upper esopus creek study

8/3/2019 Upper Esopus Creek Study

1/143

Anthropogenic stream alteration:

Effects on brown trout habitat

behavior and physiology

T.J. Ross, Bill Fisher and Paul Bowser Cornell University

Barry Baldigo U.S. Geological Survey


2/143

ANTHROPOGENIC STREAM

ALTERATION

Human-induced changes to a stream or river

ecosystem.


3/143


ALTERATION

Human-induced change(s) to a stream or river

ecosystem.


4/143


5/143


ALTERATION

Dams

Roads

Culverts

Diversions


6/143


ALTERATION

Dams

Roads

Culverts

Diversions


7/143


ALTERATION

Dams

Roads

Culverts

Diversions


8/143

Shandaken

Tunnel

Esopus

Creek

BACKGROUND

CCES 2007


9/143

Shandaken

Tunnel

BACKGROUND


10/143

Shandaken

Tunnel

Upstream

segment

BACKGROUND


11/143

Downstream

segment

Shandaken

Tunnel

Upstream

segment

BACKGROUND


12/143

Downstream

segment

Shandaken

Tunnel

Upstream

segment

BACKGROUND

Segment Depth (m) Width (m) Velocity (m/s) Temperature (C) Turbidity (NTU)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Upstream 0.33 0.2) 21.13 14.35 0.62 0.35 23.82 0.76 0.54 0.35

Downstream 0.48 0.15 31.42 12.87 1.19 0.51 19.49 0.52 6.17 1.07


13/143

Downstream

segment

Shandaken

Tunnel

Upstream

segment

BACKGROUND



Upstream 0.33 0.2) 21.13 14.35 0.62 0.35 23.82 0.76 0.54 0.35

Downstream 0.48 0.15 31.42 12.87 1.19 0.51 19.49 0.52 6.17 1.07


14/143

Downstream

segment

Shandaken

Tunnel

Upstream

segment

BACKGROUND



Upstream 0.33 0.2) 21.13 14.35 0.62 0.35 23.82 0.76 0.54 0.35

Downstream 0.48 0.15 31.42 12.87 1.19 0.51 19.49 0.52 6.17 1.07


15/143

Downstream

segment

Shandaken

Tunnel

Upstream

segment

BACKGROUND



Upstream 0.33 0.2) 21.13 14.35 0.62 0.35 23.82 0.76 0.54 0.35

Downstream 0.48 0.15 31.42 12.87 1.19 0.51 19.49 0.52 6.17 1.07


16/143

Downstream

segment

Shandaken

Tunnel

Upstream

segment

BACKGROUND



Upstream 0.33 0.2) 21.13 14.35 0.62 0.35 23.82 0.76 0.54 0.35

Downstream 0.48 0.15 31.42 12.87 1.19 0.51 19.49 0.52 6.17 1.07


17/143

Downstream

segment

Shandaken

Tunnel

Upstream

segment

BACKGROUND



Upstream 0.33 0.2) 21.13 14.35 0.62 0.35 23.82 0.76 0.54 0.35

Downstream 0.48 0.15 31.42 12.87 1.19 0.51 19.49 0.52 6.17 1.07


18/143

ISSUE: ALTERED HABITAT CONDITIONS

Angler concerns Reports of decreased catch

Fears for health of troutpopulations

Manager responses Thermal benefits

2001 Civil Suit TU vs. NYCDEP

Initiation of current projectand companion studies

Esopus Creek at Shandaken Tunnel

Brown trout


19/143








Brown trout


20/143








Brown trout


21/143


22/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

How are Shandaken Tunnel releases affecting

Upper Esopus Creek brown trout populations?

Must first understand the effects of altered:

Temperature

Turbidity

Flow


23/143

RESEARCH QUESTION




Temperature

Turbidity

Flow


24/143

RESEARCH QUESTION




Temperature

Turbidity

Flow


25/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Temperature

Optimal: 12-19C

Effects of above-optimal temperatures:

Decreased movement

Seek thermal refuge habitats

Reduced foraging, growth and physiological condition

Ultimately reduced survival


26/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Temperature

Optimal: 12-19C


Decreased movement

Seek thermal refuge habitats




27/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Temperature

Optimal: 12-19C


Decreased movement

Increased reliance on thermal refuge habitats




28/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Temperature

Optimal: 12-19C


Decreased movement





29/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Temperature

Optimal: 12-19C


Decreased movement





30/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Turbidity

Effects of elevated turbidity

Increased activity and energy expenditure

Shift from drift to active-search foraging

Reduced prey detection and foraging success

Impaired physiological gill function



31/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Turbidity








32/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Turbidity








33/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Turbidity








34/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Turbidity





Reduced physiological condition



35/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Turbidity





Reduced physiological condition



36/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Flow

Effects of elevated flow:

