In-Stream PIT-Tag Detection of Resident Salmonids in Washington's White Salmon River Watershed: One System ’ s Saga. Ian G. Jezorek 1, Patrick J. Connolly 1, and Earl F. Prentice 2 1 Western Fisheries Research Center, Columbia River Research Laboratory, Cook, WA 2 National Marine Fisheries Service, Manchester Research Center, Manchester, WA U.S. Department of the Interior U.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: Objective Assess connectivity of Northwestern Lake with mainstem White Salmon River and its tributaries

Mainstem Northwestern Lake 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-thru Downstream: Pass-by

Two Transceivers One per Antenna Destron-Fearing 1001-A, 24V DC

December 14, 2001 High Water Challenge Bye, Bye, pass-thru!

Pass-thru blew out on 14 December because of high water we could not redeploy until 11 March Pass-thru cable was pulled out 12 May reconnected the cable on 28 May 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 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 antennas for a total of six. Two pivoting-pass-thru and four pass-by. Should the pass-thru antennas blow out we still have four pass-by antennas in the water. When we connected the fifth and sixth antennas, our read ranges crashed. Why????

Rattlesnake Cr. Indian Cr. White Salmon River PIT-Tagging Sections *

Number of PIT tags deployed by section by year and number of detections at in-stream site through 1 December ________________________________________ Section ____________________________________________ Year L. Ratt. Ind. Cr. U. Ratt. L. White Sal. U. White S. _____________________________________________________ , Total , Detections _____________________________________________________

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 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 White Salmon River

Rattlesnake Creek Indian Creek White Salmon River Fish 0ADE – tagged in lower Rattlesnake Creek on 15 October 2002 (fork length 95 mm). Interrogated going downstream on 23 May Recaptured in the White Salmon R. on 28 October 2003, off the mouth of Rattlesnake Creek (fork length 195 mm).

White Salmon River Rattlesnake Creek Indian Creek Fish 22CA tagged in Indian Creek on 2 November 2001 (fork length 102 mm). Interrogated going downstream on 27 May Interrogated going upstream on 11 December 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 Allen Brian Beardsley Jodi Charrier Joe Feldhaus Kyle Martens Brien Rose Sarah Rose Chris Schafer