EvaluationOfPotentialFishwheelSitesForCapturingKokaneeOnTheUpperColumbiaRiverNearGoldenBC

Evaluation of Potential Fishwheel Sites forCapturing Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) on the

Upper Columbia River Near Golden, BC

Prepared by

Michael R. Link

LGL Limitedenvironmental research associates

9768 Second Street,Sidney, Be V8L 3Y8

Prepared for

Canadian Columbia River Inter-TribalFisheries Commission7468 Mission Road,

Cranbrook, BC V1C 7E5

July 2001

EAJ410

Suitabilty of Fisliwlieel Sites for Kokanee on tlie Upper Columbia EA1410

Table of Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................. ....... 1

How Fishwheels Can Capture a Large Proportion of Migrating Fish ................................2

Methods....................................................................................................................... ........ 3

Results......................................................................................................................... ........ 4

General Observations .... ..... .......... ..... .... ..... ................ ............ .......... ..... ........ ............ ...... 4First Rock wall..... ...... ........ ..... ................................................................ ......... ............... 5Junction of the Bluewater........ ......... ................................................ ....... ....................... 5Main Canyon..... ............. ...... ...... ... ............... ............. ........... .............. ...... ......... ........ ...... 6Downstream of Main Canyon....... ............. ... ............. ....... ... ....... ...... ....... ..... .... ...... ........ 6

Conclusions and Recommendations ......... ...... ..... ........ ...... ..... ..... .......... ............. ........ ........ 7

References.................................................................................................................... ....... 9

Appendix A - Historical Catch Rates of the Nass River Fishwheels ............................... 12

Appendix B: Photos of a Nass River Fishwheel.............................................................. 13

Appendix C: Photos of Sites Surveyed on the Upper Columbia River, 21 June 2001. .... 14

LGL Limiied i


Introduction

The Canadian Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission (CCRlFC) is interestedin developing a long-term monitoring program to estimate the annual abundance of adultkokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the Upper Columbia River during the fall spawningmigration. These fish rear in Kinbasket Reservoir, and ascend the Upper Columbia River(near Golden, BC) each year in the late summer and early fall (August to October) tospawn in numerous tributaries. CCRIFC is also interested in developing means ofassessing other fish species in the Upper Columbia (e.g. bull trout, cutthroat trout, burbot,white sturgeon, and mountain whitefish). In addition to assessing migration timing,relative abundance and other parameters associated with these fish, CCRIFC would liketo selectively harvest a modest number of fish from the kokanee run.

The annual migration of adult kokanee from the Kinbasket Reservoir to their spawninggrounds provides an opportunity to use a robust and proven technique of estimatingabundance using mark-recapture methods. This methodology requires that a portion ofthe population be marked at one point and time and then, at a later time and place, aportion of the population is examined to determine the proportion of the populationpossessing marks. From these data, a population estimate of the number of fish to havepassed the tagging site can be derived. Fishwheels (Meehan 1 96 l; Donaldson andCramer 1 97 l; Link et aL. 1996) can capture a large portion of migrating fish in riverswithout harming the fish they capture. This feature makes fishwheels ideally suited foruse in two-event mark-recapture experiments to estimate the abundance of migratorysalmonids like kokanee.

Little is known of the distribution and abundance of other fish species in the UpperColumbia despite relatively significant local fisheries on these species and significantalterations to their habitat (reservoir draw down, logging, etc.). CCRlFC is interested inmonitoring inter-annual trends in the condition and, in some cases the abundance, ofspecies such as bull trout, cutthroat trout, burbot, white sturgeon and mountain whitefish.If successful, fishwheels can live capture a relatively large portion of these migrating fish(2 to 5% or more), making fishwheels ideally suited to assessing the abundance andbiological characteristics of these other species. Basic biological information and evenabundance estimates from these other species have been obtained concurrently withlarger salmon stock assessment programs using fishwheels elsewhere. Fishwheels canalso be used to capture fish for application of radio or sonic tags.

Personnel from LGL Limited have extensive experience using fishwheels for research,management and harvesting of Pacific salmon in river systems in Washington, BritishColumbia and Alaska. This experience with fishwheels and mark-recapture studies madeLGL ideally suited to evaluate the potential of this method for use with kokanee on theUpper Columbia. LGL Limited was contracted by CCRIFC to:

l) Travel to the area and spend a day on the river assessing potential fishwheel

sites the between the Kinbasket Reservoir and Donald, BC.

LGL Limited Pafle 1


2) Prepare a report on the feasibility of using a fishwheel for harvesting kokaneeand for stock assessment purposes on the Upper Columbia River, includingrecommendations regarding fishwheel design, location and operation.

