4,132 individuals in the North Fork Malheur River

(Buchanan et al. 1997). In the North Fork Malheur River, the USFWS (2002) estimated adult

abundance was between 250 and 300 individuals based on observed spawner-to-redd ratios.

Developing accurate adult Bull Trout abundance estimates for the Upper Fork Malheur River is

problematic. In 1993 and 1994, ODFW estimated the population of age-1+ Bull Trout was 3,554

individuals (Buchanan et al. 1997). Due to the presence of Brook Trout, Bull Trout redds cannot

be distinguished from those of Brook Trout in the Upper Fork Malheur River (USFWS 2002).

Subsequently, inferences have been made based on a calendar date. Perkins (2000-2009)

identified redds observed before September 15th as being constructed by Bull Trout.

The TAC recognizes the population estimates for the North and Upper forks of the Malheur

River as suspect since they are outdated and do not reflect population changes that may be a

result of the prolonged drought that the region experienced.

C.4 Bull Trout Timing and Movement in the Upper Fork Malheur River

Through BPA Project 1997-019-00, the BPT has identified the timing and spatial extent (Figure

2) of seasonal movements for adult and sub-adult Bull Trout in the Upper Fork Malheur River

Watershed (Schwabe 2000; Fenton and Schwabe 2003; Fenton 2004; Fenton 2005). Studies

(Fenton and Schwabe 2003; Perkins 1999-2009) have shown that fluvial Bull Trout in the Upper

Malheur River Watershed migrate into headwater areas from May to July/August, hold until

spawning in late-August to mid-September, and migrate downstream into overwintering habitat

by the end of September. Overwintering of adult migratory Bull Trout is thought to occur

between river mile (RM) 170-187 (Fenton and Schwabe 2003). The majority of downstream

Figure 2. Spatial extent of adult and sub-adult Bull Trout movements observed during a telemetry study in the Upper

Malheur River Watershed.

migration appears to occur prior to December; however, telemetry data suggest downstream

migration continues to occur throughout the winter months.

Fluvial migration into Big Creek and Meadow Fork Big Creek has been documented; however,

migratory movement into Lake Creek appears to be limited, potentially due to thermal barriers

(Fenton and Schwabe 2003; DeHaan et al. 2010a). Suppositions of thermal impediments are

supported by recorded mean monthly maximums of 69.8-75.2° F in the lower stretches of Lake

Creek from June to August (BPT, unpublished data).

To date, there have been no investigations to evaluate the relative dominance of the fluvial or

resident life history strategies. The TAC believes the adfluvial form does not exist in the Upper

Malheur River Watershed due to proximity of the headwaters to the Warm Springs Reservoir and

based on results from the BPT’s 2000-2005 telemetry study in which no individuals were

documented using the reservoir. Based on limited observations during the 2000-2005 telemetry

study, the predominant life history appears to be the resident form, likely due to unsuitable

thermal conditions downstream from Lake Creek; however, the TAC believes the fluvial and

resident life histories may be expressed by Bull Trout in other Upper Malheur River creeks.

C.5 Brook Trout/Bull Trout Interactions in the Upper Malheur River

C.5.1 Brook Trout Introductions

Non-native Brook Trout currently exist in high numbers throughout the Upper Malheur River

and its tributaries. The source of Brook Trout in the Upper Malheur River is understood to be

from authorized stockings in High Lake from as early as the 1930s as well as authorized and

unauthorized stockings throughout the basin prior to the 1990s (Bowers et al. 1993). These

stockings have led to a Brook Trout distribution in the Upper Malheur River Watershed (Figure

3) that completely overlaps that of native Bull Trout (Figure 4) and Redband Trout. Although the

historic presence or absence of native fish cannot be proven, the TAC believes High Lake was

fishless prior to the stocking efforts.

C.5.2 High Lake and Upper Lake Creek: Brook Trout Seed Sources

High Lake is a 5.8-acre lake located in the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness at an elevation of

7,500 feet (Figure 1). Except for a spring that delivers a small amount of perennial water, all

stream flow into High Lake is ephemeral. The breeding population of Brook Trout in High Lake

is a recognized source for downstream recruitment to Brook Trout clusters found in Bull Trout

habitat located in the middle reaches of Lake Creek (Fenn 2004b; DeHaan et al. 2010a).

Lake Creek, High Lake’s outflow, flows approximately 12.5 miles from High Lake to its

confluence with Big Creek where the two form the Upper Malheur River (Figure 1). Located at

RM 11 in Lake Creek is Lake Creek Falls which functions as a complete barrier to upstream fish

passage. Much of the approximately 1.5 stream miles above Lake Creek Falls (Upper Lake

Creek) are characterized by channel widths of 3.2-6.6 feet and moderate gradients (2-5%) with

intermittent steep reaches (15-20%) that may prevent upstream fish passage. Lake Creek is

joined by two small perennial streams within one mile of High Lake. Brook Trout are the only

fish species present above Lake Creek Falls.

Brook Trout are found in abundance in High Lake and throughout Bull Trout spawning habitat

downstream of Lake Creek Falls to Logan Valley (Table 1). Despite recent removal efforts, High

Lake and Upper Lake Creek remain exclusively Brook Trout strongholds (Crowley 2016).

Figure 3. Known distribution of non-native Brook Trout in the Upper Malheur River Watershed.

Figure 4. Known distribution of Bull Trout in the Upper Malheur River Watershed.

Table 1. - Brook Trout population estimates for the Upper Malheur River Watershed.

Number of Brook Trout removed

Year

Lake Creek

High Lake

weir

electrofishing

gillnetting

2010

2,206

2011

322

266

807

2012

139

1,386

711

2013

2,640

2014

901

1,782

2015

1,606

Total

7,316

5,506

11,797, 95% confidence interval: 9,362-14,232 (Harper 2013)

3,477, 95% confidence interval: 2,598-4,766 (Crowley 2014)

Population estimates

Lake Creek

11,797a

High Lake

6,621

3,965

1,802

3,477b

In systems where Brook Trout and Bull Trout are sympatric, Bull Trout typically occupy

headwater reaches while Brook Trout disperse further downstream (Paul and Post 2001).

However, Adams et al. (2001) found that when Brook Trout are introduced into headwater lakes,

they may be more widely distributed. Fenn (2003a) suggested that the type of distribution

described by Adams et al. (2001) resembles that exhibited by Brook Trout in Lake Creek (i.e.,

High Lake and Upper Lake Creek are recognized as seed sources for recruitment of Brook Trout

downstream into Bull Trout habitat in Lower Lake Creek and adjacent tributaries).

C.5.3 Big Creek

Brook Trout are also found in abundance in Big Creek (Fenn 2004a, 2004b), a known area of

Bull Trout migration and rearing (Fenton and Schwabe 2003; Fenton 2004; Fenton 2005), as

well as spawning (Perkins 1999-2009). Because Lake Creek is thought to have seasonal thermal

barriers that may isolate the resident Bull Trout population (DeHaan et al. 2010a), the threat of

Brook Trout in Big Creek is not as dire as in Lake Creek, as the distribution is consistent with

patterns typical of streams lacking an upstream seed source (Paul and Post 2001). Regardless,

limiting factors exist relative to Bull Trout spawning in Big Creek. Seasonally high stream

temperatures may create thermal barriers to out-migrants (Abel 2008) and hybridization with

Brook Trout has been documented (DeHaan et al. 2010a). The most common spawning area for

Bull Trout in the Upper Malheur River Watershed is considered to be the Meadow Fork tributary

of Big Creek (Perkins 1999-2009).

C.5.4 Bull Trout and Brook Trout Interactions: Hybridization

Hybridization between Brook Trout and Bull Trout has been documented in other basins (Leary

and Allendorf 1991; Kanda et al. 2002); however, Leary et al. (1993) suggested occurrence

beyond the F1 generation is believed to be uncommon. In contrast, mitochondrial DNA analyses

have shown hybridization is occurring in the Upper Malheur River Watershed with involvement

from both sexes of each species beyond the F1 generation and with incidences of reciprocal

backcrossing (DeHaan et al. 2010a). In the Upper Malheur River Watershed, occurrence of

hybridization is highest in Lake Creek, with a lower degree of hybridization found in Big Creek

and its tributaries (DeHaan et al. 2010a), likely due to downstream recruitment from the High

Lake population (DeHaan et al. 2010a).

Two factors may be contributing to the hybridization events. Even with introgressive

hybridization, as is suggested to be occurring based on evidence provided for the Malheur and

other basins (DeHaan et al. 2010a; Kanda et al. 2002), the problem has often been contextualized

in terms of wasted reproductive effort on the part of female Bull Trout (Allendorf et al. 2001;

Kanda et al. 2002). Additionally, earlier maturation among Brook Trout females may be

exacerbating the rate of hybridization and competition over time (Leary et al. 1993; Gunckel et

al. 2002; Adams 1999; Kennedy et al. 2003; McMahon et al. 2007).

C.5.5 Bull Trout and Brook Trout Interactions: Competitive Advantages

Competitive advantages of Brook Trout over Bull Trout have been documented (Gunckel et al.

2002; McMahon et al. 2007); however, habitat pressure and population level effects of Brook

Trout presence on Bull Trout can be highly variable (Rieman et al. 2006). Rieman et al. (2006)

theorized that Brook Trout may limit areas that Bull Trout occupy and ultimately displace

remnant Bull Trout populations into headwater areas. Gunckel et al. (2002) found that Bull

Trout, in the presence of Brook Trout, exhibited no shifts in feeding behavior after examining

microhabitat in the Malheur and Powder rivers, and that Brook Trout exhibited competitive

advantages through dominance and higher growth rates. Gunckel et al. (2002) and McMahon et

al. (2007) found that Brook Trout were more aggressive than Bull Trout in areas of sympatric

distribution. McMahon et al. (2007) found that at temperatures >57.7°F, Brook Trout exhibited

growth advantages over Bull Trout and greater metabolic efficiency at 60.8-68°F. Competitive

advantages for Bull Trout were not documented in cooler temperatures.

