Taneum Creek Coho/NTT Interactions

Gabriel Temple

Domestication

01020304050607080

Per

cent

sur

viva

l

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Predation

HSN

Dominance

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Sum

dom

inan

ceS(SvN)H(HvS)H(HvN)

Objectives

Natural ProductionNatural Production Is Taneum Creek a good place for Coho?Is Taneum Creek a good place for Coho?

Ecological InteractionsEcological Interactions How will trout respond to naturally produced coho? How will trout respond to naturally produced coho? Will increased coho natural production have any Will increased coho natural production have any

negative effects on resident trout (growth or negative effects on resident trout (growth or abundance) or will the nutrient benefits from stocking abundance) or will the nutrient benefits from stocking (carcasses) outweigh any potential negatives?(carcasses) outweigh any potential negatives?

Possible Outcomes

Combined biomass may increase with the Combined biomass may increase with the addition of cohoaddition of coho

Combined biomass may remain the same if Combined biomass may remain the same if coho biomass replaces trout biomasscoho biomass replaces trout biomass

Combined biomass may decrease if trout Combined biomass may decrease if trout biomass is decreased as a result of coho biomass is decreased as a result of coho introduction and coho are less efficient at introduction and coho are less efficient at utilizing resourcesutilizing resources

Coho Stocking

Annual Redd Distribution

Natural Production

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

TAN 1 TAN 1.5 TAN 2 TAN A

Fis

h/km 2008

2009

PIT Tagged Smolts Fall 2008- PIT tagged 1300 Taneum cohoFall 2008- PIT tagged 1300 Taneum coho Fall 2009- PIT tagged 1870 Taneum cohoFall 2009- PIT tagged 1870 Taneum coho

Ecological Interactions

Track changes in RBT abundance and Track changes in RBT abundance and biomass - BACIbiomass - BACI

Monitor growth of PIT tagged RBT in areas Monitor growth of PIT tagged RBT in areas with and without coho productionwith and without coho production

Track changes in total combined biomass of Track changes in total combined biomass of salmonids - Ecological Efficiencysalmonids - Ecological Efficiency

Determine utilization of carcass materialDetermine utilization of carcass material

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Fish/km

Delta

Resident Trout Data - BACI

0

5

10

15

20

251997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Bio

mas

s (k

g/km

)

Delta

Abundance

Biomass

Trout Instantaneous GrowthLength

00.00020.00040.00060.00080.001

0.00120.00140.0016

Treatment Control

Gro

wth

(F

L;

mm

/day

)

Weight

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

Treatment Control

Gro

wth

(wt;

g/d

ay)

Biomass

0

5

10

15

20

25

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009Delta RBT BiomassDelta Combined BioBaseline Biomass

Nutrient Benefit of Stocking

Causation

R2 = 0.8734

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25

Coho density

RB

T g

row

th

Theoretical – assume we found a significant increase in growth in the treatment sites

Preliminary Results No detectable change to NTT abundance, No detectable change to NTT abundance,

growth or biomass after 2 years of coho growth or biomass after 2 years of coho natural production.natural production.

Increase in combined biomass although Increase in combined biomass although RBT biomass has been decreasing in RBT biomass has been decreasing in treatments relative to controls.treatments relative to controls.

Will need several years of data to determine Will need several years of data to determine causation if an impact is determined.causation if an impact is determined.

Acknowledgements

Bonneville Power AdministrationBonneville Power Administration Todd Newsome and crewTodd Newsome and crew Tim Webster and crewTim Webster and crew Anyone else I missedAnyone else I missed