How Fishwheels Can Capture a Large Proportion of Migrating Fish

The success of one or more fishwheels to capture a suffcient proportion (3 to 5%) ofmigrating adult salmonids on rivers such as the Upper Columbia depends on placing thefishwheel at a site where fish are concentrated well above the average fish density in theriver. In much of the Upper Columbia near Donald, the cross-sectional area of afishwheel basket wil represent about 1 % of the river's cross-sectional area (or "areaswept" during near-continuous operation). If kokanee at these sites were uniformlydistributed in the water column, there was no avoidance of the fishwheel by migratingfish and the fishwheel operated throughout the entire run without any downtime (allunrealistic assumptions), the best we could expect are fishwheel catch rates of less than1 % per fishwheeL. To illustrate a successful concentration effect, baskets on each ofthefirst four fishwheels used on the Nass River represent approximately 0.5% of the cross-sectional area of the river and yet the catch rates on chinook salmon have averaged 3.9%per fishwheel since 1994 (Appendix A). Clearly, at good fishwheel sites, fish are notuniformly distributed throughout the river's cross-sectional area.

In fast flowing rivers, fish tend to migrate close to the bottom or shore and avoid fastermoving water near the surface and the center of the river; presumably this is done in aneffort to minimize energy outlay for traveling a given distance upstream. In addition tominimizing energy expenditure, there are often areas where water velocities simplyexceed the sustained swimming speed of a fish, thereby precluding upstream migration.There are rules-of-thumb that can be used to predict which water velocities salmon wilprefer to travel and these can be used to predict the potential of diflerent fIshwheel sites.Salmon sustain cruising velocities of 2 body lengths per second for long periods andshort-term burst velocities of up to 4 or 5 body lengths or more per second. For a 30 cmkokanee, these speeds translate into 0.6 m/s for cruising and 1.2 to 1.5 rns for shoii-termbursts. Differences in maximum swimming speed among different size salmon mayexplain why fishwheels are often size selective with species such as chinook (Meehan1961, McPherson et aL. 1997, Link and Nass 1999), which usually have a wide range ofsizes within a return (40 cm to 120 cm), whereas fishwheels don't appear to be sizeselective across much nan-ower ranges of sizes (e.g., sockeye, 40-65 cm; M. Link,unpublished data).

Thus, good fishwheel sites are where river conditions necessitate that most fish mustmigrate close to shore (within a few metres of the bank) and be within the reach of thefishwheel baskets (from the surface to about 2 or 3 m below). Therefore, depth and flowprofiles are a useful diagnostic for evaluating fishwheel sites. Ideally, for targeting adultanadromous salmon, water velocities are high off shore (:: 2 m/s) and the depth andvelocity of the river at the site is sufficient for the fishwheel to turn, but not so deep thatfish migrating close to the bottom can escape beneath the fishwheeL. For kokanee, wewould consider water velocities of 1.5 m/s to be high (given their smaller body size).

LGL Limited Page 2


Other factors that may affect catch rates of fishwheels include fishwheel basket design,water turbidity and temperature, ambient noise, noise from the fishwheel and density ofmigrating fish. These factors generally relate to catch rate in that they affect the ability offish to avoid the fishing gear (i.e., they see or sense the fishwheel in time to escapecapture). The most important of these factors is probably water turbidity. Experiencewith fishwheels on only a few relatively clear-water systems suggests water turbidity mayplay an important role in good fishwheel catch rates (i.e., higher turbidity, better catchrates, when all else equal). Although these factors or variables may explain some of thevariation in catch rates among sites and river systems, and therefore should be measuredin order to predict or account for within- and among-year variation in catch rates, there isgenerally little that can be done to control them. It has been my experience that flow anddepth characteristics around fishwheel sites are the two most important factors toobtaining high catch rates.

Methods

A jet-boat survey of the area (Fig. 1) was conducted on 21 June 2001. Michael Link(LGL), Bill Green, Mark Tiley (CCRIFC) and Scott Cope (Westslope Fisheries;consultant) made the boat trip from the Kinbasket Reservoir near the Kinbasket Resort tothe highway bridge where Highway 1 crosses the river near Donald. An overview of allpotential sites was made during the upstream trip to Donald. We then drifted andDowered our wav downstream. stoDDing at thei D romising sites to obtain information on.l .l .- ...Jdepth, velocity, bathymetry, shoreline topography, and water turbidity and flowcharacteristics.

Soundings were made at each potential site with a depth finder and/or pike pole andvelocities were estimated by professional judgment and/or measuring the time floatingsticks took to travel 10m.

Criteria used to assess the suitability of sites included:

1) Sufficient depth to operate a fishwheel (2 to 3 metres);

2) Velocity to power a fishwheel and force fish to travel near shore (0.5 to 1.5rns);

3) Turbidity of water (more the better);4) Apparent fluctuation in river stage height (less the better);5) Bathymetry; and

6) Flow characteristics and exposure to floating debris.

Depth was deemed best when it would allow the fishwheel to fish near the bottom of theriver for as much of the season as possible. This of course depends on the depth of thefishwheel baskets and the ability to adjust the depth the fishwheel fishes. Given that afishwheel we would design for these sites could be made to fish as little as 2 m and asmuch as 3 m, the primary concern on this tour was that the site was at least 2 m duringlow flows and not more than 4 or 5 m during most of the season.