C.6 Genetics and Small Populations

Bull Trout spawning populations in the Upper Malheur River Watershed do not exist in isolation

from each other. Other than Lake Creek Falls which blocks upstream migrations in the

uppermost section of the Upper Malheur River Watershed, barriers to spawning habitat are

absent elsewhere in the watershed. The belief that gene flow could be occurring among the

populations is supported by the findings of Spruell et al. (2003), through which variation in

Meadows Fork Big Creek (HS = 0.359) was found to be high compared to the mean HS (0.186)

for 65 Bull Trout populations surveyed throughout the species range of distribution.

Whiteley et al. (2006) suggested that an understanding of existing genetic differentiation is

important “to avoid mismanagement based on the assumption that fine-scale genetic

differentiation is homogenous within distinct regions across a species range.” The TAC

recognizes caution must be exercised relative to interpreting the results from Spruell et al.

(2003), as a limited number of populations and loci were screened. The limited understanding of

the genetic population structure in the Upper Malheur River Watershed warrants a conservative

management approach, as other studies have identified genetic differentiation among Bull Trout

populations in close proximity (e.g., Leary et al. 1993; Spruell et al. 1999; Costello et al. 2003;

Whiteley et al. 2006). Spruell et al. (2003) suggested local populations in close proximity

typically are genetically distinct.

Multiple Bull Trout life history forms, including migratory forms, exist in the Upper Malheur

River Watershed. Rieman and Dunham (2000) suggested maintaining such life history forms is

important for Bull Trout persistence. Throughout the species range, the development of barriers

that prevent passage of migratory fish or facilitate dispersal among tributaries has led to reduced

gene flow and the loss of genetic diversity (Nerass and Spruell 2001; Costello et al. 2003;

Whiteley et al. 2006; DeHaan et al. 2007; DeHaan and Hawkins 2009; DeHaan et al. 2010b).

To successfully implement the rotenone project (detailed discussion about rotenone application

provided in Section D), temporary barriers must be installed to prevent Brook Trout from

reentering treated areas. Although the barriers are intended to be temporary, the time periods for

which the barrier will be functioning are unknown and the potential disruption of migratory

corridors for Bull Trout must be addressed to conserve the existing life history forms. Because

smaller Bull Trout populations (e.g., less than 100 spawning adults) may be prone to extinction if

they are isolated (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Dunham and Rieman 1999), actions will be

implemented to avoid isolation and protect genetic variation and maintain the existing life

history forms that exist within and among the populations.

To avoid an isolation scenario that could restrict gene flow and affect genetic variation and the

expression of migratory life histories, the TAC intends to operate traps at each barrier. The traps

will allow for fish to be successfully transferred during periods of migration.

C.7 Environmental Variations

Environmental variation affects the entire population and includes the biological and physical

environment. Biological environment includes birth, death (i.e., population demographics), intraand inter-species competition, food resources, and disease. Physical environment includes

temperature, stream flow, migratory corridors and suitable habitat. Stable, predictable

environments require fewer individuals in a population to persist over time than do highly

variable environments. In general, the combination of the loss of genetic diversity and

environmental fluctuations pose survival risks for small populations.

C.8 Timeline of Past Brook Trout Removal Efforts

Through BPA Project 1997-019-00 and funding provided by the BOR Native Affairs, the BPT

began to mechanically remove Brook Trout in 2010 (limited to electrofishing in Lake Creek and

gillnetting in High Lake). In 2012, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council approved the

BPT to implement a five-year Brook Trout removal effort using electrofishing, gillnetting, and

weir operations with a targeted 50% reduction in adult/sub-adult Brook Trout. Through the

effort, the BPT found that mechanical removal was not an effective method in Lake Creek due to

stream channel complexity, instream vegetation/woody material, and yearly Brook Trout

spawning success (Crowley 2016). Data indicate gillnetting in High Lake moderately controls

Brook Trout populations if conducted annually; however, wildfires made consistency

unattainable. From 2011-2013, a weir was operated seasonally in Lake Creek to capture

migrating individuals. This effort was discontinued due to low capture numbers relative to

staffing requirements as well as the potential of disrupting Bull Trout movements.

C.9 Climate Change Resilience and Habitat Restoration

In addition to habitat degradation resulting from land management practices, rivers and streams

throughout the Pacific Northwest are threatened by the effects of climate change. The Rocky

Mountain Research Station in Boise, Idaho has modeled stream temperatures throughout the

region and determined that only the highest elevation headwater streams, like the headwaters in

the Upper Malheur River Watershed, will provide suitable or near-suitable temperatures for

salmonids (Figure 5) (NorWeST 2015).

Warming air temperatures associated with climate change will lead to warmer water

temperatures. The extent to which air temperature influences water temperature is a result of not

only the degree of warming, but also local and linear environmental variables. Specifically, the

quality of riparian habitat directly influences water temperature through shading of solar

radiation, storage of water in the floodplain, effect on channel geometry and other factors.

Wondzell (2016) found that the potential for riparian restoration to buffer the impacts of climate

change on streams is high (Figure 6). Initial results indicated that riparian restoration may have

the potential to improve in-stream habitat to levels that will counter the projected impacts of

climate change in the most extreme examples. Although climate change will improve the

competitive advantage that Brook Trout hold over Bull Trout, the Upper Malheur River

Watershed will retain some areas of refuge for Bull Trout as this system is groundwater-based.

Although the potential impacts of climate change are projected to lead to a more impaired Upper

Malheur River Watershed, habitat restoration actions would combat or minimize negative

impacts of climate change on water temperatures. In addition, cold groundwater inputs will

likely provide a natural buffer.

D. Proposed Action

As an interagency effort, the TAC proposes to salvage native fish from sections of the Upper

Malheur River Watershed (Figure 7) and to treat the area with rotenone to eradicate Brook Trout.

Efforts to eradicate Brook Trout will be completed through a 10-year effort during which an

initial group of barriers will be installed to prevent the invasion of Brook Trout into treated areas

(Figure 7).

Depending on the type of holding area used, monitoring fish for survival may be necessary. The

TAC has high confidence that this will be successfully accomplished by holding fish in nearby

streams, streamside holding tanks, or hatcheries. If deemed necessary, the TAC may choose to

hold native fish in multiple locations to minimize the risk of total loss. When conditions permit,

Bull Trout and other native fish will be returned to the treated reaches. Treatment of other action

areas will occur at a later date and be dependent on the success of the initial effort.

Figure 5. Projected Upper Malheur River Watershed stream temperatures for 2080 (NorWeST 2015).

Figure 6. Results of model simulations using HeatSource calibrated to a base-year of 2002. Projections for 2040 are

shown as colored boxes and represent ensembles of model runs with a single riparian vegetation scenario. Each box

includes projections for high, current, and low discharge. The height of each box reflects the influence of ± 30%

changes in discharge (Wondzell 2016).

Figure 7. Action Area (Upper Action Area) in the Upper Malheur River Watershed that may be treated with

rotenone to eradicate Brook Trout and potential sites, designated with triangles, at which barriers may be installed.

The following views contributed to the development of this strategy:

1) Brook Trout are a primary threat to the persistence of Bull Trout in the Upper Malheur River

Watershed.

2) While other primary threats exist to Bull Trout in the Upper Malheur River Watershed, the

reduction/removal/suppression of Brook Trout in conjunction with habitat restoration are the

highest priority recovery actions in the watershed.

3) The eradication of Brook Trout from treated reaches, habitat restoration, and establishment/

maintenance of barriers are determined to be feasible actions with moderate to high chances of

success in the reestablishment and persistence of Bull Trout and other native fish.

4) Brook Trout removal and habitat improvements must be addressed in tandem.

5) A solution will require interagency cooperation.

6) Watershed strategy for Brook Trout removal and habitat restoration is needed for success.

7) Education and outreach are needed to spread awareness of the problem and increase success

of the project.

8) Removal treatments must incorporate the use of rotenone to maximize the chance of success.

9) Monitoring the response of Bull Trout following the removal of Brook Trout and habitat

restoration will be essential to evaluate success, guide adaptive management actions, and direct

similar efforts in the future. A committed effort prior to project implementation will ensure an

appropriate level of monitoring has been identified.

D.1 General Summary of Precedent Projects

Table 2. Examples of rotenone efforts by ODFW, in Oregon, to eradicate non-native fish.

State

Waterbody

Target Species

Oregon

Summit Gravel Pond

Smallmouth Bass and crayfish

Oregon

McDermott Creek

Rainbow Trout

Oregon

Diamond Lake

Tui Chub

Oregon

Sun Creek

Brook Trout

Oregon

Diamond Lake

Tui Chub

Oregon

Walton Lake

Brown Bullhead

Oregon

South Twin Reservoir

Brown Bullhead

Oregon

Antelope Flat Reservoir Brown Bullhead

Oregon

Crane Prairie Pond

Brown Bullhead

Oregon

Lofton Reservoir

Tui Chub

Oregon

Beck-Kiwanis Pond

Carp and Goldfish

Oregon

North Twin Reservoir

Brown Bullhead

Oregon

Sun Creek

Brook Trout

Oregon

McDermitt Creek

Rainbow Trout, Brook Trout, Brown Trout

Oregon

Sage Creek

Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout

Effort unsuccessful due to illegal releases following treatments

Successful

Yes

Noa

Yes

D.2 General Summary of Relevant Policies



ODFW Native Fish Conservation Policy - The purpose of this policy is to ensure the

conservation and recovery of native fish in Oregon. The policy is implemented through

conservation plans, developed in collaboration with management partners and the public,

that identify the desired and existing status of native fish, key limiting factors, and

management options, and monitoring required to evaluate success.



BPT Tribal Council - The BPT staff has multiple mandates to restore native fish

populations within the boundaries of the former reservation. These include Tribal Council

resolutions and broad sense goals for the Malheur River. Additionally, the BPT manages

8,000 acres of land including 14 miles of stream. The BPT also manages one BPA

Resident Fish project that has provided a primary source of funding and coordination

since its inception in 1997. The interest and commitment to the health of the native

species of the Malheur River is demonstrated by these policies of the Tribal Council as

well as the longevity of presence of BPT work in the Malheur River. The BPT manages

its 8,000 acres consistent with best available conservation measures for fish and wildlife.



