1 / 34

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Corvallis Research Laboratory

IMPACTS OF DAM AND RESERVOIR PASSAGE ON OUTMIGRATING JUVENILE HATCHERY CHINOOK SALMON: RESULTS FROM A PAIRED RELEASE STUDY IN THE UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN. Jason R. Brandt Thomas A. Friesen Marc A. Johnson Paul M. Olmsted Study Code JPL-11-02-MF and JPL-11-02-DET.

russellmary
Télécharger la présentation

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Corvallis Research Laboratory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IMPACTS OF DAM AND RESERVOIR PASSAGE ON OUTMIGRATING JUVENILE HATCHERY CHINOOK SALMON: RESULTS FROM A PAIRED RELEASE STUDY IN THE UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN Jason R. Brandt Thomas A. Friesen Marc A. Johnson Paul M. Olmsted Study Code JPL-11-02-MF and JPL-11-02-DET Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Corvallis Research Laboratory

  2. Objectives • Estimate the effect that passage through dams and reservoirs in the Middle Fork Willamette and North Santiam rivers has on outmigration success (relative detection rate) of juvenile hatchery Chinook salmon • Estimate the effect that passage through dams and reservoirs has on survivorship to adulthood for juvenile hatchery Chinook salmon • Useful ancillary data: movement and growth rates of juvenile hatchery Chinook salmon released above and below dams

  3. Study Area and Release Sites– MFW LOP FB Dexter TR LOP TR LOP HOR HCR

  4. Study Area and Release Sites – NS Minto TR Detroit FB Detroit HOR

  5. Hatchery fish used • One-time yearly releases • Major assumption: hatchery fish are phenotypically similar to naturally-produced fish entering the reservoirs (size, timing, behavior, condition, etc.) Tagging & Release

  6. Tagging & Release – MFW *200,673 CWT fish released in addition to PIT tags

  7. Tagging & Release – NS *75,069 total CWT fish released in addition to PIT tags

  8. PIT tags (2011-2019): • Outmigrants at Willamette Falls, detection efficiency <10% • Adults at Willamette Falls, detection efficiency 100% • Other researchers CWTs (2013-2017): • Fisheries, hatcheries, spawner surveys Detection & Recovery

  9. N=503 N=2,747 Outmigration Success– MFW N=201 N=534 N=15 N=600 N=1,331 N=453 N=468 N=132 N=383 N=27 N=13

  10. Relative Survival – MFW

  11. N=1,045 N=1,000 N=844 N=895 Outmigration Success– NS N=734 N=469 N=416 N=254

  12. Relative Survival – NS

  13. N=534 N=2,747 Z Z Movement Rate– MFW X Y Z N=15 N=503 N=201 N=383 N=453 N=132 N=1,331 N=468 N=600 N=27 W X Y Z Y Z Z Z N=13

  14. N=1,000 Y N=844 N=734 Movement Rate– NS Z Y Y Z N=1,045 N=895 Y Y Z N=254 N=416 N=469

  15. N=13 N=316 Z Z N=11 N=81 Z Y Y N=41 Growth– MFW N=195 Z Z Y Z Y Z X X N=273 N=9 N=271 N=50 N=19 N=332 N=79

  16. N=107 Y Z Z Growth– NS Y N=9 N=283 N=372 Z Z N=25 N=18

  17. MFW: 4 adult returns from 2011 releases (2TR, 2HOR), 7 adult returns from 2012 releases (2TR, 5HOR) • NS: 6 adult returns from 2012 releases (3TR, 3HOR) Juvenile to Adult Survival

  18. No surprises; in general fish released above projects: • Migrated slower to Willamette Falls=lentic environment and dam passage, reservoir fish usually delayed by month or longer • Grew faster than the tailrace group=conducive reservoir growing conditions, possible long term survival advantage? Key Points

  19. No surprises; fish released above projects: • Detected at a lower rate=consistent evidence of dam/reservoir impacts related to lower outmigration success; impacts appear to be greater in the MFW • Effect sizes for differences in detections between Dexter TR and LOP HOR: 2011= 2.5:1, 60% • 2012= 5.14:1, 80.5% • 2013= 3.4:1, 70.6% • 2014= 16.78:1, 94% • Effect sizes for differences in detections between Minto TR and Detroit HOR: • 2012= 1.17:1, 14.5% • 2013= 1.56:1, 36% • 2014= 1.64:1, 39% Key Points

  20. Acknowledgments • USACE - Rich Piaskowski, Greg Taylor, Todd Pierce, Doug Garletts, Chad Helms, Nathaniel Erickson et al. • ODFW – Dan Peck & staff, Greg Grenbemer & staff, Fred Monzyk, Jeremy Romer, Ryan Emig, Kelly Reis, Kirk Schroeder, Suzette Savoie • NOAA – Bill Muir (original concept) • Biomark, Inc. – PIT tagging • PSMFC – Tag recovery database • PGE – Interrogation facility

  21. Questions & Discussion http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ODFW/willamettesalmonidrme

  22. Stayton and Bennett– NS • 2014 NS releases detected: 2,976 TR, 744 FB, and 353 HOR • Also detected at Willamette Falls: 162 TR (5%), 137 FB (18%), 52 HOR (15%) • 2014 STW NS releases detected: 26 TR

  23. Anecdotal, but compelling case for substantial predation Fate • MFW: 124 mortalities avian predation • NS: 30 mortalities avian predation • MFW: 198 mortalities piscine predation • 158 from crappie • 18 from walleye • 11 from northern pikeminnow • 10 from largemouth bass • 1 from cutthroat trout

  24. Detections and Discharge– MFW

  25. Detections and Discharge– NS

  26. Effects of Dam Operations – LOP

  27. Effects of Dam Operations – HCR

  28. Effects of Dam Operations – Detroit

  29. Lookout Point Reservoir entry, naturally-produced Chinook (Romer et al. 2012) PIT 2011 (64 mm) PIT 2012 (62 mm) PIT 2013 (68 mm) PIT 2014 (74 mm) N=837 N=15

  30. Detroit Reservoir entry, naturally-produced Chinook (Romer et al. 2012) PIT 2012 (90 mm) PIT 2013 (65 mm) PIT 2014 (74 mm) N = 4,249 N = 27

  31. Movement Rate– MFW

  32. Movement Rate– NS

  33. Growth– MFW

  34. Growth– NS

More Related