LGL Limited Paul' ~~ .-ö-' --


Bathymetry (bottom elevation contours) in the vicinity of potential fishwheel sites wasdeemed good when it would provide for fish to migrate up off the bottom and into thepath of the fishwheeL. This is best done when the water flow is not completely laminararound the fishwheel site. Upwelling sites are usually very productive and we suspectthat upwelling may prevent some fish from traveling beneath the stationary fishwheeL.Other bathymetric features that were examined were the presence of large boulders nearthe site that would improve the ability of the fish to swim around and beneath thefishwheeL.

Large variation in stage height (river depth) across the season will influence intra-seasonvariation in catch rates, which can confound or make analysis of mark-recapture datamore difficult and less precise (greater temporal stratification of data required). Largeand frequent variation in stage height also necessitates regular adjusting of fishwheelanchor lines and generally more maintenance than operating in stable flows.

Desirable flow characteristics include minimizing the side-to-side torsion on thefishwheel baskets and minimizing the exposure of the fishwheel to floating debris. Side-to-side torsion on the fishwheel significantly increases the wear and tear and increasesmaintenance and accompanying downtime. Damage to the fishwheel from floating sticksand logs can be avoided by placing the fishwheel in an area where the thalweg and themaj ority of floating debris travel past the site well offshore of the fishwheeL.

Results

General Observations

Water temperature was 12°C and river discharge was 280 cms or about 10,000 cfs(measured at the Donald gauging station at 1700,21 June; Bill Green, pers. comm.). Therecent historical mean discharge for 25 August is 255 cms and for 21 September is 130cms. Therefore, the conditions we saw were slightly higher discharge than the averagefor the start of a fishwheel project and about twice as high as the average flow toward theend of the anticipated fishing season. Visibility into the river was fair, with it possible tosee one's hand about 0.25 m beneath the surface of the water.

Much of this area we surveyed was too shallow to operate fishwheels near shore and inspots where it was sufficiently deep, the water velocity was often too low to power afishwheeL. More importantly, most sites appeared to offer little velocity offshore toconcentrate the migrating fish into a stationary fishwheel tethered adjacent to shore.

On a more optimistic note, at least four areas of the river appeared suitable and promisingfor using fishwheels to catch kokanee and other fish. Within each of these areas therewere one or more "sites" that may yield sufficient catch rates to make a stock assessmentproject viable. I have named these sites and described their potential for operatingfishwheels below. Photos of some ofthe sites are provided in Appendix C.

LGL Limited Pnao d~ ..ö- .


First Rock wall

This section of river is where the river makes a gradual right turn as the river flows upagainst a high rock outcrop on the river's left bank about 200 to 300 m upstream of theconfluence of the Bluewater Creek. The river velocity was sufficient to power fishwheelsand any fish traveling upstream on the river's left bank would certainly be near shoreenough to be in reach of the fishwheeL. Depth's at the upstream-most edge of the sectionwere 4.0 to 4.5 m and decreased to 1.0 to 2.0 m at the downstream end of the section.

The most significant drawbacks to this site were the flow characteristics. First, anydebris coming down the river would be driven up against the shoreline and into the pathof a fishwheel and side-to-side torsion on fishwheel baskets may be great. As a result,this may be a high maintenance site. Second, the river's right bank (opposite thepotential fishwheel sites) in this area was the inside of a bend with the characteristic sandbar and low river velocity. The majority of fish may migrate up this inside bank ratherthan swim up against the high velocity and turbulent left bank where a fish wheel wouldbe placed. Overall, at the time of the survey I ranked this site a "6 out of 10" for itspotential as a fishwheel site.

Junction of the Bluewater

At first look, this site appeared intriguing and a potentially productive fishwbeel site.The area is characterized by a rock outcrop on river right (Columbia River) opposite theconfluence of the Bluewater Creek. The Columbia turns left around this rock outcropand there is much turbulence and a small wave train near the center of the river. Thereappeared sufficient velocity and depth for a fishwheel along the rock walL. Any fishtraveling through this area would be very shore oriented and a fishwheel could probablydo well.

There were several apparent drawbacks to this site. First and most importantconsideration is that this site is at the Bluewater confluence - a tributary with a spawningrun ofkokanee. It is likely that Bluewater-origin kokanee would be more vulnerable tocapture in a fishwheel at this site than elsewhere, making it more difficult to obtain asystem-wide escapement estimate than if all stocks were equally vulnerable to captureand tagging. Second, the depth at these sites may become insufficient at low flows.Depths ranged from 1 to 4 m, with much of the area in the 2 to 3 m range. At low flows,these sites may be very shallow and a fishwheel would need to be moved well offshoreinto fast and turbulent water. The variable water depth suggests that boulders and/or rockoutcrops on the bottom of the river. As the water level dropped over the season, wewould expect this rough bottom to staii to "appear" in the path of the fIshwheel. Finally,there was a gravel bar just downstream of the rock wall, indicating that the water slowsvery quickly and the substrate is dynamic, making any long-term use of the site lesslikely than an area without moving and forming gravel bars. Overall, at the time of thesurvey I ranked this site a "3 out 10".