USFS - In regards to managing wilderness, the Forest Service Manual (FSM), guides the

USFS “to protect known populations of federally listed threatened or endangered species

where necessary for their perpetuation and aid in their recovery in areas of previous

habitation (FSM 2323.32)”, identifying chemical treatment as a method for completing

this goal. Although chemical treatment requires a Regional Forester signature, it “may be

used to prepare waters for reestablishment of indigenous, threatened or endangered, or

native species, or to correct undesirable conditions caused by human influence (FSM

2323.34f)”. Restocking of fish prioritizes federally listed indigenous as a priority,

followed by indigenous species, and under the circumstance that stocking is occurring in

barren waters “only after determining that the scientific and research values of such

barren waters will not be eliminated from a wilderness and documenting the desirability

of such action in the forest plan (FSM 2323.34c)”. In this case, restocking will only occur

in a limited number of high elevation lakes that have been barren, retaining this

characteristic in other locations. The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan (USDA 1990) identifies numerous goals that will be achieved by these

actions, including but not limited to the following:

Fish and Wildlife (IV-2):

 15. Assist in the identification, protection and recovery of threatened, endangered

and sensitive species.

 16. Coordinate fish and wildlife management activities with other agencies and

organizations to achieve mutual resource goals and utilize project cost share

opportunities.

 18. Provide for improved habitat conditions to support increased populations of

anadromous and resident fish.

 19. Provide a diversity of habitat sufficient to maintain viable populations of all

species.

The following guidance also exists in the FSM and is related to ODFW’s involvement in

activities on USFS land:



FSM 2600 (Exhibit 5) – The USFS shall recognize ODFW as being responsible

for the management of all fish and wildlife species over which it has jurisdiction

in the State of Oregon.

FSM 2323.32 – Recognize that states have jurisdiction and responsibilities for the

protection and management of wildlife and fish populations in wilderness.

FSM 2323.34f – Chemical treatment may be used to prepare waters for

establishment of indigenous, threatened, or endangered, or native species, or to

correct undesirable conditions caused by human influence.

FSM 2323.34 – Emphasize quality and naturalness in managing fisheries in

wilderness.

D.3 Action Areas

To guide the development of sequential treatment strategies, the TAC has identified tributaries

that are priorities for Brook Trout removal in the Upper Malheur River Watershed (Table 3 and

Figure 7). Pending the success of the efforts in the initial tributaries, the TAC envisions treating

middle and lower areas of the Upper Malheur River Watershed.

D.3.1 Upper Action Area

The Upper Action Area consists of tributaries that have a high conservation value for Bull Trout

spawning and rearing, as well as being feasible for immediate treatment over a 10- year period.

As the 10-year threshold is approached, the TAC will evaluate treatment options for additional

downstream locations.

Table 3. Tributaries located in the Upper Action Area of the Upper Malheur River Watershed that are priorities for

habitat restoration and Brook Trout removal.

Action area

Upper

Stream

Frazier Creek

Bosonberg Creek

Corral Basin Creek

Big Creek

Snowshoe Creek

Meadow Fork Big Creek

Crooked Creek

McCoy Creek

Lake Creek

Subtotal

Miles

4.2

9.3

3.6

1.3

2.4

4.6

9.8

6.9

1.5

43.6

The downstream terminus of the Upper Action Area is at the confluence of Bosonberg Creek

with the Malheur River. To create treatment sections that are of a manageable size, several

barriers will be installed upstream of the terminus. The terminus was selected due to the potential

to install a barrier at this location. Maintenance of a barrier at the Bosonberg Creek crossing (the

lowest barrier on the mainstem in place in perpetuity) would facilitate the eventual removal of

upstream barriers following the verification that downstream treatments were successful at

removing Brook Trout and that Brook Trout are prohibited from migrating upstream into the

treated areas.

The Bosonberg Creek crossing barrier will have to be maintained for native fish (i.e., Redband

Trout, Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), and Bull Trout) passage to retain fluvial

life history strategies. The angling value of Brook Trout in the Upper Action Area is deemed low

relative to more popular areas such as Lower Summit Creek, which was excluded. Upper

portions of Summit Creek that may provide habitat suitable for Bull Trout (not currently

occupied) and are located above partial passage barrier culverts (which may be easily modified

to be passage barriers) could potentially be treated separately.

D.3.2 Middle Action Area

The Middle Action Area is located downstream of a putative barrier placement at the confluence

of Bosonberg Creek and the Mainstem Malheur River to Malheur Ford (below the confluence

with Summit Creek). This area includes Summit Creek with the possible exception of its

headwaters. The action area is a migratory corridor for Bull Trout, connecting overwintering

habitat downstream to upstream spawning grounds; however, limited data supports the idea that

Bull Trout use this area during the summer. Treating this section would allow resident and

migratory meta-populations to be connected and to use habitat recovery areas like those in

Summit Creek. Work in this area would occur following the initial 10-year effort in the Upper

Action Area.

D.3.3 Lower Action Area

The Lower Action Area includes the Mainstem Malheur River downstream of Malheur Ford to

below the confluence with Bluebucket Creek. Although this area is feasible to treat from an

implementation perspective, the associated cost would be significant. Work in this area would

occur following the initial 10-year effort in the Upper Action Area.

D.4 Effects to Other Species and Native Salvages

D.4.1 Amphibians

Results from amphibian surveys (Haslick 2016b and unpublished data) conducted in High Lake

and Lake Creek Meadow (984 feet downstream from High Lake) are presented in Table 4.

During the 2-year study, only one Pacific Tree Frog (Pseudacris regilla) was collected from

Lake Creek Meadow. Although vulnerable (state classification) Western Toads (Anaxyrus

boreas) were not captured in High Lake in 2016, more than 1,500 tadpoles (multiple Gosner life

stages) were captured in 2014. Adult Western Toads and Pacific Tree frogs were also observed

while setting traps. The disparity in capture numbers, between the two years, highlights the

importance of allowing for flexible rotenone treatment schedules to limit larval mortality.

Additional surveys using cover boards, pitfall traps, and/or visual observation are likely required

at nearby vernal pools to assess the presence of additional species. If additional species are

identified, respective life history information will be used to guide treatment planning.

(Supplement 3 provides additional discussions)

In 2015 and 2016, visual encounter surveys were conducted for Big, Lake, and McCoy creeks

during which multiple life stages (i.e., egg mass, tadpole, and adult) of Columbia Spotted Frog

(Rana luteiventris) were identified. Future surveys of these creeks may include the use of cover

boards, pitfall traps, and/or visual encounter surveys at nearby vernal pools.

Due to the susceptibility of larval amphibians to rotenone applications (Lindahl and Oberg

1961), treatments will be conducted when that life stage is not present or substantially reduced. If

factors do not allow for flexible treatment schedules to protect amphibians, results from studies

(e.g., Billman et al. 2012) have shown amphibian populations are capable of recovering rapidly

following treatments. Because rotenone is rapidly broken down by organic matter, sunlight,

hydro turbulence, and other natural processes (Dawson et al. 1991; Brown and Zale 2012), direct

effects on subsequent generations of amphibians are not expected. (Supplement 3 provides

additional discussions)

To evaluate amphibian recovery in High Lake, larval specimens will be trapped, marked, and

recaptured prior to treatment to determine estimated population sizes for each species. Following

treatment, population estimates will be conducted annually. Recovery will not be considered

complete until species assemblages and population estimates equal or exceed pre-treatment

levels. If necessary, amphibian recovery will be monitored in other treatment reaches.

Table 4. Presence of amphibian species in Upper Malheur River Watershed areas proposed for rotenone treatments.

High Lake/Upper Lake Creek

Species

Anurans

American

Bullfrog

Columbia

Spotted Frog

Pacific Tree

Frog

Western

Toad

Great Basin

Spadefoot

Toad

Salamander

Long-toed

Easter Tiger

Confirmed

presenta

Reproduction

observed2

Likelihood

occurrence3

Upper Middle Fork Malheur tributaries

(Big/Snowshoe to Bluebucket)

Likelihood

Confirmed

Reproduction

presenta

observedb

occurrencec

Low

High

Yes (visually

and audibly)

Yes (visually

and audibly)

Yes

(visually

and

audibly)

Yes

(visually

and audibly

Yes

Origin

Conservation

status

Introduced

Not listed

Yes

Native

Vulnerable

(state)

Not listed

Low

High

Native

Vulnerable

(state)

High

Native

Not listed

High

Native

Not listed

Low

Medium

high

Low

Likely both

Not listed

Based on BPT visual encounter, minnow trapping, and incidental surveys from 2015 and 2016.

Includes egg mass, tadpole, aquatic larvae, and/or metamorph visual confirmation. Tadpole and salamander larvae lethal

susceptibility to chemical treatment stresses and importance of treatment timings to minimize tadpole exposure, if possible.

Based on a combination of habitat needs, occurrence records, life history, and population dynamics.

D.4.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Similar to amphibians, benthic macroinvertebrates are vulnerable to rotenone. Impacts of

rotenone to benthic macroinvertebrate species are variable and depend on factors including

concentration and duration, habitat use variability, and life history differences. Depending on the

availability of upstream population sources and individual dispersal capabilities, benthic

macroinvertebrate populations have been shown to recolonize and recover quickly following

treatments (Magnum and Madrigal 1999; Hamilton et al. 2009; Vinson et al. 2010)). To monitor

the impacts of the rotenone treatments, the BPT will sample benthic macroinvertebrates in Upper

Lake Creek and other reaches after the treatments have been completed. Data will be compared

to pre-treatment results to monitor progress towards achieving the goal of realizing posttreatment taxa diversity and population numbers that approximate pre-treatment estimates.