Increased movement and energetic expenditure

Increased growth

Altered behavior and distribution

Altered availability and use of habitat


37/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Flow



Increased growth




38/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Flow



Increased growth




39/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Flow



Increased growth




40/143

RESEARCH QUESTION

Flow



Increased growth




41/143

RESEARCH QUESTION


Upper Esopus Creek trout populations?

Assumption: differences in stream habitat

conditions affect trout

Behavior

Physiology


42/143

RESEARCH QUESTION


Upper Esopus Creek trout populations?

Assumption: differences in stream habitat

conditions affect trout

Behavior

Physiology

Growth


43/143

PROJECT DESIGN

Phase I

Summer 2009 and 2010

Upstream versus downstream

Phase II

Summer 2011

Upstream versus tunnel-impact versus downstream


44/143

PROJECT DESIGN

Phase I



Phase II

Summer 2011



45/143

PHASE I METHODS

Behavior Radio-telemetry

Movement rates

Apparent survival Thermal refuge use


46/143

PHASE I METHODS

Behavior Radio-telemetry

Movement rates

Apparent survival Thermal refuge use


47/143

PHASE I METHODS

Radio-telemetry

Anesthetization


48/143

PHASE I METHODS

Radio-telemetry

Anesthetization


49/143

PHASE I METHODS

Radio-telemetry

Incision


50/143

PHASE I METHODS

Radio-telemetry

Implantation


51/143

PHASE I METHODS

Radio-telemetry

Antenna exit


52/143

PHASE I METHODS

Radio-telemetry

Suturing

Antenna


53/143

PHASE I METHODS

Radio-telemetry

Tracking


54/143

PHASE I METHODS

Points are fish locations


55/143

PHASE I METHODS

Physiology

Water-content assessment

r2 = 0.68

Peters et al. 2007

Water and lipid content relationship


56/143

PHASE I METHODS

Physiology


r2 = 0.68

Peters et al. 2007


Low water = high lipid


57/143

PHASE I METHODS

Physiology


r2 = 0.68

Peters et al. 2007


Low water = high lipid

High water = low lipid


58/143

PHASE I METHODS

Physiology


r2 = 0.68

Peters et al. 2007


Dangerous

water content

levels


59/143

PHASE I METHODS

Physiology


Dorsal muscle plug removal


60/143

PHASE I METHODS

Physiology



Bioelectrical impedance analysis


61/143

PHASE I METHODS

Physiology



Bioelectrical impedance analysis


62/143

PHASE I METHODS

Physiology

Fish health evaluation

Evaluation of parasiteabundance


63/143

PHASE I METHODS

Physiology



Histological examinationof gill tissue


64/143

PHASE I METHODS

Physiology


Blood sample collection for

clinical chemistry


Histological examinationof gill tissue


65/143

PHASE I METHODS

Shandaken Tunnel

Confluence


66/143

PHASE I METHODS

Shandaken Tunnel

Confluence

Upstream sampling sites


67/143

PHASE I METHODS

Shandaken Tunnel

Confluence

Downstream sampling sites



68/143

PHASE I RESULTS

Radio-telemetry

SegmentApparent Survival

(days)

Daily Movement

(mday-1)Total Movement (m) Occurrence in Thermal Refuge (%)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Upstream 14.57 13.85 110.10 109.38 1182.52 1060.31 17.3

Downstream 12.17 7.6 99.4 98.18 1108.7 1057.64 14.6

Tagged adult brown trout

Tagged adult brown

trout


69/143

PHASE I RESULTS

Radio-telemetry

SegmentApparent Survival

(days)

Daily Movement

(mday-1)Total Movement (m) Occurrence in Thermal Refuge (%)


Upstream 14.57 13.85 110.10 109.38 1182.52 1060.31 17.3

Downstream 12.17 7.6 99.4 98.18 1108.7 1057.64 14.6

Tagged adult brown trout

Tagged adult brown

trout

No differences between upstream and downstream

trout populations.