LGL Limited Page 5


Jvlain Canyon

Downstream of the confluence with the Bluewater Creek, the Columbia River flowsthrough a canyon with bedrock walls on both sides of the river (the only place in thesurvey area where this occun-ed). The river narrows and deepens through this canyon.River velocity increases to 2.0 to 2.5 rns in the narrowest paiis of the canyon. Weidentified several potential fishwheel sites in this area, with the majority being on theriver's right bank. The most promising sites were within 50 m upstream and downstreamof the entrance to the canyon on river right. Depth in these areas was often 3 to 5 m,there was sufficient velocity to power the fishwheels (0.75 to 1.5 m/s) and we can expectkokanee and other fish to be very concentrated nearshore as they travel through this area.There were additional sites farther downstream on river right but they were quite deep(15 to 20 m). Although velocity was sufficient at these deep sites on the date of thesurvey, we would expect velocities in September to be very low. There were severalpotential fishwheel sites on river left, but this bank was generally more exposed to debrisand high velocity than river right. At lower discharge levels, river left may be bettersuited to fishwheels.

The two best features of this canyon area were 1) the large number of potential sites withsufficient depth and velocity in a small area and 2) the velocity offshore (~ 1 to 2 m/s)was clearly sufficient to concentrate fish near the banks of the river. Having a largenumber of sites in close proximity is good because moving fishwheels more than a i 0011is often problematic. The biggest concern or potential drawback to Main Canyon area isthat velocities may reach low levels late in the season. Low velocity would affect catchrates in two ways - too little velocity will not turn the fishwheels and it may notencourage velocity-induced concentration offish nearshore. I could not accuratelypredict the change in velocity that might occur with decreasing discharge. Overall, Iranked this site "8 out of 10" on the day of the survey.

Downstream of Main Canyon

There were a several short sections of the river downstream of the Main Canyon that hadsufficient depth and velocity to operate a fishwheel. However, we did not survey thesesites closely. At this point in the survey, it appeared the Main Canyon was the mostpromising place to staii with locating fishwheels and then branch out from there. Manyof these downstream sites looked good at high flow (280 cms), but may not maintainsufficient velocity at low flows. Another potential drawback to these sites is that theywere usually opposite to banks with relatively low water velocity. The suitability ofthese types of sites wil depend heavily on the degree of bank fidelity that fish mayexhibit in this area. If there is little cross-river movement by fish, several of these placesmay produce good catch rates. Collectively, I ranked these sites as "7 out of 10" the dayof the survey.

LGL Limited Page 6

Suitabilty of Fisliwlieel Sites for Kokanee on tlie Upper Columbia EA141 0

Conclusions and Recommendations

Generally, I was encouraged and pleased to find as many potential fishwheel sites as weidentified during the 21 June survey. Water velocity offshore and depths near shore inseveral locations suggest that each fishwheel could be expected to capture at least 2-3%of migrating kokanee and possibly much higher percentage (5-15%). These catch rateswould make it possible to derive relatively precise estimates of the annual escapementwith as few as two fishwheels. Shoreline topography, water depth and related flow

characteristics suggest that productive and low maintenance fishwheel sites could beoperated during August and September of each year.

There are two uncertainties regarding forecasting the success of fishwheels to catchkokanee in this area:

1) Water levels and velocities during low-jow periods. The greatest uncertaintyin the prediction of successful fishing will be what happens to velocities anddepths at promising sites late in the season or in years with unusually lowflows. At these times, fish may be less concentrated near shore and it may bedifficult to find sites with sufficient depth like we saw during the 21 Junesurvey. This uncertainty will only be resolved by touring the site again duringlower flows typical of September.

2) Fish behavior and appropriate fishwheel design. Our experience with

fishwheels has been to capture adult anadromous salmon (35 to 130 cm) inlarge rivers with relatively large fishwheels. I am somewhat uncertain as tothe efficacy of a smaller fishwheel on a much smaller fish. In theory, weshould be able to catch an even higher proportion of a small-fish run than alarge- fish run. Small fish must migrate closer to shore than large fish andtherefore we expect them to be more concentrated near shore in high velocityareas than large fish. However, until we try fishwheels in this area, we cannotbe certain of this theoretical prediction. It is possible that kokanee migrate soclose to shore that they would swim beneath the nearshore pontoon (or insome other undesirable manner), thereby missing the fishwheel baskets andavoid being caught. Presumably, this is a technological challenge and couldbe overcome by modifying the fishwheel design.

Given the results from the site survey, I recommend that funding be pursued for a one-year feasibility study. This study should have two primary objectives:

1) Design and deploy two fishwheels in smaller versions of the traditional large-riverfishwheels used elsewhere in BC and Alaska.

2) Operate two fishwheels over a 5- or 6-week period at several sites in and nearbythe main canyon to capture and mark kokanee and assess catches of other fishspecies.