A total of 79 unique benthic macroinvertebrate taxa have been identified between High Lake and

Lake Creek Falls (stream length of 1.5 miles), with the majority of the representatives being

members of the order Arthropoda (classes Insecta, Arachnida, and Ostracoda); however,

Mollusca, Annelida, Nemata, and Platyhelminthes were also present (Haslick 2016a). To

compare benthic macroinvertebrate abundance along the 1.5 mile section of Lake Creek, the

creek was partitioned into sampling reaches of .25 miles. The orders Ephemeroptera, Diptera,

and Plecoptera were typically the most abundant in each reach (Figures 8-12).

Figure 8. Lake Creek Reach 1 benthic macroinvertebrate percent abundance (Haslick 2016a).

Figure 9. Lake Creek Reach 2 benthic macroinvertebrate percent abundance (Haslick 2016a).

Figure 10. Lake Creek Reach 3 benthic macroinvertebrate percent abundance (Haslick 2016a).

Figure 11. Lake Creek Reach 4 benthic macroinvertebrate percent abundance (Haslick 2016a).

Figure 12. Lake Creek Reach 5 benthic macroinvertebrate percent abundance (Haslick 2016a).

Multiple feeding groups of benthic macroinvertebrates (i.e., predators, omnivores, parasites,

collectors, shredders, and scrapers) have been identified in each reach between High Lake and

Lake Creek Falls (Haslick 2016). Specimens collected from the high-elevation stream (6,6007,450 feet) represented taxa characterized as having thermal preferences for cooler temperatures.

Results indicated that sensitive and intolerant taxa exceeded tolerant taxa suggesting the aquatic

ecosystem above Lake Creek Falls is relatively void of human disturbance. Results from Benthic

Invertebrate Index of Biological Integrity tests (Table 5) classified each reach as ‘high biological

integrity’ except Reach 5 which scored moderate (Haslick 2016a). Predator, scraper, and

shredder richness, as well as percent collector and Chironomidae were limiting factors

preventing many of the Lake Creek reach sites from being classified as ‘high biological

integrity.’ Despite the limiting factors, all reach sites scored relatively highly when the additional

parameters were included in the analyses.

Table 5. Benthic Invertebrate Index of Biological Integrity (BIBI) a,b and community composition results from

sampling conducted in five reaches of Lake Creek (between Lake Creek Falls and High Lake) on 12 September

2014. Metric scores of 1, 3, and 5 represent ratings of low, moderate, and high, respectively.

Lake Creek Reach

Metric

Total number of taxa

Number of Ephemerotera

taxa

Number of Plecoptera taxa

Number of Trocoptera taxa

Number of long-lived taxa

Number of intolerant taxa

Percentage of tolerant taxa

Percentage of predators

Number of clinger taxa

Percentage dominance (3

taxa)

Value

Score

Value

Score

Value

Score

Value

Score

Value

Score

0.8

2.8

8.5

0.2

9.8

Total score

Total abundance (m2)

EPT taxa richness

Predator richness

Scraper richness

Shredder richness

Percentage of intolerant taxa

Percentage of collectors

Percentage of parasites

Percentage of Oligochaeta

Number of tolerant taxa

Percentage of Simuliidae

2057

2.1

2.9

1644

3.8

1.4

0.4

2625

0.8

4502

1.2

0.2

0.4

6305

1.3

0.3

0.2

Percentage of Chironomidae

The BIBI is based on average/summation of three replicates, not an individual replicate

Red cells represent BIBI scores between 0 and 24, yellow cells 25 to 39, and green cells represent scores >40

Results from (Haslick 2016a) suggest upper Lake Creek represents a healthy aquatic ecosystem

for which impacts from rotenone treatments will be temporary. Numerous studies (e.g., Hamilton

et al. 2009; Vinson et al. 2010) have shown benthic macroinvertebrates recover rapidly following

rotenone treatments. Regardless, rigorous post-treatment monitoring and analyses will be

implemented to ensure population numbers and taxa assemblages have recovered.

D.4.3 Native Fish Salvage

Prior to initiating rotenone treatments in the Upper Malheur River Subbasin, native fish salvage

will occur by means of electrofishing, snorkeling, minnow traps, and/or other net-types. Because

fish salvaged from the proposed treatment sites will be relocated to areas in the Upper Malheur

River Watershed that are not being treated concurrently, multiple streams will be treated during

the first year and repopulated when monitoring results indicate Brook Trout have been

successfully removed.

D.5 Upper Malheur Species Presence/Absence

Known fish assemblages for the Upper Malheur River (Table 6) are largely based on BPT

sampling efforts that have been focused on salmonid species; however, other species

encountered were identified and recorded.

E. Alternative Actions Considered

The Recovery Plan lists Brook Trout as a primary threat to Bull Trout in the Upper Malheur

River Core Area. Brook Trout are widely distributed throughout the Core Area, inhabiting an

estimated 94 stream miles. Due to staffing, funding, and logistic requirements, it is not feasible

to singly treat the entire area occupied by Bull Trout.

Without partitioning the areas that are to be treated, the likelihood of success is low for

treatments of this size. Temporary barriers will be installed to segment the affected area into

sizes that can be feasibly treated and are consistent with known use by Bull Trout. Barriers will

remain in place if Brook Trout continue to exist in adjacent reaches or are known to seasonally

access the treated reach. The treatments will be comprehensive to avoid assumptions that Brook

Trout are not present in some areas.

Alternative management actions that have been considered include: no action, mechanical

removal, biological control, and other chemicals.

E.1 No Action

No action will result in status quo of nearly ubiquitous Brook Trout with continued hybridization

and no progress towards Bull Trout recovery within the Upper Malheur Core Area. With no

action, hybridization and competition for limited resources will lead to declines in Bull Trout

abundance and eventually extirpation.

E.2 Mechanical Removal

Electrofishing, gillnets, trammel nets, and trap nets are used extensively in fisheries to capture

fish. Although the equipment is effective for sampling fish for the purpose of acquiring

biological data, the gear is inefficient for use in long-term population suppression projects due to

staffing/financial needs, gear biases, and environmental characteristics. Staffing needs (requires

at least two staffers), annual effort in perpetuity, and financial costs render mechanical removal

an ineffective approach to remove fish on a long-term basis (Table 7). Regarding gear biases,

incorrect net mesh size can lead to smaller size classes not being captured. The effectiveness of

mechanical methods can also be affected by lake bathymetry, channel complexity, substrate, and

vegetation.

Since 2010, the BPT has been deploying gillnets in High Lake. Positive results were observed

when the lake was sampled extensively and annually; however, wildfires resulted in the

cancellation of sampling during 2013 and 2015. Crowley (2014) found missed annual sampling,

Table 6. Fish collected from the Upper Malheur River Watershed during sampling efforts.a

Species

Waterbody

Brook

Trout

Bull

Trout

Redband

Trout

Sculpin

Redside

Shiner

Speckled

Dace

Lake

Big

Meadow

Fork

Summit

Snowshoe

McCoy

Crooked

Bosonberg

Tureman

Black

Canyon

Skookum

Lee

Bluebucket

Wolf

Corral

Basin

Pine

Mainstem

Malheur

Long

Nose

Dace

Bridge

Lip

Sucker

Large

Scale

Sucker

Mountain

Whitefish

Northern

Pikeminnow

The list should not be viewed as a definitive measure of species presence or absence or inclusive of all tributaries.

Table 7. Examples of costs associated with mechanical removal projects to suppress non-native fish in Oregon.

Waterbody

East Lake

Target species

Tui Chub

Treatment type

Trap net

Years

2010-2011

East, Paulina, and

Lava lakes

Tui Chub

Trap net

2012-2013

Investment

446 staff hours/year and 319

volunteer hours/year

$15,000

Diamond Lake

High Lake

Golden Shiner

Brook Trout

Electrofishing

Gillnet

2008-2013

2010-2016

45 staff hours/year

240 staff hours/year

during the years affected by the wildfires, led to the population expanding to near pre-removal

abundance due in part to Brook Trout quickly reaching sexual maturity.

The BPT and ODFW have suggested that mechanical removal is not a viable or cost-effective

option, respectively, to eradicate Brook Trout from High Lake. Given the environmental

conditions (i.e., drought and wildfires), the BPT believes yearly sampling is neither sustainable

nor a viable solution to eradicate Brook Trout. The ODFW has indicated that it likely is not

possible to annually remove 50% of the Brook Trout with mechanical methods and that costs

would outweigh benefits.

E.3 Biological Control

For a biological control to effectively reduce or eliminate unwanted species, it must remove the

unwanted species faster than the species can reproduce. Sterile fish (i.e., tiger trout (Brown Trout

Salmo trutta x Brook Trout), tiger musky (Muskellunge Esox masquinongy x Northern Pike E.

lucius), and hybrid striped bass (Striped Bass Morone saxatilis x M. chrysops) were the only

biological controls considered for High Lake. The potential biological controls are the only

sterile fish currently used by ODFW; however, the fish are unacceptable for several reasons.

Tiger trout are not appropriate because their metabolism is too slow to effectively reduce Brook

Trout numbers. Tiger musky and hybrid striped bass are not acceptable because they are nonnative fish that do not meet ODFW’s Native Fish Conservation Policy, Wild Fish Policy, and the

Malheur Basin Plan. Furthermore, they are not biologically appropriate or suitable for the Upper

Malheur River Watershed.

E.4 Chemical Control

Antimycin and rotenone have been used extensively by fisheries managers to remove undesirable

species, restore native fish populations, removing genetic threats, and eradicate habitat altering

fish species (Krueger and May 1991; McClay 2000, 2005).

E.4.1 Antimycin

Antimycin is an antibiotic that kills gill-breathing organisms by inhibiting respiration in the

cell. Antimycin is effective at extremely low concentrations (parts per billion) and is not

detectable by fish, preventing an avoidance response. The antibiotic is effective with short

exposure time and has little impact on invertebrates. It biodegrades when exposed to high sun

exposure, high water turbulence; and is ineffective in water with high alkalinity and at pH above

8.7. Antimycin is more expensive than rotenone and recently produced formulations have been

found to be defective. Currently, antimycin is not available.

