Kimberly D. Bose November 9, 2017 Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426
Subject: Wells Hydroelectric Project – FERC Project No. 2149 Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir Report
Dear Secretary Bose:
Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington (Douglas PUD or District), licensee for the Wells Hydroelectric Project No. 2149 (Wells Project) respectfully submits the attached report detailing the results from the Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring Study at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir (Report; Exhibit A). This report is being filed in compliance with the terms and conditions found in the Biological Opinion for the Proposed Relicensing of the Wells Hydroelectric Project (Biological Opinion) issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on March 16, 2012 and as found in section 4.2.1 (Wells Study) and section 4.2.2 (Weir Study) of the Bull Trout Management Plan, which is required under the District’s Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Finally, the study is also a compliance measure as found in the Section 18 Fishway Prescription for the Wells Project.
On October 15, 2013 FERC issued an Order deferring the Weir Study to year five of the District’s new operating license to allow the District to combine the Weir Study (Year 1 requirement) and the Wells Study (Year 5 requirement) at the request of the USFWS, the Aquatic Settlement Work Group (Aquatic SWG), and the District. Consistent with the October 15, 2013 FERC Order the attached report (Exhibit A) was carried out to meet compliance criteria for both studies.
The report concluded that migratory bull trout are experiencing safe, timely, and effective upstream and downstream passage at both Wells Dam and the Twisp Weir. Specific results include bull trout passage efficiency success above 90% and 100% passage survival at both Wells Dam and the Twisp Weir. Therefore incidental take remains within the range of the Terms and Conditions of the March 16, 2012 Biological Opinion.
In addition to the report, the pre-filing consultation record describing the Aquatic SWG’s review and approval of this filing is attached as Exhibit B to this letter. The draft report was submitted to the Aquatic SWG on October 11, 2017. Comments were received from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Yakama Nations and the USFWS. A revised version of the report was distributed on November 1, 2017 and was approved during the November 8, 2017 Aquatic SWG conference call.
If you have any questions or require further information related to the Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir Report, please feel free to contact Andrew Gingerich at (509) 881-2323 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Shane Bickford Natural Resources Supervisor
Enclosure: Exhibit A – Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir Report Exhibit B – Pre-filing Consultation Record for the Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir Report
Cc: Aquatic Settlement Work Group Alicia Burtner – FERC Erich Gaedeke – FERC Andrew Gingerich – Douglas PUD Chas Kyger – Douglas PUD
EXHIBIT A
BULL TROUT PASSAGE AND TAKE MONITORING AT WELLS DAM AND THE TWISP RIVER WEIR REPORT EA3605-B
Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir
FINAL REPORT
David Robichaud1 and Andrew Gingerich2
1 LGL Limited, Sidney, BC, Canada 2 Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, East Wenatchee, WA, USA
Prepared for:
Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, East Wenatchee, WA
November 8 2017
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Executive Summary Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) originating from the Methow, Entiat and Wenatchee rivers are known to interact with Wells Hydroelectric Project and the Twisp River. During relicensing studies at Wells Dam (2005- 2008), radio-tagged Bull Trout moved upstream and downstream past Wells Dam freely with no observed mortality or passage delay. The new 40-year Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Operating License for the Wells Project, owned and operated by the Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County (Douglas PUD), requires Douglas PUD to demonstrate that Bull Trout at Wells Dam and at the Twisp River Weir have survival rates greater than 95%, and passage success rates greater than or equal to 90%. This requirement is also consistent with the implementation of the Bull Trout Management Plan and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s Section 18 Fishway Prescription and the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion for the Wells Hydroelectric Project.
From May to July 2016, 60 adult-sized Bull Trout were captured at Wells Dam (n=14) or at the Twisp River Weir (n = 46), double-tagged (radio + Passive Integrated Transponder), and released. These fish were tracked to assess downstream passage and survival at the Weir and Wells Dam in 2016 and upstream passage and survival in 2017.