LGL Limited Page 7


In order to develop an appropriate design of fishwheel that could be successful atcatching kokanee, I recommend that two different sizes and designs of fishwheels bedeveloped (medium and small versions). The goal would be to find a design thatbalances cost-effectiveness and effciency.

From such a feasibility study, we could quickly learn how effective fishwheels could beon kokanee and we may be able to derive a population estimate in the first year.Alternative programs, like tinkering with a single fishwheel for a couple weeks mayprovide novel results like operating a smaller fishwheel to catch some fish but such aproject wil not likely answer the question "Can fishwheels and a mark-recaptureexperiment provide precise estimates of the annual abundance of kokanee and otherfish?" To answer this, we need crude estimates of catch rates (by re-sampling the runupstream for marked fish) and we need to operate over the entire season to see if thefishwheel wil work at low flows. In this situation the marginal benefit of a secondfishwheel is very large and the marginal cost to the project of operating one is relativelylow.

Clearly, the benefits of operating two fishwheels instead of one are substantiaL. Inaddition, operating two would greatly accelerate the learning process to determinewhether fishwheels will work in this area and for this application. The focus of afeasibility study should be to fish at several potentially productive fishing sites over theseason. With only one fishwheel to operate, it is difficult to make inferences on therelative merits of different sites because changes in catch between sites wil always beconfolUided with inter-day changes in actual abundance passing the site. For example, if

moving a single fishwheel to a new site results in a doubling of catch from one day to thenext, it is impossible to know whether this was due to twice as many fish moving throughthe area on the second day or due to the new site being a more effective site. Thisconfounding can be reduced or eliminated by leaving one fishwheel in the same spotwhile moving the second to new sites (an experimental "control").

A second upstream fishwheel will also help to obtain rough estimates of catch rates of thefishwheels by providing a recapture site separated in space and time from the lower site(very difficult to do with only one fishwheel). A feasibility study with a two fishwheelswill likely reduce the project development time from three to five years to as little as oneyear.

LGL Limited Page 8


References

Alexander, R.F., and M.R Linle 2001. The 1998 fishwheel project on the Nass River,BC. Can. Man. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2556: xi + 110 p.

Cappiello, T.A., and J.F. Bromaghin. 1997. Mark-recapture abundance estimate of fall-run chum salmon in the Upper Tanana River, Alaska, 1995. Alaska FisheryResearch Bulletin, 4 (1): 12-15.

Donaldson, i. J., and F. K. Cramer. 1971. Fishwheels of the Columbia. Binfords andMort, Publishers, Portland, Oregon. 124 p. (this book is excellent and stilavailable from the Publisher, Binfort and Mort, 503-844-4960)

Johnson, R.E., R.P. Marshall, and S. T. Elliot. 1993. Chilkat River chinook salmonstudies, 1992. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish,Fishery Data Series 93-50, Anchorage.

Gordon, J.A., S.P. Klosiewski, T.J. Underwood, and R.J. Brown. 1998. Estimatedabundance of adult fall chum salmon in the Upper Yukon River, Alaska, 1996.U.S. Fish and Wildife Service, Fairbanks Fishery Resource Office, AlaskaFisheries Technical Report Number 45, Fairbanl(s, Alaska.

Link, M.R 1999. The 1996 fishwheel project on the Nass River, BC. CanadianManuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2476: xi + 92 p.

Linl(, M.R, K.K. English, and RC. Bocking. 1996. The 1992 fishwheel project on theNass River and an evaluation of fishwheels as an inseason management andstock assessment tool for the Nass River. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.2372: x + 82 p.

Link, M.R, and K.K. English. 1996. The 1993 fishwheel project on the Nass River andan evaluation of fishwheels as an inseason management and stock assessmenttool for the Nass River. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2130: xi + 103 p.

Link, M.R, and A.C. Gurak. 1997. The 1995 fishwheel project on the Nass River, BC.Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2422: xi + 99 p.

Link, M.R., and RM. Peterman. 1998. Estimating the value of in-season estimates ofabundance of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.55:1408-1418.

Link:, M.R., and K.K. English. 1999. Creating a sustainable stock assessment programby integrating assessment, research and harvesting. Pages 667-674 in E.E.Knudsen, C.R. Stewart, D.D. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser,editors. Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific Salmon. Lewis Publishers,Boca Raton, Florida.

LGL Limited p(fP(~ 9O'

Suitability of Fisliwlieel Sites for Kokanee on tlie Upper Columbia EA1410

Linl.;, M.R., and B.L. Nass. 1999. Abundance of chinook salmon returning to the NassRiver in 1997. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences2475: xi + 64 p.

Link, M.R., R.F. Alexander, and AC. Blakley. 2001. The 1997 fishwheel project on theNass River, BC. Can. Man. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2555: xi + 100 p.

McGregor, AJ., P.A Milligan, and lE. Clark. 1991. Adult mark-recapture studies ofTaku River salmon stocks in 1989. Alaska Department ofFish and Game,Division of Commercial Fisheries, Technical Fishery Report 91-05; Juneau.