E.4.2 Rotenone

Rotenone is a botanical product found in the roots, seeds, and leaves of various plants that are

members of the bean family Leguminosae found in Australia, Southern Asia, and South America

(Finlayson et al. 2010). Rotenoid is a general term for processed plants containing rotenone,

degulin, rotenolone, and tephorsin and up to 25 other rotenone-like compounds in end-use

rotenone products (Fang and Casida 1999). However, most of the toxicity is due to rotenone

(Fang et al. 1997).

Rotenone is absorbed through gills when applied to water and kills organisms by inhibiting

respiration in the cell. Rotenone is readily available, stable in the environment, and does not

degrade as rapidly as antimycin.

Due to acute inhalation and acute oral and aquatic toxicity, rotenone is classified as a Registered

Use Pesticide. The sale of the product is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

acts. To purchase rotenone in Oregon, a public pesticide applicators (PPA) license must be

obtained from the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). The PPA is issued by ODA after

applicants have successfully passed federal/state laws and safety requirements and have

demonstrated competency for use in aquatic habitats.

F. Outreach and Education

The success of a rotenone project extends beyond the application of the chemical. An intensive

outreach and education campaign is mandatory prior to implementing any components of the

project. Recognizing and addressing political and social concerns are essential to the project’s

long- and short-term success. The most common factor noted in the success or failure of

rotenone projects has been the level of public understanding of the problem, transparency about

the solution, and engagement throughout the process. Education and outreach are crucial for

success in terms of the completion of regulatory processes, application of rotenone, and

maintaining Brook Trout-free streams following the treatments.

The TAC recognizes that for anglers to accept the rotenone project, recreational fishing

opportunities must be available in high-use areas following the removal of Brook Trout. Because

illegal stockings by anglers commonly occurs after rotenone projects and subsequently

contributes to project failure (Table 2), the TAC recognizes the importance of informing anglers

that the treated areas will be restocked with Bull Trout and Redband Trout, ensuring that fishing

opportunities will continue to exist.

F.1 Public Outreach

Public acceptance of management actions to benefit Bull Trout is crucial for recovery to occur.

Understanding recreation interests in the treatment zone will help identify the respective

demographics. Success of rotenone treatments, as defined by the continued absence of Brook

Trout in a treated reach, is dependent on education and outreach. Numerous streams within the

Malheur National Forest wilderness are paralleled by trails that are frequently used by hikers,

backpackers, hunters, anglers, and horseback riders. Such a network of trails exists around High

Lake which is located in the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area. High Lake is a destination

for hiking, backpacking, angling, horseback riding, viewing wildlife, exploring the outdoors, and

enjoying the wilderness. The most common access point to the lake is from the Roads End

Trailhead; however, many trailheads located across the wilderness provide access to High Lake.

Access to the trailhead is dependent on spring snowmelt which can occur as early as May/June or

as late as July. Most visitors are day users, though overnight and multi-day use does

occur. Although there are no developed campgrounds near the lake, camping is a popular activity

in this area. Peak use occurs from July to November.

Similarly, logging, ranching, and farming interests will be considered, as well as Grant and

Harney County which serve communities such as John Day, Prairie City, Canyon City, Izee,

Seneca, Juntura, Drewsey, and Burns-Hines. Outreach needs will also include non-governmental

conservation organizations.

To achieve the public outreach goal of developing an understanding and support for the rotenone

project, a neutral third-party will help the TAC implement the outreach strategy. Public

involvement during the planning process will be crucial for creating public support for the

project. Attention will be directed to factors that influence public support including: 1) concerns

about chemical use, 2) comprehension of project goals, 3) concerns about environmental tradeoffs, 4) concerns about management decisions, and 5) disagreement with fish management posttreatment. Keys to developing public support for the project will be: 1) identification, 2)

outreach, 3) communication, and 4) resolution.

The TAC has identified general public groups (Table 8) that will likely have an interest in the

project. Individuals can be exclusive to one group (e.g., fishing) or multiple groups (e.g., hunting

and ranching). Priority should be given to groups and organizations that have influential

participants that interact with multiple groups within their communities. This overlap will have

synergistic effects and reduce TAC efforts to spread the message and maintain activity within the

communities, groups, and organizations.

Outreach objectives associated with groups and individuals listed in Table 8 are to: 1) make the

group or individuals aware of the desire for a rotenone project, 2) build relationships of trust, 3)

gage interest in participation during the public process, and 4) identify potential issues/concerns.

Table 8. Examples of groups that will be included in public outreach/education efforts.

Public

Agricultural

Anglers

ATV/UTV

Campers

Grant County Court

Harney County Court

Hikers

Horseback/trail riders

Hunters

Logging

Native Fish Society

Location

John Day, Hines, and Drewsey

John Day and Hines

John Day

Burns

Various

John Day and Hines

Various

John Day

Portland and Salem

F.2 Communication and Education

Broad communication and education to communities and outside groups will be accomplished

through school groups, angling/hunting organizations, conservation groups, newspapers, radio,

social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) and during public meetings. Communication

objectives will be to: 1) inform the public about the current status of Bull Trout, 2) inform the

public about beneficial management actions, and 3) identify the TAC as experts that can address

the Bull Trout issue. Information to communicate about the current status of Bull Trout includes:

1) when they were listed, 2) why they were listed, and 3) recovery status, primary threats, and

actions identified in the species Recovery Plan.

The education component of this project will focus on facts about Bull Trout and Brook Trout

including basic life history, hybridization tendencies, habitat requirements, results and costs

associated with illegal introductions, restoration efforts, and focus areas. Information presented

to the public, regarding beneficial actions for Bull Trout, should include past management

actions to recover populations and possible actions that can be implemented. Specific expertise

of the TAC should be highlighted during these discussions. Linking key actions that will help

Bull Trout recover to the groups and individuals connected to this resource will be essential to

securing public acceptance of proposed management actions. Political space for implementing

Bull Trout restoration activities will be created as the TAC is able to connect communities,

organizations, commercial interests, and governments with the concept that restoring Bull Trout

will result in positive economic, commercial, and biological outcomes.

Resource connection is recognized as the key to securing public acceptance of the proposed

management actions.

G. 10-year Implementation Plan (Upper Action Area)

See Part II – Supplement 1 for a detailed description.

H. Monitoring & Recovery Actions

Monitoring objectives will be defined by the TAC and implemented by each agency. Methods

specific to each task will be defined in individual work plans or study plans and reviewed by the

TAC when the long-term monitoring stage begins. The most appropriate agency, for each task,

will take the lead and coordinate a review of the study plan with the TAC. Funding for

monitoring efforts will not be provided from the TAC to accomplish the work. Instead, each

agency will implement the monitoring within the scope of existing budgets and study plans.

H.1 Short-term Monitoring (<10 years)

Short-term monitoring results will be used to guide future annual project implementation. Per

Finlayson et al. (2010), the following post-treatment attributes will be monitored: 1)

effectiveness of the treatments, 2) macroinvertebrate colonization, 3) effects to amphibian

populations, and 4) effects on non-target fish species. In addition, the barriers will be evaluated

for their effectiveness in preventing the immigration of Brook Trout. If monitoring indicates lowrisk implementation is successful, higher levels of risk would be considered for future years.

H.2 Long-term Monitoring (>10 years)

A rigorous long-term monitoring program will be an essential component of the Bull Trout

restoration efforts in the Upper Malheur River Watershed. Data collected through the project will

inform each phase of implementation. The long-term monitoring strategy will include:

 Status of treated reaches - Treated reaches will be monitored for absence of Brook Trout.

 Index of Bull Trout trends - Yearly spawning surveys will be conducted to evaluate Bull

Trout populations in the Upper Malheur River Watershed. Surveys will allow for the

evaluation of Bull Trout recovery while minimizing impacts associated with intrusive

sampling efforts.

 Presence and distribution of Brook Trout, Bull Trout, and/or other native species - Use

eDNA to detect the presence of Brook Trout while minimizing the impact of sampling

activities on restoration efforts. Although electrofishing is an intensive sampling tool, its

use will be necessary to evaluate the presence/absence of Brook Trout following the

treatments. Electrofishing will likely occur every year; however, adaptive monitoring will

dictate its use in streams or stream sections that are to be sampled. Streams or stream

sections may be put into a rotational sampling strategy that would prevent them from

being heavily sampled each year while still having the capacity to evaluate changes in the

native fish populations. Snorkel surveys may be used to assess native fish populations

while minimizing the impact to these populations. Long-term monitoring efforts in the

Upper Malheur River Watershed will take an adaptive management approach that allows

for changes to be made as new data and tools become available.

 Genetics - Genetic studies will be conducted to investigate genetic purity of Bull Trout

populations. When enough reaches have been treated, analyses will be conducted to

assess the genetic diversity of all native species.

H.3 Habitat Restoration

Habitat degradation resulting from land management practices is a primary threat identified in

the Recovery Plan. Management activities such as grazing, timber harvest, road construction,

beaver trapping, and water withdrawals have altered stream and riparian conditions and reduced

the quality of habitat to support Bull Trout in the Upper Malheur River Watershed.

Restoring habitat would reduce the competitive advantage of Brook Trout over Bull Trout. To

address the primary threat, the USFS plans to work with its partners to implement habitat

restoration activities to improve habitat for Bull Trout in Upper Malheur River Watershed

streams (e.g., Summit Creek, Bosenberg Creek, Lake Creek, Big Creek, McCoy Creek, Crooked

Creek, Corral Basin Creek, and the Malheur River). Implementation of activities listed in

Appendix B will occur in coordination with non-native fish removals.

I. Temporary Barriers and Fish Passage for Migratory Native Fish

The highest level of uncertainty, from a technical standpoint, is the need to protect treated areas

with temporary barriers following treatments. As a proactive measure, barriers will be installed

prior to the treatments to prevent Brook Trout invasions. Intensive monitoring protocols will be

implemented to evaluate the barriers’ effectiveness relative to restricting Brook Trout passage

and whether barriers are restricting access of migratory native fish to spawning areas,

subsequently limiting the expression of life histories and gene flow. Without allowing

immigration into these areas, genetic bottlenecks and low resiliency will have high likelihoods of

occurring. Because of these potential challenges, adaptive management will be a key postimplementation component.