Thirty five fish moved downstream and were detected at the Twisp River Weir, 31 of which passed successfully, and four were recovered (dead) immediately upstream of the weir in an off-channel beaver pond. Two of the fish that passed the weir died within one month of passage, but neither mortality was attributed to Weir passage. Also, 18 radio-tagged Bull Trout approached the Twisp River Weir in the upstream direction, and all passed successfully and survived. Together, the observed interactions with the Twisp River Weir indicated 92.5% (49 of 53) passage success (four fish died and were recovered in an off channel beaver pond before they could attempt to pass the Weir) and 100% survival (all 48 of the fish that successfully passed the Weir survived passage).
Twelve fish made downstream passages at Wells. None of the fish were detected in mortality mode in the tailrace, at the Gateway receiver site (~3 km downstream), or during mobile tracking. Ten of twelve made subsequent attempts to pass Wells Dam in an upstream direction, further confirming their survival. Also, eleven fish interacted with Wells Dam in the upstream direction. Of these, nine successfully moved through the fishways and into the Methow River; whereas two made forays into the fishway entrances but did not pass Wells Dam by the time the data collection was terminated. Together Wells Dam interactions indicated 91.3% (21 of 23) passage success and 100% survival.
Together, Bull Trout passage and success rates were higher than minimum compliance targets, suggesting minimal operational impact of the Twisp River Weir and Wells Dam on Bull Trout migration, population connectivity, and survival. Results presented in this report are similar to those from the 2005-2008 studies of Bull Trout passage at Wells Dam.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page i
On the cover: Twisp River Weir, with trap and tagging setup in the foreground.
Suggested Reference: Robichaud, D. and A. Gingerich. 2017. Bull Trout passage and take monitoring at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir. Report for Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, East Wenatchee, WA.
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Study Area ...... 1 2.1 Wells Hydroelectric Project Area ...... 1 2.1.1 Bull Trout at Wells Dam ...... 1 2.2 Twisp River Weir ...... 2 2.2.1 Bull Trout at the Twisp River Weir...... 4 3 Regulatory Context ...... 5 3.1 Bull Trout Management Plan ...... 7 3.2 Twisp River Weir Study Deferral and Consolidation of Studies ...... 8 4 Goals, Hypotheses and Assumptions ...... 8 4.1 Goals...... 8 4.2 Hypotheses ...... 8 4.3 Assumptions and Treatment ...... 9 5 Methods ...... 9 5.1 Sample Size ...... 9 5.2 Transmitters ...... 10 5.3 Capture and Release ...... 10 5.3.1 Trapping at Wells ...... 10 5.3.2 Trapping at the Twisp River Weir ...... 10 5.4 Tagging Procedures ...... 12 5.5 Genetics ...... 14 5.6 Telemetry Tracking ...... 14 5.6.1 Fixed-Station Radio-Tag Tracking ...... 14 5.6.2 Mobile Radio-Tag Tracking ...... 15 5.6.3 PIT Tag Monitoring: ...... 15 5.7 Data processing ...... 15 5.8 Data analyses ...... 17 6 Results ...... 19 6.1 Tracking Results ...... 19 6.2 Genetic Results ...... 22 6.3 Passage and Survival ...... 24 6.3.1 Twisp River Weir ...... 24 6.3.2 Wells Dam ...... 25 6.4 Upper Twisp Detections ...... 26 6.5 Bull Trout Mortalities ...... 28 6.6 PIT Tag Detections Prior to Study Period ...... 29 7 Discussion ...... 30 7.1 Passage and Survival ...... 30 7.2 Mortality ...... 33 7.3 Recommendations for Future Studies ...... 33 8 Conclusions ...... 34 9 Acknowledgements ...... 34 10 References ...... 35 Appendix A...... 38 Appendix B ...... 44
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page iii Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
List of Tables Table 1. Number of Bull Trout expected to be captured and radio-tagged at Wells Dam in 2016...... 9 Table 2. Estimated tag burden using 16.0 gram MCFT2-3A radio tags and 0.1 g PIT tag ...... 11 Table 3. Fixed station receiver locations and antenna configurations ...... 16 Table 4. Monthly receiver function, as a percentage of hours deployed ...... 20 Table 5. Detection efficiencies of radio-telemetry antenna arrays ...... 21 Table 6. Detection efficiencies of Wells Dam fishway PIT-tag antenna arrays ...... 22 Table 7. Genetic determinations and tracking locations for 60 radio-tagged Bull Trout sampled at Wells Dam or at the Twisp River Weir in 2016 ...... 23 Table 8. Summation and calculated Survival/Passage statistics at the Twisp River Weir ...... 24 Table 9. Summation and calculated Survival/Passage statistics at Wells Dam ...... 25 Table 10. Years in which 20 PIT-tagged fish were detected or missed at the TWR detection array ...... 29