McPherson, S.A., D.R. Bernard, M.S. Kelley, P.A. Miligan, and P. Timpany. 1996.Spawning abundance of chinook salmon in the Taku River, 1996. AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Fishery Data Series 96-36, Anchorage.

McPherson, S.A, D.R. Bernard, M.S. Kelley, P.A Milligan, and P. Timpany. 1997.Spawning abundance of chinook salmon in the Taku River, 1996. AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Fishery Data Series 97-14, Anchorage.

Meehan, W.R. 1961. The use of a fishwheel in salmon research and management.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 90:490-494 p.

Pahlke, K.A., D.R. Bernard. 1996. Abundance of chinook salmon in the Taku River,1989 to 1990. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin, 3(1):9-20.

LGL Limited Page 10

'J

-')

I

:-1

,i

- j

~j

j

¡.J

'~..)

i,

J

i

J

J

j

Suitabilty of Fisliwlieel Sites/or Kokanee on tlie Upper Columbia EA1410

1l7'20'lW lIT1S'l"W 1ITlO'1"W

~~;;

;-J~ ~ ~~'~ r/''' \ \~) l\, c( '",_ )~.._t:: o~\- " '''.,'', \ .\..' ~.~ \ r¡.:/:,1,J.\." c..,,\)Y'i :1./"1" "'''\'"- À "" ", '\. ' "0 ~ ,¡:,", ,~n~, ,n. -, ~o :~~' (~ \ \)'b~, ì, ~;'):.(t-j\'~-l(i:r~--j~' . '- ' . i;W; ,f p.//'\ ~¡ '0)' ';-- rJ ,~ ", ;e"I;'h~~, L'I" ,t/-/' ~) ',' ~ :;-~ (~;; ~ ~i:rí.r r~~D ~ ~, Ì' ~ --~ 1.( i-Al''.r-// /.. ) ~ ";O'CO'V"1bl,~"~\\f(-'; '-

\ ' , '''"\''~l ) ~1f.;-'l'"

~ \~ %o+%~~ ~ (e:~~i~~~-

~~--~ _~l~~~4- '\ )£~ ì ~qr¡;aC\í\CRallway \Y'=j~) ~ ~r ), ~f '-

"\ T 0.) '=~r\~:- ~., -'0""" ., '\~\ ' ò0 0~ l# ") SV ~,,\0~ ',, ./ ~ \í \, i \ "\\ /' / )'v ~I/ 1 "' '" í( j ? ,,~

I ~ 0 1000 2000 3000 400 SOOO I ./ r r-/ ~- t" H H H i- i- Metres / ! /.f ./ \ I;~..

:)

lH20'1"W 117'15'1"W 117'0TW

Figure 1. Map of the Columbia River showing reach surveyed between Kinbasket Lake andDonald..

LGL Limited Pafle 11

Suitability of Fisliwlieel Sites for Kokanee on tlie Upper Columbia EA141 0

Appendix A - Historical Catch Rates of the Nass River Fishwheels

Table A-I. Estimated annual catch rates (% of the run captured) of the Nass River fishwhee1s(Fw) on chinook, sockeye and coho salmon, 1992-2000.

Chinook catch rates (%) Sockeye catch rates (%) Coho catch rates (%)Year Fwl Fw2 Fw3 Fw4 Fw5 Fw6 Total Fwl Fw2 Fw3 Fw4 Fw5 Fw6 Total Fwl Fw2 Fw3 Fw4 Fw5 Fw6 Total

1992 a 1. 0.8 2.1 1.0 0.3 1. 0.8 0.2 0.9

1993 b 1.8 0.7 2.5 1.1 0.6 1.7 0.9 0.8 1.1994 c 3.0 SA 2.9 11. 1.6 3.9 2.2 7.7 1.6 1.8 0.9 4.3

1995 d 3.2 4.8 IA OA 9.8 1.8 2.8 1.8 1.2 7.6 3.4 0.5 1.0 2.2 7.2

1996 c 2A 3.8 1.6 1.6 9A 2.7 3.9 2.1 lA 10.1 3.0 1.6 1.6 2.0 8.2

1997 f.g 5.1 5.9 3.5 4.1 18.6 1.8 3.3 2.9 2.7 10.7 3.8 2.5 1.6 ~ " 10.2.:..J

1998 h 1.4 3A 5.3 2.5 12.6 0.6 1. 2.6 1.8 6.2 3.1 0.9 1.6 3.3 8.9

1999 i 2.8 7.3 8.8 9.1 28.0 2.9 5.6 4.7 4.9 18.0 2.8 2.9 1. 2.9 9.9

2000 2.9 5.7 3.6 4.0 2.7 3.9 22.8 2.2 3.3 2.9 2.8 1.5 2.1 14.8 2A 1.6 1. 1A 3.0 2.2 11.9

92-00 Mean 2.7 4.2 3.9 3.6 2.7 3.9 1.8 2.8 2.7 2.4 1. 2.1 2.4 IA 1. 2A 3.0 2.294-00 Mean 3.0 5.2 3.9 3.6 2.7 3.9 2.0 3A 2.7 2.4 1. 2.1 2.9 1. 1.3 2.4 3.0 2.2

Per fishwheel avg., 94-00 3.9 2.6 2.1

Link, M. R., K. K. English, and R. C. Bocking. 1996. The 1992 Fishwheel Project on the Nass River and an Evaluation ofFishwheels as an In.season Management and Stock

Assessment Too! for the Nass River. Can. Mal111scr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. ScL 2372: x + 82 p.