I.1 Temporary Barriers

Over 25 locations have been identified as potential sites for temporary barriers. The lowermost

site, located below the Bluebucket Creek confluence, would be the only permanent barrier in the

system. Attempts will be made to minimize the total number of barriers installed, with

considerations to logistic feasibility and minimizing the footprint. An array of scenarios and

potential locations (Figure 7) are being assessed.

Ensuring rapid recovery of native fish populations within the treated reaches is considered

paramount for success. Maintaining access for native species to treated areas post-treatment will

ensure an opportunity for populations to be robust and subsequently more resilient to stochastic

events. In order to maintain the ability of native fish to migrate within the upper Malheur River,

consideration will be given to designs that incorporate selective fish passage and are capable of

functioning during high-water events. In addition, other approaches such as permanent traps and

trap and haul operations will be considered. Temporary barriers are assumed to last 5 to 20 years

depending on baseline hydrology, seasonal weather events, and construction materials.

I.2 Permanent Fish Traps at Barrier Sites

In areas where it is highly likely that a large migratory population component will exist, the

installation of fish traps at the barrier is the most feasible solution. These areas will require the

assistance from TAC agencies to pass fish, within a reasonable time, during peak migration

seasons. Design would include the ability to close the trap while maintaining a 100% barrier

during winter months and times when migration is likely to be low. The Big Creek and Meadow

Fork drainages are most appropriate for such a design and monitoring scheme as Bull Trout are

most likely to utilize a migratory life history strategy in these streams based on the availability of

suitable spawning habitat. In these reaches, peak upstream migration for Bull Trout occurs from

June to August. Subsequently, June to August is recognized as the minimum period during which

fish traps should be operated.

Permanent traps will require maintenance to assure effectiveness. Maintenance will be performed

by the TAC agencies under the guidance of the lead agency for each individual barrier.

I.3 Trap and Haul

In consideration of the high level of agency commitment associated with operating traps at

barriers, areas with lower migratory expression may suffice to have less intensive approaches.

For areas where barriers are necessary for project success and migration may be a lower

probability among native fish, trap and haul methodologies are most appropriate. In such

streams, electrofishing or other collection methods will be used, below barrier sites, to collect

fish. Captured native fish will be released upstream of the barrier site. This methodology will

provide the opportunity for immigration into isolated populations. The use of this methodology

will differ depending on the stream and determined need based on captures below barriers.

Using monitoring results, the TAC will address the need to modify barrier design, adjust fish

passage efforts, and/or decommission barriers. The need for barriers will be continually

evaluated as eradication efforts precede throughout the Upper Malheur River Watershed.

J. References

Abel, C. 2008. Synopsis of 2000-2008 stream temperature monitoring with implications for Bull

Trout recovery in the Upper Malheur. Pages 2-1 – 2-20 in Chapter 2 -Evaluate the life history of

native salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe Annual Report FY2008. Prepared

for Bonneville Power Administration.

Adams, S. 1999. Mechanisms limiting vertebrate invasion: Brook Trout in mountain streams of

the northwestern U.S.A. Doctoral dissertation. University of Montana, Missoula.

Adams, S., C. Frissel, B. Rieman. 2001. Geography of invasion in mountain streams:

Consequences of headwater lake fish introductions. Ecosystems 4(4):296-307.

Billman, H. G., C. G. Kruse, S. St-Hilaire, T. M. Koel, J. L. Arnold, and C. R. Peterson. 2012.

Effects of rotenone on Columbia Spotted Frogs Rana luteiventris during field applications in

lentic habitats of southwestern Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management

32:781-789.

Bowers, W.L., P.A. Dupree, M.L. Hanson, and R.R. Perkins. 1993. Bull Trout population

summary Malheur River Basin. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Hines, OR.

Unpublished report.

Brown, P. J., and A. V. Zale. 2012. Rotenone persistence model for montane streams.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141:560-569.

Buchanan, D., M. L. Hanson, and R. M. Hooton. 1997. Status Of Oregon's Bull Trout,

distribution, life history, limiting factors, management considerations, and status, 1997 Technical

Report, Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. 1994BI34342. Project

Number. 1995-054-00. 185 electronic p. (BPA Report DOE/BP-34342-5).

Costello, A. B., T. E. Down, S. M. Pollard, C.J., Pacas, and E. B. Taylor. 2003. The influence of

history and contemporary stream hydrology on the evolution of genetic diversity within species;

an examination of microsatellite DNA variation in bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Pisces:

Salmonidae). Evolution 57(2):328-344.

Crowley, K. 2014. Selective removal of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in Lake Creek,

Upper Malheur River, Oregon. Chapter 1in Evaluate the Life History of Native Salmonids in the

Malheur River Basin. Burns Paiute Tribe FY2013 Annual Report. Project Number 1997-019-00.

(BPA Report BOE/BP- 00006313-5).

Crowley, K. 2016. Selective removal of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in Lake Creek,

Upper Malheur River, Oregon. Chapter 1 in Evaluate the Life History of Native Salmonids in the

Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe FY2015 Annual Report. Project No. 1997-019-00. (BPA

Report BOE/BP- 00006313-5).

Dawson, V. K., W, H, Gingerich, R. A., and P. A. Gilderhus. 1991. Rotenone persistence in

freshwater ponds: effects of temperature and sediment absorption. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management 11:226-231.

DeHaan, P. W., C. A. Barfoot, and W. R. Arden. 2007. Genetic analysis of bull trout populations

on the Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana. Pages 145-153 in Carline, R. F. and C. LoSapio,

eds. Sustaining Wild Trout in a Changing World: Proceedings of the Wild Trout Symposium IX.

October 9-12, 2007. West Yellowstone, Montana. 308 pages.

DeHaan, P. W. and D. K. Hawkins. 2009. Rapid response genetic identification of geographic

origin of bull trout captured at Clark River dams. Annual Report for Calendar Year 2008

submitted to Avista Corporation. March 16, 2009. 41 pages.

DeHaan, P., L. Schwabe, and W. Arden. 2010a. Spatial patterns of hybridization between Bull

Trout, Salvelinus confluentus, and Brook Trout, Salvelinus fontinalis in an Oregon stream

network. Conservation Genetics 11(3):935-949.

DeHaan, P., L. Godfrey, D. Peterson, and D. Brewer. 2010b. Bull trout population genetic

structure and entrainment in Warm Springs Creek, Montana.

Fang, N., J. C. Rowlands, and J. E. Casida. 1997. Anomalous structure- activity relationships of

13-homo-13-oxarotenoids and -0xadehyd- rorotenoids. Chemical Research in Toxicology. 10:

853-858.

Fang, N., and J. E. Casida. 1999. Cube resin insecticide: identification and biological activity of

29 rotenoid constituents. Journal Agricultural and Food Chemistry 47: 2130-2136.

Fenn, K. 2003a. Use of a backpack electrofisher to determine population size and distribution of

Brook Trout above the waterfall barrier on Lake Creek, Oregon and use of gillnets to determine

species presence in High Lake, Oregon. Pages 3-1 – 3-15 in Evaluate the life history of native

salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe FY2003 Annual Report. Prepared for

Bonneville Power Administration. Project Number 1997-019-00.

Fenn, K. 2003b. Selective removal of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) using pheromone

baiting with sexually mature male brook trout in hoop nets. Pages 4-1 – 4-12 in Chapter 4 Evaluate the life history of native salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe

FY2003 Annual Report. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Project Number 1997019-00.

Fenn, K. 2004a. Use of a backpack electrofisher to determine the distribution of fish species in

Big Creek and Corral Basin and population size of trout species in Corral Basin. Pages 2-1 – 217 in Evaluate the life history of native salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe

FY2002 Annual Report. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Project Number 1997019-00.

Fenn, K. 2004b. Use of a backpack electrofisher to determine changes in distribution and species

composition of fish species in Meadow Fork and Lake Creek. Pages 3-1 – 3-33 in - Evaluate the

life history of native salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe FY2004 Annual

Report. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Project Number 1997-019-00.

Fenn, K, and L. Schwabe. 2003. Use of a backpack electrofisher to determine the distribution of

Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and potential hybrids of

Brook and Bull Trout in Lake Creek and Meadow Fork Big Creek, Oregon. Evaluate the life

history of native salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe FY2003 Annual Report.

Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Project Number 1997-019-00. (BPA Report

BOE/BP-00006313-5).

Fenton, J. 2004. Use of radio telemetry to document the movements of Bull Trout in the Upper

Malheur River, Oregon. Pages 1-22 in Evaluate the life history of native salmonids in the

Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe FY2004 Annual Report. Prepared for Bonneville Power

Administration. Project Number 1997-019-00.

Fenton, J. 2005. Use of radio telemetry to document the movements of Bull Trout in the Upper

Malheur River, Oregon. Chapter 1 in Evaluate the life history of native salmonids in the Malheur

Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe FY2005 Annual Report. Prepared for Bonneville Power

Administration. Project No. 1997-019-00.

Finlayson, B., R. Schnick, D. Skaar, J. Anderson, L. Demong, D. Duffield, W. Horton, and J.

Steinkjer. 2010. Planning and standard operating procedures for the use of rotenone in fish

management—rotenone SOP manual. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Gunckel, S., A. Hemmingsen, and J. Li. 2002. Effect of Bull Trout and Brook Trout interactions

on foraging, habitat, feeding and growth. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

131:1119-1130.

Hamilton, B. T., S. E. Moore, T. B. Williams, N. Darby, and M. R. Vinson. 2009. Comparative

effects of rotenone on macroinvertebrate density in two streams in Great Basin National Park,

Nevada. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:1620-1635.

Harper, D. 2013. Selective removal and abundance estimation of Brook Trout Salvelinus

fontinalis in Lake Creek, Upper Malheur River, Oregon. Chapter1 in Evaluate the Life History of

Native Salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe FY 2012 Annual Report. Project

Number 1997- 019-00 (BPA Report BOE/BP-00006313-5).

