34unproductive or oligotrophic stream. Thus, a minimum <strong>of</strong> 40-50 fry per 100 m 2 are likelyrequired to saturate cutthroat habitat in fertile streams with prime cutthroat parr habitats.As part <strong>of</strong> the Oregon Plan for Salmonids and <strong>Watershed</strong>s, Satterthwaite (2002) reviewedtrout survivals and concluded that 50 fry per 100 m 2 and 10 age 1+ parr per 100 m 2 aresuitable targets in Oregon, which were values in the upper range <strong>of</strong> the reviewedliterature. This included data from Oregon, W<strong>as</strong>hington and BC sources, whereby mostdensities were in the low end <strong>of</strong> the above ranges for both age cl<strong>as</strong>ses (Satterthwaite2002).1+ <strong>Cutthroat</strong> Parr Abundance4000035000Cutthraot 1 + Parr Abundance3000025000200001500010000500000 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000<strong>Cutthroat</strong> Fry AbundanceFigure 9. Asymptotic relation between abundance <strong>of</strong> 1+ parr and the abundance <strong>of</strong>cutthroat trout fry (from comparison <strong>of</strong> year cl<strong>as</strong>ses abundances) from <strong>Lower</strong> <strong>Mainland</strong>streams (n = 36) (data from DeLeeuw and Stuart 1980).Accordingly, given that BC streams are typically cooler and more oligotrophic, theOregon “benchmark” densities <strong>of</strong> juveniles are apt to be high except for the moreproductive nutrient-rich streams. As “interim benchmarks” <strong>of</strong> densities in “healthystreams” in south co<strong>as</strong>tal BC, the minimum benchmark (or target) densities are similar tosteelhead streams:• 20 fry per 100 m 2 in oligotrophic (unproductive) streams;• 40 fry per 100 m 2 in productive streams;• 6 parr per 100 m 2 in oligotrophic streams; and• 10 parr per 100 m 2 in productive streams.
35The strong impact <strong>of</strong> productivity differences, <strong>as</strong> roughly indicated by conductivity orTDS or alkalinity, can be readily discerned from Figure 7 (R. Ptolemy pers. comm.2005). High productivity cutthroat streams with prime rearing habitat support 50 juvenilecutthroat per 100 m 2 <strong>of</strong> stream area, where<strong>as</strong> unproductive (or oligotrohic) streamssupport only 10 juvenile cutthroat per 100 m 2 .However, it should be noted that these estimates are for cutthroat streams and notsteelhead-dominated cutthroat streams. For example, if >25 % <strong>of</strong> trout are steelhead orrainbow trout, these “interim benchmarks” should not be utilized, which is similar toguidelines provided by Satterthwaite (2002). The average cutthroat smolt yield <strong>of</strong> 3.3 per100 m 2 from Gobar Creek in W<strong>as</strong>hington State may also provide a useful average metricfor cutthroat smolts, although an average <strong>of</strong> 2.7 steelhead smolts per 100 m 2 (with greaterparr numbers) is also produced from this moderately productive stream. These fry andparr targets are applicable to south co<strong>as</strong>tal BC and account for density dependence, ratherthan using a single high benchmark <strong>as</strong> in Oregon, where waters are generally more fertile.Some smolt data is available from counting fence operations at two <strong>Lower</strong> <strong>Mainland</strong>streams. However, actual stream are<strong>as</strong> that produce resident cutthroat versus sea-runcutthroat are only roughly known. Thus, production estimates per unit area or length <strong>of</strong>streams that produce both species are unreliable and not instructive for managementpurposes. For example, the smolt yield <strong>of</strong> cutthroat trout from the highly productiveLittle Campbell River in 1983 w<strong>as</strong> 1.1 per 100 m 2 (57 g/100m 2 ) <strong>of</strong> total wetted habitat or54/km, but cutthroat production is mainly from tributaries and headwater are<strong>as</strong>.Corresponding steelhead smolt yield, which dominate the mainstem, is far greater, or 8.5smolts per 100 m 2 (395 g/100 m 2 ) or 427/km. Smolt data is more recently available forthe nearby Salmon River, but the cutthroat habitat area is unknown.4. PRIMARY THREATS TO COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUTIt is beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> this report to provide a comprehensive review <strong>of</strong> specific p<strong>as</strong>thabitat impacts and threats. However, habitat management and restoration activitiesdepend upon knowledge <strong>of</strong> the impacts <strong>of</strong> human activities on cutthroat habitats. P<strong>as</strong>thabitat impacts at cutthroat streams in the <strong>Lower</strong> <strong>Mainland</strong> Region have primarilyresulted from forest harvesting, agriculture, and urbanization. Forestry and agriculturalimpacts <strong>as</strong> well <strong>as</strong> additional impacts <strong>of</strong> p<strong>as</strong>t hydroelectric and highway developments areless likely to be repeated <strong>as</strong> detrimentally. However, human population growth isadvancing rapidly in the Pacific Northwest and particularly in the <strong>Lower</strong> <strong>Mainland</strong>Region <strong>of</strong> BC. Thus, urbanization is considered the greatest current threat to the smallstream habitats that co<strong>as</strong>tal cutthroat trout require for spawning and rearing.4.1. Forest Harvesting ImpactsForestry impacts on small cutthroat streams are described in detail in Slaney and Martin(1997) and more recently in Rosenfeld (2000). Downward trends in abundance <strong>of</strong>cutthroat trout after clearcut logging were evident from two long-term watershed studies,including the Alsea study <strong>of</strong> Needle Branch Creek and Carnation Creek, although there