70/143

Segment Percent Water

Mean (SD)

Upstream 77.3% (2.77%)

Downstream 76.7% (1.28%)

Water-content

assessment

No differences between

populations

PHASE I RESULTS


71/143

Segment Percent Water

Mean (SD)

Upstream 77.3% (2.77%)

Downstream 76.7% (1.28%)

Water-content

assessment

No differences between

populations

Both populations near

dangerous levels

PHASE I RESULTS

r2 = 0.68

Peters et al. 2007



72/143

PHASE I RESULTS


Parasite abundance and histological examination

No differences between populations

Clinical chemistry assessment

Comparison with literature-derived normal values


73/143

PHASE I RESULTS







74/143

PHASE I RESULTS






Creatine

phosphokinase

Total bilirubin

Increased levels in trout from both segments:

Albumin

Aspartate

aminotransferase

(AST)


75/143

PHASE I RESULTS






Potassium

Bicarbonate

Creatinine

Amylase

Decreased levels in trout from both segments:

Phosphate

Magnesium

Alkaline

phosphate

Creatine

phosphokinase

Total bilirubin


Albumin

Aspartate

aminotransferase

(AST)


76/143

PHASE I RESULTS






Potassium

Bicarbonate

Creatinine

Amylase

Decreased levels in trout from both segments:

Phosphate

Magnesium

Alkaline

phosphate

Creatine

phosphokinase

Total bilirubin


Albumin

Aspartate

aminotransferase

(AST)

11 blood parameters all telling us the same

thing: Trout in BOTH the upstream and

downstream segments are stressed.


77/143

PHASE I CONCLUSIONS

Differences in stream habitat betweenupstream and downstream segments


78/143

PHASE I CONCLUSIONS

Altered clinical

chemistry in both

populations



79/143

PHASE I CONCLUSIONS

Altered clinical

chemistry in both

populations

Potentially lethalwater content

levels in both

populations



80/143

PHASE I CONCLUSIONS

No differences inmovement,

apparent survival

and thermal

refuge use

Altered clinical

chemistry in both

populations


levels in both

populations


S CO C S O S


81/143

PHASE I CONCLUSIONS

No differences inmovement,

apparent survival

and thermal

refuge use

Altered clinical

chemistry in both

populations


levels in both

populations


Why no differences between populations?

PHASE 1 CONCLUSIONS


82/143

PHASE 1 CONCLUSIONS

Possible interpretations

Tradeoffs of stream segments

Presence of localized, tunnel-impact zone

PHASE 1 CONCLUSIONS


83/143

PHASE 1 CONCLUSIONS




PHASE 1 CONCLUSIONS


84/143

PHASE 1 CONCLUSIONS




Sampling design of fish health

evaluation allowed us to assess

this.

PHASE I EXTENSION


85/143

PHASE I EXTENSION

Shandaken Tunnel

Confluence

PHASE I EXTENSION


86/143

PHASE I EXTENSION

Shandaken Tunnel

Confluence


PHASE I EXTENSION


87/143

PHASE I EXTENSION

Shandaken Tunnel

Confluence

Downstream sampling sites


PHASE I EXTENSION


88/143

PHASE I EXTENSION

Shandaken Tunnel

Confluence

Upstream reach

PHASE I EXTENSION


89/143

PHASE I EXTENSION

Shandaken Tunnel

Confluence

Downstream reach

Upstream reach

PHASE I EXTENSION


90/143

PHASE I EXTENSION

Shandaken Tunnel

Confluence

Downstream reach

Upstream reach

Tunnel-impact reach

PHASE I EXTENSION


91/143

PHASE I EXTENSION

Example trend: Aspartate aminotransferase (AST)

13.527.055.993.641.24-1.38-4.91-7.18

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Distance Downstream From Shandaken Tunnel (km)

AspartateAminotransferase(

U/L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site Number

PHASE I EXTENSION


92/143

PHASE I EXTENSION


13.527.055.993.641.24-1.38-4.91-7.18

1200

1000

800

600

400

200



U/L)

Shandaken

Tunnel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site Number

PHASE I EXTENSION


93/143

PHASE I EXTENSION


13.527.055.993.641.24-1.38-4.91-7.18

1200

1000

800

600

400

200



U/L)

Shandaken

Tunnel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site Number

PHASE I EXTENSION


94/143

PHASE I EXTENSION


13.527.055.993.641.24-1.38-4.91-7.18

1200

1000

800

600

400

200



U/L)

