Introduction Coastal cutthroat trout (Onchorynchus clarkii clarkii) (CCT) are native to the Pacific...
1
Introduction Coastal cutthroat trout (Onchorynchus clarkii clarkii) (CCT) are native to the Pacific Northwest and their geographic distribution ranges from northern California to south central Alaska (Fig. 1). They are renowned for their varied life history strategies which include resident, fluvial, lake, and anadromous forms (Fig. 2). CCT occupy habitat ranging from the highest headwater reaches of streams to marine areas including estuaries and open ocean (Fig. 3). They are ecologically important and are sought after by sport anglers. In 2005 a range-wide multi-agency effort (CCT Interagency Committee) began to create a framework for conservation that would benefit CCT at the local and range- wide scale. We describe here the CCT Database Project, developed by the CCT Interagency Committee to gather and share information that will help better manage and conserve CCT populations. Acknowledgments We thank PSMFC’s Stan Allen and Bruce Schmidt for guidance and support for this project. We thank Doug Young and Vicki Finn from USFWS for their support of the CCT Interagency Committee. Funding for the CCT Database Project comes from the Pacific State Marine Fisheries Commission Sport Fish Restoration Program. A Western Native Trout Initiative summer funds grant provided additional financial support. Kathryn Ronnenberg made the CCT distribution map. Project Need Currently, there is a lack of information for assessing the status and trends of CCT populations at the local, regional and range-wide scale (Connolly et al. 2008). The complex biology of the trout and the perception that the subspecies is a low priority relative to other salmonids have made it difficult to gain knowledge through research and monitoring. Information regarding the subspecies is often gathered incidentally while sampling other species (Fig. 4). This can result in a lack of statistical power to make inferences regarding trends in populations. Finally, the information that is available tends to be housed locally with biologists and researchers and may not be found in peer-reviewed literature (Griswold 2006). These factors make it difficult to assess and track the health of CCT populations. However, the information needs are great. For example, since 1999 there has been a series of petitions for listing CCT under the Endangered Species Act and most recently a remanded decision by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit requests the US Fish and Wildlife Service to review their decision regarding the marine portion of the habitat for the anadromous form of CCT. Our Approach The CCT Interagency Committee has identified the need to gather and share information that would allow for the assessment of status and trends in CCT populations (Griswold 2006). Our long-term goal is to create a data framework where information about the distribution, abundance and diversity of CCT may be housed and shared. Given the magnitude of the project we have focused our initial data gathering efforts on documented occurrence. We have defined documented occurrence as a “sighting” of CCT which places trout at a documented location and time through an observation. The associated data fields include information on location, sample methods, date and time, agency or entity that collected the data, and other documentation and/or metadata. The sightings data compiled will be shared through StreamNet (www.streamnet.org) and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (www.gbif.org) In addition we have developed protocols to make the data gathering, sorting and archiving phase of the project efficient (Fig. 5). Our project will result in three products: 1) a searchable library housed within the StreamNet Library (www.streamnet.org, www.fishlib.org) with documents scanned, processed with OCR, and made available for immediate searching and download; 2) a database that initially focuses on documented occurrence; and 3) an interactive web-based map that captures documented occurrence throughout the geographic range of CCT. (See Fig. 6 for static example from pilot project.) The coastal cutthroat trout database project K.E. Griswold 1 , Stephen Phillips 2 , Tara Smith 2 , Michael Banach 2 , Van Hare 2 , David Lentz 3 , David Jepsen 4 , Jon Anderson 5 , Ron Ptolemy 6 , Roger Harding 7 , Grant Kirby 8 , Patrick Connolly 9 , Michael Hudson 10 , Bianca Streif 10 , Gordon Reeves 11 . For further information Please contact [email protected] or [email protected]. More information on this and related projects can be obtained at http://www.fws.gov/columbiariver/cctsym.html. Trotter, P.C. 1989. Coastal cutthroat trout: a life history compendium. Transaction American Fisheries Society, 118: 463-473. Literature cited Connolly, P. J., T. H. Williams, and R. E. Gresswell, editors. 2008. The 2005 coastal cutthroat trout symposium: status, management, biology, and conservation. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Portland, Oregon. Fish Commission of Oregon and Oregon State Game Commission. 1946. The Umpqua River Study, Joint Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 33 pages. Griswold. K.E 2006. Compilation of research and monitoring needs for coastal cutthroat trout throughout their distributional range. Final Report Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Figure 4. ODFW conducts snorkle surveys to monitor coho salmon (O. kisutch). CCT are included in the survey; however their similar appearance to juvenile rainbow trout (O. mykiss) makes accurate counts challenging. Photo by D. Jepsen ODFW. Figure 2. Sea-run (left) and resident (right) CCT differ in their appearance and size. There are considerable differences in their ecology and behavior as well (see Trotter 1989 for review). Photos by K. Griswold and D. Lange. Figure 3. CCT spawn in headwater streams such as the one pictured on the left. Resident forms live out their life cycle in small headwater streams. Fluvial, adfluvial and anadromous CCT need connected stream habitat to complete their life history. Anadromous forms require headwater to estuary and ocean environments (pictured below) in order to develop their “sea-run” characteristics including large sizes. Photos by G. Reeves. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture. “Very little is yet known about these fish and they have been rightly called the ‘problem child’ of the State Game Commission.” 1946 Oregon Game Commission Figure 1. Geographic distribution of coastal cutthroat trout. Photo by T. Cappiello, ADFG. Figure 5. Process for sorting, identifying content, and archiving documents. Documents with known locations are flagged for use in the documented occurrence dataset and GIS map product. Future Planning Initially, our project will result in map and data products. In the future we anticipate these products will serve as the scientific baseline for planning and management efforts. For example, in regions or watersheds where there is little or no information increased efforts may be necessary to gather data. In areas such as the Oregon Coast where there is monitoring for other salmonid species, there may be opportunities to include CCT with some increased resources. In the future the CCT Interagency Committee hopes to expand the project to include abundance and diversity, with diversity including genetic and life history diversity. It is our aim that the process provide the necessary information for conservation planning (Fig. 7). Figure 6. Coastal cutthroat trout distribution in Oregon and the lower Columbia Basin based on incidental observations in the Oregon Coast and directed monitoring by USFWS in Washington State. Range wide collaborative effort for conservation of CCT Science and information gathering Distribution Abundance Diversity Provisional status and trend assessment, Identify data gaps, develop range-wide priorities Develop conservation and monitoring plans, identify feedback loops Idaho State University 1 , Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2 , California Department of Fish and Game 3 , Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 4 , Washington Department of Fish and Game 5 , British Columbia Ministry of the Environment 6 , Alaska Department of Fish and Game 7 , Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 8 , US Geologic Survey 9 , US Fish and Wildlife Service 10 , US Forest Service 11 . Figure 7. Flow chart depicts process of conservation planning for coastal cutthroat trout (CCT). The CCT database project will supply information to assist in identifying range- wide priorities by providing geo-referenced data which can be used to develop status and trend assessments and develop future actions for conservation.
-
date post
15-Jan-2016 -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Introduction Coastal cutthroat trout (Onchorynchus clarkii clarkii) (CCT) are native to the Pacific...
IntroductionCoastal cutthroat trout (Onchorynchus clarkii clarkii) (CCT) are native to the Pacific Northwest and their geographicdistribution ranges from northern California to south central Alaska(Fig. 1). They are renowned for their varied life history strategies which include resident, fluvial, lake, and anadromous forms (Fig. 2).CCT occupy habitat ranging from the highest headwater reaches of streams to marine areas including estuaries and open ocean (Fig. 3). They are ecologically important and are sought after by sport anglers.
In 2005 a range-wide multi-agency effort (CCT Interagency Committee) began to create a framework for conservation that would benefit CCT at the local and range-wide scale. We describe here the CCT Database Project, developed by the CCT Interagency Committee to gather and share information that will help better manage and conserve CCT populations.
AcknowledgmentsWe thank PSMFC’s Stan Allen and Bruce Schmidt for guidance and support for this project. We thank Doug Young and Vicki Finn from USFWS for their support of the CCT Interagency Committee. Funding for the CCT Database Project comes from the Pacific State Marine Fisheries Commission Sport Fish Restoration Program. A Western Native Trout Initiative summer funds grant provided additional financial support. Kathryn Ronnenberg made the CCT distribution map.
Project NeedCurrently, there is a lack of information for assessing the status and trends of CCT populations at the local, regional and range-wide scale (Connolly et al. 2008). The complex biology of the trout and the perception that the subspecies is a low priority relative to other salmonids have made it difficult to gain knowledge through research and monitoring. Information regarding the subspecies is often gathered incidentally while sampling other species (Fig. 4). This can result in a lack of statistical power to make inferences regarding trends in populations. Finally, the information that is available tends to be housed locally with biologists and researchers and may not be found in peer-reviewed literature (Griswold 2006).
These factors make it difficult to assess and track the health of CCT populations. However, the information needs are great. For example, since 1999 there has been a series of petitions for listing CCT under the Endangered Species Act and most recently a remanded decision by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit requests the US Fish and Wildlife Service to review their decision regarding the marine portion of the habitat for the anadromous form of CCT.
Our ApproachThe CCT Interagency Committee has identified the need to gather and share information that would allow for the assessment of status and trends in CCT populations (Griswold 2006). Our long-term goal is to create a data framework where information about the distribution, abundance and diversity of CCT may be housed and shared. Given the magnitude of the project we have focused our initial data gathering efforts on documented occurrence.
