in-stream pit-tag detection of resident salmonids in washington's white salmon river watershed:...

In-Stream PIT-Tag Detection of ResidentSalmonids in Washington's White Salmon

River Watershed: One System’s Saga.

Ian G. Jezorek1, Patrick J. Connolly1,and Earl F. Prentice2

1Western Fisheries Research Center, Columbia River Research Laboratory, Cook, WA

2National Marine Fisheries Service, Manchester Research Center, Manchester, WA

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

White Salmon R.

Condit Dam

Detector Site

Rattlesnake Cr.

*Indian Cr.

Funded by:

Bonneville Power Administration

WDFW

Assess Current and Potential Salmonid Production in

Rattlesnake Creek Associated with Restoration Efforts

White Salmon River (WA)

Habitat use and life history characteristics of rainbow trout in the White Salmon River above Condit Dam

Funded by:

ObjectiveAssess connectivity of Northwestern Lake with mainstem White Salmon River and its tributaries

Mainstem

NorthwesternLake

Tributaries

White Salmon

watershed_________

How do fish use the system?

Life history patterns?

Which fish move?

Environmental cues?

During August 2001, we installed two in-stream antennas and two transceivers.

Upstream: Pass-thruDownstream: Pass-by

Two Transceivers

One per Antenna

Destron-Fearing

1001-A, 24V DC

December 14, 2001High Water Challenge

Bye, Bye, pass-thru!

Pass-thru blew out on 14 December 2001.

- because of high water we could not redeploy until 11 March 2002.

Pass-thru cable was pulled out 12 May 2002. - reconnected the cable on 28 May 2002.

Three and a half months of down time for the pass-thru antenna! - the down time potentially negates any benefit from scanning more of the water column.

What to do?

On 10 June 2002, we deployed a pivoting antenna.

Now we are ready for high water?

31 January 2003, Uh oh!

Pivoting pass-thru antenna is down until 1 April 2003.

Both pass-thru antenna designs have blown out and resulted in large amounts of down time.

What to do?

How about?

Deploy more antennas…more, more, more!!

1 Transceiver

for 4 Antennas !

Destron-Fearing

Multiplexer

24V DC

On 15 May 2003, we installed a multiplexing system with four antennas.

Upstream Downstream

(pivoting) (tied down)

On 4 November 2003, we added two new antennasfor a total of six. Two pivoting-pass-thru and four pass-by.

Should the pass-thru antennas blow out we still havefour pass-by antennas in the water.

When we connected the fifth and sixth antennas, our read ranges crashed.

Why????

Rattle

snak

e Cr.

Indian Cr.

WhiteSalmonRiver

PIT-Tagging Sections

*

Number of PIT tags deployed by section by yearand number of detections at in-stream site through 1 December 2003.________________________________________

Section ____________________________________________ Year L. Ratt. Ind. Cr. U. Ratt. L. White Sal. U. White S._____________________________________________________2001 190 30 351 15 49 2002 170 73 528 92 34 2003 238 96 1,071 96 0

Total 598 199 1,950 203 83

Detections 47 5 3 20 0 _____________________________________________________

07/01/01 11/01/01 03/01/02 07/01/02 11/01/02 03/01/03 07/01/03 11/01/03

Sta

ge

He

igh

t (F

ee

t)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Rattlesnake Cr. migrants n = 55

White Salmon migrants n = 20

System down Pass-thru antenna out

Detections through time

Fish D1F3 – tagged in the White Salmon R. on 12 September 2001

about 200 m below the mouth of Rattlesnake Creek (fork length = 204 mm).

Interrogated in Rattlesnake Creek from 9 April – 15 May 2002.

Recaptured on 15 August 2002, in the White Salmon R. about 200 m

below the mouth of Rattlesnake C. (fork length 221 mm).

Rattlesnake Creek

Indian Creek

WhiteSalmonRiver

Rattlesnake Creek

Indian Creek

WhiteSalmonRiver

Fish 0ADE – tagged in lower Rattlesnake Creek on 15 October 2002 (fork length 95 mm).

Interrogated going downstream on 23 May 2003.

Recaptured in the White Salmon R. on 28 October 2003, off the mouth of Rattlesnake Creek (fork length 195 mm).

WhiteSalmonRiver Rattle

snake Creek

Indian Creek

Fish 22CA tagged in Indian Creek on 2 November 2001 (fork length 102 mm).

Interrogated going downstream on 27 May 2002.

Interrogated going upstream on 11 December 2002.

Interrogated going downstream on 9 May 2003.

Detection Efficiency, Two Antenna System

Fish Going Downstream

___________________________

Antenna High flow Low flow

(n=15) (n=31)

____________________________

1st 60% 80%

2nd 23% 76%

Both 69% 95%

____________________________

Detection Efficiency, Two Antenna System

Fish Going Upstream

___________________________

Antenna High flow Low flow

(n=4) (n=7)

____________________________

1st 100% 100%

2nd 50% 71%

Both 100% 100%

____________________________

Our Findings

Detection efficiency appears acceptable, but true accuracy unknown and difficult (impossible?) to assess.

As is, our detection system is efficient enough to provide adequate sample size for assessing life history patterns in a relatively cost-effective way.

Factors for non-detection confounding- Each antenna is unique

(construction, location, noise)- Water depth over antenna- Channel shape: passage routes change- Ambient noise changes

Confirmed use of Rattlesnake Creek by resident trout from the White Salmon River, including repeat spawners.

Some White Salmon trout enter Rattlesnake Creek in early winter.

Is Rattlesnake Creek preferred overwinter habitat or is there winter spawning?

Trout from Rattlesnake and Indian creeks leave Rattlesnake Creek and enter the White Salmon River.

How large is Rattlesnake Creek’s contribution to the trout population in the White Salmon River?

Do trout that leave Rattlesnake Creek come back to spawn there?

The USGS Crew

Brady AllenBrian Beardsley

Jodi CharrierJoe FeldhausKyle MartensBrien RoseSarah Rose

Chris Schafer