Upstream

reach

Shandaken

Tunnel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site Number

PHASE I EXTENSION


95/143

PHASE I EXTENSION


13.527.055.993.641.24-1.38-4.91-7.18

1200

1000

800

600

400

200



U/L)

Tunnel-impact

reach

Shandaken

Tunnel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site Number

PHASE I EXTENSION


96/143

PHASE I EXTENSION


13.527.055.993.641.24-1.38-4.91-7.18

1200

1000

800

600

400

200



U/L)

Downstream

reach

Shandaken

Tunnel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site Number

PHASE I EXTENSION


97/143

PHASE I EXTENSION

Similar trend observed for: Calcium

Total protein

Globulin

Glucose

Alanine aminotransferase

Total bilirubin

Creatine kinase

Bicarbonate

Creatinine

Amylase

PHASE I EXTENSION


98/143

PHASE I EXTENSION

Calcium

Total protein

Globulin

Glucose

Alanine aminotransferase

Total bilirubin

Creatine kinase

Bicarbonate

Creatinine

Amylase

Similar trend observed for:

Ten blood parameters indicating the same thing:

Trout within the tunnel-impact reach are either

not stressed or less stressed than trout in other

reaches

PROJECT DESIGN


99/143

PROJECT DESIGN

Phase I



Phase II

Summer 2011


PHASE II STUDY DESIGN


100/143


Shandaken

Tunnel

Upstream

reach

Tunnel -impact reach

Downstream

reach

CCES 2007



101/143


Stream reach characteristics

Reach Temperature (C) Turbidity (NTU) Discharge (cfs-1)


Upstream 18.41 4.60 7.50 3.42 77.49 61.99

Tunnel-impact 14.83 2.09 11.32 5.58 290.32 118.14

Downstream 17.79 2.06 9.59 9.96 498.95 234.77



102/143



Tunnel-impact reach has coldest temperatures



Upstream 18.41 4.60 7.50 3.42 77.49 61.99

Tunnel-impact 14.83 2.09 11.32 5.58 290.32 118.14

Downstream 17.79 2.06 9.59 9.96 498.95 234.77



103/143




Tunnel-impact reach has highest turbidity



Upstream 18.41 4.60 7.50 3.42 77.49 61.99

Tunnel-impact 14.83 2.09 11.32 5.58 290.32 118.14

Downstream 17.79 2.06 9.59 9.96 498.95 234.77



104/143





Tunnel- impact reach has median stream flow



Upstream 18.41 4.60 7.50 3.42 77.49 61.99

Tunnel-impact 14.83 2.09 11.32 5.58 290.32 118.14

Downstream 17.79 2.06 9.59 9.96 498.95 234.77



105/143





Tunnel- impact reach has median stream flow



Upstream 18.41 4.60 7.50 3.42 77.49 61.99

Tunnel-impact 14.83 2.09 11.32 5.58 290.32 118.14

Downstream 17.79 2.06 9.59 9.96 498.95 234.77

Tunnel-impact trend similar to that observed in bloodchemistry data:

Upstream Tunnel-response Downstream

PHASE II METHODS


106/143

PHASE II METHODS

Within each reach Behavior

Radio telemetry

Physiology

Water content assessment

Growth rates

Mark-recapture

PHASE II METHODS


107/143

PHASE II METHODS

Radio telemetry Similar methodology to Phase I

Transmitter type

Stocking scheme

Physiology


Growth rates

Mark-recapture

PHASE II METHODS


108/143

PHASE II METHODS


Transmitter type

Stocking scheme

Physiology


Growth rates

Mark-recapture

PHASE II METHODS


109/143

PHASE II METHODS


Transmitter type

Stocking scheme

Physiology


Growth rates

Mark-recapture

PHASE II METHODS


110/143

PHASE II METHODS


Radio telemetry

Physiology


Growth rates

Mark-recapture

PHASE II METHODS


111/143

PHASE II METHODS

Water content assessment Similar to Phase I

Only used bioelectrical impedance analysis

Growth rates

Mark-recapture

PHASE II METHODS


112/143

PHASE II METHODS


Radio telemetry

Physiology


Growth rates

Mark-recapture

PHASE II METHODS


113/143

PHASE II METHODS

Growth rates Three sampling events per month in each reach

Habitat Monthly measures

PHASE II METHODS


114/143

PHASE II METHODS

Growth rates

Habitat

Monthly measures

PHASE II METHODS


115/143

PHASE II METHODS

Growth rates

Habitat

Monthly measures

PHASE II METHODS


116/143

PHASE II METHODS

Growth rates

Habitat

Monthly measures

Growth (gramsday-1)= 2 1

PHASE II RESULTS


117/143

PHASE II RESULTS

Radio-telemetryReach

Apparent

Survival (days)

