Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Adult Summer Steelhead in Asotin Creek, Washington Ethan...
17
Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Adult Summer Steelhead in Asotin Creek, Washington Ethan Crawford and Michael Herr Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife © Joesph Tomelleri
-
Upload
wilfrid-day -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Adult Summer Steelhead in Asotin Creek, Washington Ethan...
Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Adult Summer Steelhead in
Asotin Creek, Washington
Ethan Crawford and Michael HerrWashington Department of Fish & Wildlife
© Joesp
h
Tom
elle
ri
Background• BPA funded RM&E project focused on
calculating VSP metrics outlined by McElhany et al 2000.
• Operating a juvenile trap since 2004, adult trap since 2005.
• Project is a product of all the efforts that preceded it; Asotin Creek Model Watershed, habitat projects (million$), etc.
NMFS funded Intensively Monitored Watershed began in 2008 (EcoLogical Research, Inc.)
Study Area
The Need• We needed a way to provide
estimates of spatial and temporal distribution in the tributaries.
-Index Redd surveys have been historically completed with LSRCP funding by Snake River Lab staff.
GOAL: To use PIT tag interrogation data to describe spatial and temporal distribution by tributary.
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80Historic Redd Data
Main
North
South
Charley
Spawn Year
Pro
port
ion
of
Sp
aw
ners
Data courtesy of Todd Miller and Joe Bumgarner, WDFW
Methods• Since 2010, all untagged wild adult
steelhead captured have been PIT tagged.
• Data are then entered into an MS Access database.
• Passive observations and interrogation data then merged and dumped into the project database.
Charley Creek (CCA)
Asotin Forks (AFC)
Results• We found that estimates of
escapement to the tributary are similar and at the very least no worse than redd surveys.T-test: In all instances we failed to reject H0: Redds=Fpit
60%22%
10%
8%Fpit Main
stem
NF
SF
CC
54%
24%
11%
10% Redds
Weir Timing
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
502010
Mainstem NF
SF CC
Undetermined
Capture Date
Nu
mb
er
of
Fis
h
Tributary Run Timing
25 48 71 94 1171401630
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
2010
25 45 65 85 105125145165
2011
25 45 65 85 105125145165
2012
25 41 57 73 89 1051211371530
0.20.40.60.8
11.2
2013
25 39 53 67 81 95 109123137151165
2014
Pro
port
ion
of
Ad
ult
s
Julian Date
Charley South Fork North Fork
Mai
nste
m NF SF CC
Mai
nste
m NF SF CC
Mai
nste
m NF SF CC
Mai
nste
m NF SF CC
Mai
nste
m NF SF CC
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
Mean Fork LengthFo
rk L
engt
h(m
m)
Mai
nste
m NF SF CC
Mai
nste
m NF SF CC
Mai
nste
m NF SF CC
Mai
nste
m NF SF CC
Mai
nste
m NF SF CC
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
Mean Fork LengthFo
rk L
engt
h (m
m)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1Charley NF SF Mainstem Undetermined
Spawn Year
Pro
port
ion
Male
Sex Ratio
Main NF
SF
CC
Main NF
SF
CC
Main NF
SF
CC
Main NF
SF
CC
Main NF
SF
CC
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 4.1 Unreadble Repeats
Perc
en
tag
e o
f A
du
lts
Age Composition
Conclusions• Using PIT tag observations to
document spatial and temporal distribution is effective and affordable for even the smallest projects.
• Though utility of PIT tag observations can be limited for the same reasons that redd surveys are.
• PIT tag data allows us a more detailed view of the spawning population and its attributes.
Questions?