Haslick, B. 2016a. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling in the Upper Malheur River, Oregon in

conjunction with a proposed piscicide treatment. Chapter 4 in Evaluate the life history of native

salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe FY2015 Annual Report. Project Number

1997-019-00 (BPA Report BOE/BP-00006313-5).

Haslick, B. 2016b. 2015 Amphibian surveying in the Upper Malheur River: Logan Valley

Wildlife Mitigation Property, Oregon. Chapter 3 in Evaluate the Life History of Native

Salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe FY2015 Annual Report. Project Number

1997-019-00 (BPA Report BOE/BP-00006313-5).

Kanda, N., R. F. Leary, and F. Allendorf. 2002. Evidence of introgressive hybridization between

Bull Trout and Brook Trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131: 772-782.

Kennedy, B., D. Peterson, and K. Fausch. 2003. Different life histories of Brook Trout

populations invading mid-elevation and high-elevation Cutthroat streams in Colorado. Western

North American Naturalist 63(2):215-223.

Krueger and May 1991. Ecological and genetic consequences of salmonid introductions in North

America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48(Supplement 1): 66-77.

Leary, R. and F. Allendorf. 1991. Population structure of Bull Trout in the Columbia and Upper

Klamath River Drainages. Lewis and Clark Conservation Laboratory Report 91/2.

Leary, R., F. Allendorf, and S. Forbes. 1993. Conservation genetics of Bull Trout in Columbia

and Klamath River drainages. Conservation Biology 7:856-865.

Lindahl, P. E., and K. E. Oberg. 1961. The effect of rotenone on respiration and its point of

attack. Experimental Cell Research 23:228-237.

Magnum, F.A., and J.L. Madrigal. 1999. Rotenone effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates of the

Strawberry River, Utah: a five-year summary. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 14:125-135.

McClay, W. 2000. Rotenone use in North America (1988-1997). Fisheries 20(5):15-21.

McClay, W. 2005. Rotenone use in North America (1988-2002). Fisheries 30(4):29-31.

McMahon, T., A. Zale, F. Barrows, J. Selong, and R. Danehy. 2007. Temperature and

competition between Bull Trout and Brook Trout: A test of the elevation refuge hypothesis.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1313-1326.

Nerass, L. P., and P. Spruell. 2001. Fragmentation of riverine systems: the genetic effects of

dams on bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Clark Fork River system. Molecular Ecology

10:1153-1164.

NorWeST. 2015. NorWest Project Area. https://www.sciencebase.gov/gisviewer/NorWeST/.

Paul, A., and J. Post. 2001. Spatial distribution of native and nonnative salmonids in streams of

the eastern slopes of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 130:417-430.

Perkins, R. 1999-2009. Bull trout spawning survey report. In Evaluate the Life History of Native

Salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. Burns Paiute Tribe FY1999-2008 Annual Reports. Prepared

for Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 1997-019-00.

Rieman, B., and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for the

conservation of bull trout Salvelinus confluentus. U. S. Forest Service Intermountain Research

Station, General Technical Report INT-302, Ogden, Utah.

Rieman, B., and J. B. Dunham. 2000. Metapopulations and salmonids: a synthesis of life history

patterns and empirical observations. Ecology of Freshwater Fishes 9:51-64.

Rieman, B., J. Peterson, and D. Myers. 2006. Have Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) displaced

Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) along longitudinal gradients in central Idaho streams?

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:63-78.

Schwabe, L. 2000. Evaluate the life history of native salmonids within the Malheur Subbasin.

Bonneville Power Administration. Project Number 1997-019- 00 / 1997-019-01.

Spruell, P., B. E. Rieman, K. L. Knudsen, F. M. Utter, and F. W. Allendorf. 1999. Genetic

population structure within streams: microsatellite analysis of bull trout populations. Ecology of

Freshwater Fishes 8:114-121.

Spruell, P., A. R. Hemmingsen, P, J. Howell, N Kanda, and F. W. Allendorf. 2003. Conservation

genetics of bull trout: geographic distribution of variation at microsatellite loci. Conservation

Genetics 4:17-29.

U.S. Forest Service 1990. Malheur National Forest: land and resource management plan, Volume

1. U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA. 1990. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan. Malheur National Forest.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;

determination of threatened status for bull trout in the conterminous United States. November 1,

1999. Federal Register 64:58910-58933.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 14, Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon. In: U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland,

Oregon. 71 pages.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Designation of critical habitat for the Klamath River and

Columbia River populations of bull trout. October 6, 2004. Federal Register 69: 59996-60076.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 5-year review:

Summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised

designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the coterminous United States; final rule. October

18, 2010. Federal Register 75:63898-64070.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States

population of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon. xii + 179 pages.

Vinson, M. R., E.C. Dinger, and D. K. Vinson. 2010. Piscicides and invertebrates: after 70 years,

does anyone really know? Fisheries 35(2):61-71.

Whiteley, A. R., P. Spruell, B. E. Rieman, and F. W. Allendorf. 2006. Fine-scale genetic

structure of bull trout at the southern limit of their distribution. Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society 135:1238-1253.

Wondzell, S. 2016. Restoring riparian forests as a tool to mitigate effects of future climate

change on water temperatures in salmon-spawning streams of the interior Columbia River Basin.

https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/lwm/aem/docs/wondzell/wondzell_riparian_restoration_and_climate_

change_summary.pdf

K. Acronyms

BIBI - Benthic Invertebrate Index of Biological Integrity

BLM - Bureau of Land Management

BOR - Bureau of Reclamation

BPA - Bonneville Power Administration

BPT - Burns Paiute Tribe

CDFW - California Department of Fish and Wildlife

FSM - Forest Service Manual

NPS - National Park Service

ODA - Oregon Department of Agriculture

ODFW - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

PPA - Public Pesticide Applicators

Recovery Plan - Recovery Plan for the Coterminous United States Population of Bull Trout

(Salvelinus confluentus)

RM - River Mile

RUIP - Recovery Unit Implementation Plan

RUP - Registered Use Pesticide

TAC - Technical Advisory Committee

USDA - U. S. Department of Agriculture

USFS - U. S. Forest Service

USFWS - U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS - U. S. Geological Survey

Appendix A

Table 1. Summary of aquatic habitat surveys completed in the Upper Malheur River Watershed since 2013. Cells

highlighted in yellow represent reaches that meet standards for in-stream habitat, while the reds cells represent

reaches that have substandard habitat conditions.

Reach

Wetted width

Large wood

source

Bankful W:D

Pools per mile

% fines

LWM per mile

(LM:S)

Bank stability (%)

July shade

Meadow hardwood

Mixed conifer

Undetermined

Lee Creek

Waterbody

Skookum

Creek

Malheur River – Below Ford

Black

Canyon

Creek

Bluebucket

Creek

MHWa

MHW

MCb

UDc

Table 2. Summary of aquatic habitat surveys completed in the Upper Malheur River Watershed since 2013. Cells

highlighted in yellow represent reaches that meet standards for in-stream habitat, while the reds cells represent

reaches that have substandard habitat conditions.

Waterbody

Reach

Wetted width

Large wood

source

Bankful W:D

Pools per mile

% fines

LWM per mile

(LM:S)

Bank stability (%)

July shade

Conifer Lodgepole

Undetermined

Meadow hardwood

Mixed conifer

Bosenberg Creek

West Summit

CLa

UDb

MHWc

MHW

MCd

Table 3. Summary of aquatic habitat surveys completed in the Upper Malheur River Watershed since 2013. Cells

highlighted in yellow represent reaches that meet standards for in-stream habitat, while the reds cells represent

reaches that have substandard habitat conditions.

Reach

Wetted

width

Large wood

MCa

source

MCBankful

W:D

Pools per

mile

% fines

LWM per

mile

(LM:S)

Bank

stability

(%)

July shade

Mixed conifer

Conifer Ponderosa

Conifer Lodgepole

Meadow hardwood

Waterbody

Summit

CPb

CLc

MHWd

Appendix B

Table 1. Restoration activities the USFS plans to implement with its partners in the Upper Malheur River Watershed

to improve habitat conditions for Bull Trout (S. Namitz, USFS, personal communication).

Habitat restoration activity

Enhance native hardwood riparian

vegetation in Bull Trout spawning, rearing

and migration areas

Implement channel restoration projects in

degraded stream reaches of designated

Critical Habitat

Implement meadow restoration projects in

degraded wet meadows within the Upper

Malheur River Watershed

Remove connectivity barriers within in Bull

Trout spawning, rearing and migration areas

Install appropriate fish screens, where

needed, in Bull Trout spawning, rearing and

migration areas

Improve and secure instream flows affecting

Critical Habitat streams

Reduce grazing impacts along Critical

Habitat streams

Reduce the density of forest roads within

riparian areas, where appropriate, within the

Upper Malheur Watershed

Objective

Increase canopy and riparian cover

Provide a reliable source of large hardwood beaver forage

Maintain or improve effective shade

Reduce stream temperatures

Improve thermal connectivity across the Malheur stream network

Improve habitat to support biodiversity

Enhance resiliency to natural disturbance(s) and climate change

Increase large wood

Increase habitat complexity

Increase floodplain connectivity

Enhance resiliency to natural disturbance(s) and climate change

Increase cool water storage in the floodplain

Increase floodplain connectivity

Reduce stream temperatures

Enhance hydric vegetation and groundwater-dependent ecosystems

Improve thermal connectivity across the Malheur stream network

Enhance resiliency to natural disturbance(s) and climate change

Fix/restore passage barriers on forest service roads (e.g. culverts)

Improve connectivity across the Malheur stream network

Enhance resiliency to natural disturbance(s) and climate change

Reduce entrainment

Improve connectivity across the Malheur stream network

Restore connectivity and opportunities for migration

Increase base flows to moderate stream temperature changes and

increase habitat availability

Reduce grazing pressure on riparian areas and stream to support

habitat recovery

Reduce chronic sediment delivery from roads

Enhance vegetation recovery on compacted surfaces to increase

stream shade

Increase floodplain connectivity

Part II – Supplement 1

Brook Trout Removal Planning

10-Year Perspective

Malheur River Bull Trout Technical Advisory Committee

A. Contributing Agencies and Participants

Burns Paiute Tribe (BPT) - Erica Maltz, Kristopher Crowley, and Brandon Haslick

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) - David Banks and Benji Ramirez

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) - Steve Namitz, Kate Olsen, and Hazel Owens

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - Chris Allen, Suzanne Anderson, and Justin Martens

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) - Dmitri Vidergar

B. Introduction

This strategic plan introduces actions to remove or reduce Brook Trout numbers within

prioritized areas of the Upper Malheur River Basin Core Area (Table 1). The TAC believes the

10-year perspective provides an adequate timescale for prioritizing actions that will affect Brook

Trout eradication. The strategy addresses the array of variables affecting the length of time

required to successfully eradicate Brook Trout in any stream segment, let alone multiple

segments within a stream combined with the reconnection of multiple streams. Other variables

that have been considered include funding, staff availability, and differing work priorities among

the participating agencies.

