9710 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

404 CONNOLLY ET AL. Canada " r,m.------ 5""-. \ '--..~ '\ 1 \ \ ~.:\" t k.........,_ FIGURE I.-Locations of Rattlesnake and Beaver creeks, where PIT tag interrogation systems were evaluated, the overall efficiency of detection predicated on having at lea~t two antennas in an upstream-downstream location. Because our PIT -tagged populations of fish were not all actively migrating fish, we developed a protocol with criteria to maximize inclusion of actively migrant fish and to minimize inclusion of fish exhibiting partial passage behavior. The information we present about these systems should serve as a guide for future designs and should be relevant to a wide variety of other equipment (e.g., other kinds and sizes of PIT tags, and orher methods that mark and recapture individually identified fish). Study Area We tested the efficiency of our in stream PIT tag interrogation systems in two streams. Both streams are located within the Columbia River basin, with Rattlesnake Creek in south-central Washington's White Salmon River watershed and Beaver Creek in north-central Washington's Methow River watershed (Figure 1). Rattlesnake Creek is a third-order stream that drains westward into the White Salmon River at river kilometer (rkm) 13.8 (near Husum, Washington), which iri turn enters the ColwlIbia River at rkm 271. The Rattlesnake Creek watershed is 143 kIT? and ranges in elevation from 114 to 927 m. The antennas were placed in a stream section about 30 m long and consisting of medium gradient riffle and pocket water. Wetted width varied from 4.5 to 14 m. Bankfull width averaged 9 m at the antenna sites. Base flow thalweg depth at the antennas was 18-28 cm. The substrate was primarily large cobble and small boulder (15-80 cm diameter). The salmonids in this stream included rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss and coastal cutthroat trout O. clarkii. \ \ 1- ,Q. \~ II Beaver Creek is a third-order stream that drains westward into the Methow River at rkm 57 (just south of Twisp, Washington), which in turn enters the Columbia River at rkm 843. The Beaver Creek watershed is 179 km2 (USFS 2004) and ranges in elevation from 463 to 1,890 m. The antennas were deployed in a stream section about 24 m long and consisting of the tail-out of a shallow pool and low gradient riffle. Wetted width varied from 5.3 to 6.2 m. Bankfull width averaged 9 m at the antenna sites. Ba~e flow thalweg depth at the antennas ranged from 5 to 39 cm. The substrate was primarily gravel and cobble, The stream supported both anadromous salmon ids (primar- ily steelhead [anadromous rainbow trout] but also Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha and coho salmon O. kisutch) and nonanadromous salmonids (westslope cutthroat trout O. clarkii lewisi, bull trout Salvelinus conjluentus, and brook trout S. fontinalis). Methods As part of larger studies, we PIT-tagged. fish in Rattlesnake and Beaver creeks to investigate their life histories, habitat use, and response to restoration. For comparisons of PIT tag detection efforts in Rattlesnake Creek and Beaver Creek watersheds, we used fish that were inserted wirh 12.5-mm-long X 2.I-mm-diameter, full-duplex PIT tags (134.2 kHz). The small size of these tags allowed tagging of juvenile salmonids with fork lengths as small as 70 mm. Another important reason we used these particular tags is that the PIT- tagged fish could be detected at other existing interrogation systems throughout the Columbia River basin, including many of the main-stem danlS (Muir et at. 200la; Axel et al. 2005; Burke and Jepson 2(06). Tagging in Rattlesnake Creek.-From 2001 to 2005, we tagged 4,255 rainbow trout and cutthroat trout (fork length [FL]: range = 70-415 mm, mean = 125 mm, median = 118 mm, SD = 34.2) in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed. Most of rhese fish were PIT-tagged within rhe 1.1 km of Rattlesnake Creek upstream of the detector site, although some were tagged up to 14 km upstream. We also tagged 356 trout (FL: range = 82-490 mm, mean = 213 mm, median = 204 mm, SD = 68.8) in rhe 3-km section of the White Salmon River downstream from the Rattlesnake Creek contluence. Rainbow trout (n = 4,062) made up the majority of the tagged trout (88%). Trout in Rattlesnake Creek were captured by elcctrofishing during spring, summer, and fall. Trout in the White Salmon River were captured primarily by angling during summer, with some captured by electrofishing. All tagging was done by hand following protocols outlined by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (1999). Because PIT tag technology advanced during our