Link, M. R., and K. K. English. 1996. The 1993 Físhwheel Project on the Nass River and an Evaluation of Fishwheels as an lnwseason l".fanagement and Stock

Assessment Tool for the Nass River. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2130: xi + 103 p.

Link, M. R., and K. K. English. 1997. The 1994 Fishwheel Project on the Nass River, Be. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2421: xi + 93 p.

Link, M. R., and A. e. Gurak. 1997. The 1995 Fishwheel Project on the Nass River, Be. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2422: xi + 99 p.

Link, M. R. 1999. The 1996 fishwheel project on the Nass River, Be. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2476: xi + 92 p.

Link, M. R., and B. L. Nass. 1999. Estimated abundance of chinook salmon returning to the Nass River, Be, 1997. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2475: x + 64 p.

g Link, M. R., R. F. Alexander, and A C. Blakley. 2000. The 1997 fishwheel project on the Nass River, Be. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2555: xi + 100 p.

Alexander, R. F. and M.R. Link. 2000. The 1998 fishwheel project on the Nass River, Be. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2556: xi + 110 p.

Alexander, R. F. 2001. The 1999 tishwheel project on the Nass River, Be. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. xxxx: xi + xx p.

LGL Limited Page 12

Suitabilty of Fisliwlieel Sites for Kokanee Oil tlie Upper Columbia EA 141 0

J

The river flows from right to left.

':;J

I.:....~\...~..,

=)

, 1

:~'''.'.V"¡.,';,I',:c

~

i:: i: ¡:~ =.~~¡;

~.

r.

l..

f ..

a.~

R.,;.:l.

~

, 1

¡i

tJ.,l

WJ

iJ

::$ rl ~,_.~.L";~. .. -r~

~.~

""II ","- ':~~

'"'" ::i:. :; !i==

:i,. :~~!.' ~ ~.'~¡¡ ..3 -~~ ~-,.~- -~

:; ~~ = ::,... = =~'I ~;;

i: ~"= :i

J~ _~ r:.._ ~_..-"

iCj; ~ .--

LGL Limited PaJle 13

Suitabilty of Fisliwlieel Sites for Kokaiiee Oil tlie Upper Columbia EA141 0

Appendix C: Photos of Sites Surveyed on the Upper Columbia River, 21 June 2001.

..-,

&;

~i¡I

I .:p~

i -l~-- ~~ ~.=' .;._.- -

~~

:",¡.'if "'j;1

',;,

I"~

:t'-:~~~h:'

,'~j

\.,'-

l~;

!i~; (":d:~!i ¡i..-¡

¡¡ "',~..):.;')

--._~.. _~ EJ

i: '-:-

~ Jrf,

il¡

¡~

'1~ IJ~

.il

J

Figure C-l. The First Rock Wall site looking upstream at the river's left bank. This wouldlikely be a high-maintenance site and may be limited by depth later in the season. Theopposite bank is the inside of a bend with low velocity and most of the fish may move upthat side instead of along this walL.

,'.; J"

LGL Limited Paf!e 14

. i

Suitabilty of Fisliwlieel Sites for Kokanee oil tlie Upper Columbia EA 141 0

-'j

,

:: ~ ~~lt-n.15t:

~l

c 1

r~t.'/

!.¡~

"1

i:~

lL'w

t....

~ ~r

I

~

~I~ìj -(.\1~

;r.I'"'

'~~

Ì!,,'"¡¡

~ l '"

~,

'J" i,

i.'

i: d -: -r: "-' ~.. ~ --..ri ~~-- ~~

~ "- ", O:'" -, =-

~

~

..

, " '1Q"' ,e;è ~~..~ "'U!~:.;¡ l ~, - "" I ~.~Figure C-2. The BluewaterJunction site looking downstream toward river's left bank.

"'j:

J

Figure C-3. Looking upstream at the BluewaterJunction site. The First Rock Wall (Fig.C-l) can be seen in this photo upstream in the distance a few hundred metres away.

T,GT, Umited Pave 15

Suitabilty of Fisltwlteel Sites for Kokanee on tlte Upper Columbia EA 141 0

r-J

~

1':"1f,"'J

¡.:"=

~-¡,'

~. i~:l;~ ,----~." ~~"~- y:.~--~ - _, oi

.. -- ,~-'.. ....~ ~

','"i;¡\.