C. Planning Assumptions

The following assumptions were used to develop the 10-year plan for removing Brook Trout

from the Upper Malheur River Basin Bull Trout Core Area:



The proposed 10-year period will be from 2018 to 2028.

All stream reaches will be extensively surveyed prior to treatment to identify any springs,

seeps, tributaries, or other variables that may affect the treatment logistics.

Temporary barriers (Figure 1) will be used to partition the streams into logistically

treatable stream segments.

Table 1. Sites listed in prioritized treatment order for a 10-year period. Segment lengths are based on single channels

and do not account for stream braiding and other variables so actual stream mileage per treatment reach is expected

to be larger. The size of High Lake was estimated based on maps and Google Earth and the Burns Paiute Tribe.

Treatment

Segment length

order

Site

Segment

(miles)

Barrier construction required

High Lake

40.6 Acre Feet None needed if treated in

(volume)

conjunction with 1b

Lake Creek

High Lake to natural barrier

1.65

None needed due to natural

barrier

Lake Creek

Natural barrier to 1648 rd

4.25

Barrier constructed at 1648 rd

Meadow Fork Natural barrier to 021 rd

3.09

Barrier constructed at the 021 rd

of Big Creek

bridge

Bosonberg

Headwaters to railroad

3.16*

None needed if railroad grade is a

Creek

grade barrier

complete barrier

Big Creek/

Natural Barrier to

Big = 2.59

Barrier constructed just below

Snowshoe

Big/Snowshoe confluence

Snowshoe =

Big and Snowshoe Creeks

Creek

and all of Snowshoe Creek

1.84a

confluence

Summit,

TBD

Crooked,

Corral or

McCoy

Creeks

Stream length for Bosonberg and Snowshoe creeks are estimates. The actual stream mileage will be decided prior to

treatment after locating upstream boundaries for fish presence.

Figure 1. Potential locations of barriers (yellow triangles) for the 10-year rotenone treatment to remove Brook Trout

from sections of the Upper Malheur River Watershed.



o National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, fill removal

(Department State Lands), MRDG, and any other requirements or permits will be

completed prior to construction of any barriers.

o Temporary is a relative term concerning barrier construction and could entail

some barriers remaining in place for 5 to 30 years.

o Barriers will be removed from treated stream segments once downstream barriers

are capable of preventing reinvasion by Brook Trout

o The TAC will work to facilitate passage for native species above barriers as staff

time and funding are available and as specific needs arise.

Streams will be treated once each year with treatments for each segment of stream

occurring consecutively for two years.

The ODFW will be the lead for all rotenone treatments with assistance from TAC

members.

A variety of sampling techniques will be used to remove pure Bull Trout from stream

segments prior to treatment. Pure Bull Trout will be translocated to streams that have

already been treated and in sections above barriers that will effectively prevent reinvasion

by Brook Trout.

o Pure Bull Trout will be identified by trained staff using peer reviewed methods.

o The initial treatments in some streams will coincide with second-year treatments

in other reaches.

o A staggered approach will allow movement of salvaged Bull Trout into streams

that have already been treated.

o Lake Creek has a small pure Bull Trout population so initializing treatments in

that system will create fishless segments of stream to transfer salvaged Bull Trout

from other streams prior to their treatments.

The TAC members will work to mimic connected Bull Trout populations while barriers

are in place to reduce the likelihood of reduced genetic variability.

D. Probability of Success

Risk and uncertainty are inherent in nearly all natural resource related projects and subsequently

must be weighed and considered prior to implementation. The TAC has been diligent in seeking

to discover the level of risk and uncertainty inherent in each aspect of this conservation strategy.

The TAC concludes that this plan has a moderate to high probability of both short-term and longterm success in the eradication of Brook Trout from treated streams. This conclusion is based on

extensive research of similar projects throughout the West, including efforts in Oregon (Table 2),

the TAC members combined experience with such projects, and the vetting of this plan through a

panel of fisheries and rotenone project design experts. To further ensure the highest likelihood of

success, the use of rotenone will follow the American Fisheries Society’s Planning and Standard

Operating Procedures Manual for the Use of Rotenone in Fish Management (Finlayson et al.

2010).

Table 2. Examples of rotenone efforts by ODFW, in Oregon, to eradicate non-native fish.

State

Waterbody

Target Species

Oregon

Summit Gravel Pond

Smallmouth Bass and crayfish

Oregon

McDermott Creek

Rainbow Trout

Oregon

Diamond Lake

Tui Chub

Oregon

Sun Creek

Brook Trout

Oregon

Diamond Lake

Tui Chub

Oregon

Walton Lake

Brown Bullhead

Oregon

South Twin Reservoir

Brown Bullhead

Oregon

Antelope Flat Reservoir Brown Bullhead

Oregon

Crane Prairie Pond

Brown Bullhead

Oregon

Lofton Reservoir

Tui Chub

Oregon

Beck-Kiwanis Pond

Carp and Goldfish

Oregon

North Twin Reservoir

Brown Bullhead

Oregon

Sun Creek

Brook Trout

Oregon

McDermitt Creek

Rainbow Trout, Brook Trout, Brown Trout

Oregon

Sage Creek

Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout

Effort unsuccessful due to illegal releases following treatments

Successful

Yes

Noa

Yes

E. Application of Rotenone

The application procedure for rotenone is straightforward and generally highly successful when

label instructions are closely followed, including the detoxification of rotenone appropriately at

the end of the treatment area. In many streams, native fish salvage may also be necessary prior to

treatment. Depending on the type of holding area used, monitoring fish for survival may be

necessary. The TAC has high confidence that this will be successfully accomplished by holding

fish in nearby streams, streamside holding tanks, or hatcheries. If deemed necessary, the TAC

may choose to hold native fish in multiple locations to minimize the risk of total loss.

E.1 Rotenone Project Phases

Any rotenone project has three phases; pre-treatment, treatment, and post-treatment. Pretreatment, treatment, and post-treatment activities for rotenone projects in the Upper Malheur

River Watershed Phase 1 Area will be similar across streams within this area.

E.1.1 Pre-Treatment Phase

Pre-treatment activities will include: 1) determination of treatment area and project area, 2)

obtain permits/authorization for treatment in the wilderness, 3) identification of drip can

locations, 4) streamflow measurements, 5) stream travel-time using fluorescein dye, 6) native

fish salvage, 7) placement of sentinel fish throughout the treatment area, 8) preliminary and final

calculations of rotenone and potassium permanganate, 9) ordering rotenone and potassium

permanganate, 10) determination of personnel needs, 11) personnel assignments for the

treatment, 12) signing (restricted access) at access points, 13) area closures as needed (work with

USFS), 14) project implementation review, and 15) safety meeting (day before). Pre-treatment

activities for High Lake will be similar to streams, but will include the calculation of lake area

volume, staging a boat (helicopter), pump, fuel, backpack sprayers, and liquid rotenone.

E.1.2 Treatment Phase

Treatment activities will occur in stages proceeding from High Lake downstream to two hours of

flow travel-time below the detoxification station/waterfall barrier. High Lake will be treated

during the stream treatment and vice versa. High Lake will require a three- or four-person team

(Table 3), two on the boat (use of a helicopter is the prefererd technique) dispersing rotenone

into the lake and one or two walking the perimeter of the lake spraying the edges. The backpack

crew will spray until they have treated the entire perimeter of High Lake. The boat crew will

apply rotenone into High Lake until all rotenone is gone. The stream team will consist of two to

four personnel (Table 3) starting and monitoring drip stations at as few as five and as many as

eight locations. Drips will occur over a four-hour period and drip flow rates will be monitored

hourly. The detoxification station and check station will require two individuals (Table 3). One

person will be stationed at the detoxification station while the other will monitor sentinel fish at

various flow times below the detoxification station. One to three individuals will be used to

distribute sand mixed with rotenone to springs and stagnant water areas within the treatment

area. Treatments are planned to occur for two years, with one each July. Projected costs for the

project are listed in Table 4.

Table 3. Staffing and time requirements for rotenone treatments in the Upper Malheur River Watershed.

Treatment area

High Lake

Lake Creek (High Lake to

Lake Creek Falls)

Crew

Boata

Spray

Drip station

Number of personnel

Detoxification station

Detoxification check

station

Equipment runner/

miscelaneous

Sand crew

Use of a helicopter is the prefererd technique for application of rotenone in High Lake

Number of days

2 to 10

E.1.3 Post-Treatment Phase

E.1.3.1 Short-term Monitoring (<10 years)

Short-term monitoring results will be used to guide future annual project implementation. Per

Finlayson et al. (2010), the following post-treatment attributes will be monitored: 1)

effectiveness of the treatments, 2) macroinvertebrate colonization, 3) effects to amphibian

populations, and 4) effects on non-target fish species. In addition, the barriers will be evaluated

for their effectiveness in preventing the immigration of Brook Trout. If monitoring indicates lowrisk implementation is successful, higher levels of risk would be considered for future years.

E.1.3.2 Long-term Monitoring (>10 years)