We have defined documented occurrence as a “sighting” of CCT which places trout at a documented location and time through an observation. The associated data fields include information on location, sample methods, date and time, agency or entity that collected the data, and other documentation and/or metadata. The sightings data compiled will be shared through StreamNet (www.streamnet.org) and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (www.gbif.org)
In addition we have developed protocols to make the data gathering, sorting and archiving phase of the project efficient (Fig. 5).
Our project will result in three products:
1) a searchable library housed within the StreamNet Library (www.streamnet.org, www.fishlib.org) with documents scanned, processed with OCR, and made available for immediate searching and download;2) a database that initially focuses on documented occurrence; and 3) an interactive web-based map that captures documented occurrence throughout the geographic range of CCT. (See Fig. 6 for static example from pilot project.)
The coastal cutthroat trout database projectK.E. Griswold1, Stephen Phillips2, Tara Smith2, Michael Banach2, Van Hare2, David Lentz3, David Jepsen4, Jon Anderson5, Ron Ptolemy6, Roger
Harding7, Grant Kirby8, Patrick Connolly9, Michael Hudson10, Bianca Streif10, Gordon Reeves11.
For further informationPlease contact [email protected] or [email protected]. More information on this and related projects can be obtained at http://www.fws.gov/columbiariver/cctsym.html.
Trotter, P.C. 1989. Coastal cutthroat trout: a life history compendium. Transaction American Fisheries Society, 118: 463-473.
Literature citedConnolly, P. J., T. H. Williams, and R. E. Gresswell, editors. 2008. The
2005 coastal cutthroat trout symposium: status, management, biology, and conservation. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Portland, Oregon.
Fish Commission of Oregon and Oregon State Game Commission. 1946. The Umpqua River Study, Joint Report. Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 33 pages.Griswold. K.E 2006. Compilation of research and monitoring needs for
coastal cutthroat trout throughout their distributional range. Final Report Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Figure 4. ODFW conducts snorkle surveys to monitor coho salmon (O. kisutch). CCT are included in the survey; however their similar appearance to juvenile rainbow trout (O. mykiss) makes accurate counts challenging. Photo by D. Jepsen ODFW.
Figure 2. Sea-run (left) and resident (right) CCT differ in their appearance and size. There are considerable differences in their ecology and behavior as well (see Trotter 1989 for review). Photos by K. Griswold and D. Lange.
Figure 3. CCT spawn in headwater streams such as the one pictured on the left. Resident forms live out their life cycle in small headwater streams. Fluvial, adfluvial and anadromous CCT need connected stream habitat to complete their life history. Anadromous forms require headwater to estuary and ocean environments (pictured below) in order to develop their “sea-run” characteristics including large sizes. Photos by G. Reeves.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
“Very little is yet known about these fish and they have been rightly called the ‘problem child’ of the State Game Commission.”
1946 Oregon Game Commission
Figure 1. Geographic distributionof coastal cutthroat trout.
Photo by T.Cappiello, ADFG.
Figure 5. Process for sorting, identifying content, and archiving documents. Documents with known locations are flagged for use in the documented occurrence dataset and GIS map product.
Future PlanningInitially, our project will result in map and data products. In the future we anticipate these products will serve as the scientific baseline for planning and management efforts. For example, in regions or watersheds where there is little or no information increased efforts may be necessary to gather data. In areas such as the Oregon Coast where there is monitoring for other salmonid species, there may be opportunities to include CCT with some increased resources.
In the future the CCT Interagency Committee hopes to expand the project to include abundance and diversity, with diversity including genetic and life history diversity. It is our aim that the process provide the necessary information for conservation planning (Fig. 7).
Figure 6. Coastal cutthroat trout distribution in Oregon and the lower ColumbiaBasin based on incidental observations in the Oregon Coast and directedmonitoring by USFWS in Washington State.
Range wide collaborative effort for conservation of CCT
Science and information gathering
Distribution Abundance Diversity
Provisional status and trend assessment, Identify data gaps, develop range-wide priorities
Develop conservation and monitoring plans, identify feedback loops
Idaho State University1, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission2, California Department of Fish and Game3, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife4, Washington Department of Fish and Game5, British Columbia Ministry of the Environment6, Alaska Department of Fish and Game7, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission8, US Geologic Survey9, US Fish and Wildlife Service10, US Forest Service11.
Figure 7. Flow chart depicts process of conservation planning for coastal cutthroat trout (CCT). The CCT database project will supply information to assist in identifying range-wide priorities by providing geo-referenced data which can be used to develop status and trend assessments and develop future actions for conservation.