Daily Movement

(mday-1)Total Movement (m) Dispersal (m)

Site Fidelity

(days)

Occurrence in

Thermal

Refuge (%)


Upstream 53.88 18.64 38.54 49.69 1391.05 2255.21 1898.86 1469.14 39.38 21.75 11.55

Tunnel-impact 45.09 17.65 41.41 104.64 693.40 1000.81 2356.42 4034.20 34.36 18.65 9.16

Downstream 32.38 17.42 72.20 161.91 501.77 177.35 2685.74 5530.38 18.38 15.90 7.11

PHASE II RESULTS


118/143

PHASE II RESULTS

Radio-telemetryReach

Apparent

Survival (days)

Daily Movement

(mday-1)Total Movement (m) Dispersal (m)

Site Fidelity

(days)

Occurrence in

Thermal

Refuge (%)


Upstream 53.88 18.64 38.54 49.69 1391.05 2255.21 1898.86 1469.14 39.38 21.75 11.55

Tunnel-impact 45.09 17.65 41.41 104.64 693.40 1000.81 2356.42 4034.20 34.36 18.65 9.16

Downstream 32.38 17.42 72.20 161.91 501.77 177.35 2685.74 5530.38 18.38 15.90 7.11

No differences in quantifiedmetrics.

PHASE II RESULTS


119/143

PHASE II RESULTS

Water content assessment Still being analyzedcoming soon, hopefully!

PHASE II RESULTS


120/143

PHASE II RESULTS

Growth rates

*

Among-reach comparison

PHASE II RESULTS


121/143

PHASE II RESULTS

Growth rates

Hatchery and wild comparison

PHASE II RESULTS


122/143

PHASE II RESULTS

Growth rates

*

Hatchery: Among-reach comparison

PHASE II RESULTS


123/143

Growth rates

Wild: Among-reach comparison

PHASE II RESULTS


124/143

Growth rates

*

Hatchery and wild: Among-reach comparison

PHASE II RESULTS


125/143

Growth rates

*

Appears to be both a hatchery/wild and stream reachaffect on trout growth.

Hatchery and wild: Among-reach comparison


126/143

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


127/143

How are Shandaken Tunnel releases affecting upper Esopus

Creek trout populations?

Blood chemistry indicated a

localized tunnel-benefit.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


128/143

13.527.055.993.641.24-1.38-4.91-7.18

1200

1000

800

600

400

200


AspartateAminotran

sferase(U/L)

ShandakenTunnel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site Number

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


129/143





FINAL CONCLUSIONS


130/143





Growth rates indicated a localized

tunnel-benefit, especially forhatchery trout.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


131/143

*

Hatchery: Among-reach comparison

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


132/143







FINAL CONCLUSIONS


133/143







What is driving this trend?

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


134/143








Temperature??

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


135/143








Temperature?? Turbidity??

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


136/143








Temperature?? Streamflow??Turbidity??

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


137/143

Future research Bioenergetics modeling

Explicitly accounting for the affects of temperature,

turbidity and flow on trout growth

Habitat modeling

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


138/143




Habitat modeling

Temporal changes in habitat used by and available to

trout Better understand habitat variables driving trout distribution

and habitat use

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


139/143




Habitat modeling



and habitat use

FINAL CONCLUSIONS


140/143




Habitat modeling



and habitat use

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


141/143

New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Cornell University

United States Geological Survey

Cornell Cooperative Extension

New York City Department of Environmental Protection

Trout Unlimited

Doris Duke Foundation

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Special thanks to :

Dr. Paul Bowser and lab, for their assistance with the fish health assessment and telemetry surgeries

Alex Koeberle, Collin Farrell, Walt Keller and Jackie Chen for help with daily operations

Tom Baudanza, Bob Angyal, Tim McNamara for assistance with sampling efforts

Interesting Anecdotal Piece


142/143

Telemetered trout 151super trout!


143/143

QUESTIONS?

upper esopus creek study

Documents