G)~~

r~r:t~.~,

~,

El~'

~,;i~j

l ¡;,~,~~;

r

L

r~¡,'- i. '.

Il;

~h.

clf;~

~~\01

'"~.

~J

'~'", - ."~. "~. ... k.-. '..

.~'1 ' i: D~' _ ~.'... ii~

~'Òt"~

"i.~ P- "'

~-..II ~

i; iC ;l:! ~

'I ~I' '"

"'

Figure C-4. Looking downstream at the entrance to the Main Canyon. The boat wake isin the foreground. Potential fishwheel sites are just downstream of each of the rockpoints-of-land seen in this photo. The uppermost part of river right visible in this photo isthe same point as the lower end of the rock face seen in Fig. C-5.

J

. j


Suitabilty of Fisliwlieel Sites for Kokaiiee oil tlie Upper Columbia EA141 0

~,..

k..l':(",I,f":.:'~ .

,"Ji ;:~.L

, J

'l

r'~;¡i :;~~.~ iJ

:~l,J

f~'r:~lv:.

I:)IEj

'..

J

i

Figure C-5. The rock wall immediately above the entrance to the Main Canyon. ScottCope (fore) and Bil Green (aft) are in the boat. Much of this wall appears promising andwould suit a fishwheel able to fish in 2.0 to 2.5 m of water. Fish would be nearing the endof their ascent of the canyon by this point and may be very bank oriented.



':-1

o:~~ ~. ~ '" - E- _",___ ~..~.~- :,F~.-~~,_-.P:=:~, ~.~~. _ _~ _ _, '-'-~~""o- h'-C,~ ~- ~ -

~ ~ ~ '; ~ ~ -, ~~ ~~;.," ~~:~--¿ --- I:~:;:; =-

..- ~ 0.,_ - ~.._.,~ t. ~

.~~ ~~~~~ .~~

il

,L__ .. :i ¿.

ij

Figure C-6. Looking upstream at the river's right bank at the entrance to the MainCanyon. The upstream-most rock wall is that seen in Fig. C-5. Scott Cope piloting theboat. Except for potential debris problems and excess water velocity, the point ofland inthe center of the photo (with an eddy line trailing downstream) may be an ideal fishwheelsite. The rock wall in C-5, which is just upstream of this point would probably be betterthan this point of land.

J'j

LGL Limited Pa!!e 18

Suitabilty of Fisliwlieel Sites for Kokaiiee 011 tlie Upper Columbia EA 141 0

J

~. .: ~.. ~.~ '" ~""~'...,.~~""~

-1

r "1

:",j

. ~ ~~=~.iõ

:~ ~.

~- ~)~. ~.:'." ..

:l " ~. " ~ .~

i-i'"

~.. .... ..~ ¿_e-¡;~~'í' ~ ~K~ -r ~ ~

: 'J Figure C-7. Looking upstream from midway inside the Main Canyon. The faiihest pointupstream on the bank of river right (left side of this photo) is also in Fig. C-6, C-5 and C-4. The point ofland in the foreground on left side of photo (river right) was deemed notgood during the survey, because the water velocity was too high. At low flows, this maybe more suitable.

¡J

i',j

¡

.J


Suitabilty of Fishw/ieel Sites for Kokanee on the Upper Columbia EA 141 0

-i

!",.J~:';"'.

J ~

,,'"'-='.-~' i!':" -' . -= ": _ '- _- - ._..~::; ~ -_;7.~~ ~ ~ -", 1___ l~ .,ç _ """~., -- =-_ ~~ ..- j

";'_ ~ ¡¡~,W'~~~~'~c'!'".? ~ ;t=r ~ . -0- . - - ~~~~,.a :: i:~ - - .. -e .. - _ ~ IS",i!:i..;¡ ~~ i:~ ¡; r ~.." - ~- ~-~"j~ ~ .." Q~ !' '" !I I: .." .. .

~,. ~ i- ~~ :o ~ ff:' ~ ~ "' r;P.

~~

~ ~

i;i;

(.;;'1

t,~

~""::.. C'

q ,.

'. ~ ~;¡

II~ir;¡

r'.1

(iok: ai 2 :.. .. I'¿j ii~ "" .~ ~~ ~.;~ __ - :-,~..~~~-€~~:eÀøR

~

fI .ç, ~

F..r;B.¡','¡"

L~j1-. Figure C-8. Looking upstream at a rock wall on river right at the lower end of the Main

Canyon. The water depth off this wall on river right was 15 to 21 m and is probably toodeep for an effective fishwheel site unless kokanee are more surface oriented thananadromous salmon. The river's left bank at the entrance of the canyon is the uppermost

point ofland seen on the right side ofthis photo.

1'.1:1

Uti

~lj.~£

""J.

I"',

L

J


EvaluationOfPotentialFishwheelSitesForCapturingKokaneeOnTheUpperColumbiaRiverNearGoldenBC

Documents

Transcript of EvaluationOfPotentialFishwheelSitesForCapturingKokaneeOnTheUpperColumbiaRiverNearGoldenBC