List of Figures Figure 1. Annual percentage of Bull Trout that passed Wells Dam during the months of May and June ...... 2 Figure 2. Total annual Bull Trout counts at Wells Dam count windows ...... 3 Figure 3. Percent of Bull Trout that used each of the two fishway ladders at Wells Dam, by year ...... 3 Figure 4. Twisp River Weir during September removal, illustrating the hydraulic pickets; and during a high flow event when it was not operating ...... 4 Figure 5. Number of new and previously PIT tagged adult Bull Trout encountered at the Twisp River Weir, by year from 2010-2015 ...... 5 Figure 6. Arrival dates of previously PIT tagged Bull Trout at the Twisp River Weir in 2014 and 2015 ...... 6 Figure 7. Size distribution of 60 Bull Trout radio-tagged and released at Wells Dam or the Twisp Weir ...... 11 Figure 8. Bull Trout in the electronarcosis tank ...... 13 Figure 9. Locations of PIT tag arrays in the Upper Mid-Columbia ...... 17 Figure 10. Frequency distribution of tracking durations for 60 radio-tagged Bull Trout ...... 21 Figure 11. Bull Trout spawning / mortality locations in the Twisp River ...... 27 Figure 12. Last detection locations for the 20 Bull Trout mortalities that were documented during this study...... 28 Figure 13. Approximate locations of four radio tags recovered upstream of the Twisp River Weir ...... 31 Figure 14. Antennas from tags recovered in beaver pond and irrigation channel upstream of the Twisp River Weir appear to have bite marks that could indicate predation ...... 31 Figure 15. Quarter-hourly Twisp River flows and times when four tags stopped moving ...... 32
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page iv
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
1 Introduction Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are native throughout the Pacific Northwest, including the Columbia River system (Haas and McPhail 1991). Bull Trout populations in the upper mid-Columbia River perform potadromous migrations: spawning in cold unpolluted headwater streams and then migrating to larger rivers, lakes, or reservoirs to feed and grow (Pratt 1992). Individuals are iteroparous, with a subset spawning annually and others alternating years (Pratt 1992, Downs et al. 2006, Paragamian and Walters 2011, Kelly Ringel et al. 2014).
Local Bull Trout populations are protected under the Endangered Species Act, because some North American populations have declined or been extirpated, and habitat loss has been noted (Rieman et al. 1997). Within their range, Bull Trout populations are threatened by degradation of stream habitat (including declines in water quality or increases in temperature), hybridization and competition with introduced species, and by impoundments or diversions that block or impede migrations (Rieman et al. 1997). Locally, the interactions of Bull Trout with the Wells Hydroelectric Project (Wells or Wells Project) and facilities have been monitored by the Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County (Douglas PUD), to ensure safe, timely and effective passage, in accordance with their Aquatic Settlement Agreement and their Bull Trout Management Plan (BTMP).
This report describes a radio-tracking study, performed by Douglas PUD, designed to estimate survival and passage success of Bull Trout passing Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir in 2016 and 2017.
2 Study Area
2.1 Wells Hydroelectric Project Area The Wells Project is located at river kilometer (rkm) 829.7 (river mile 515.6) on the Columbia River in the State of Washington. Wells Dam is located approximately 48 rkm (30 river miles) downstream from the Chief Joseph Hydroelectric Project, owned and operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and 67.5 km (42 miles) upstream from the Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Project owned and operated by Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD). The nearest town is Pateros, Washington, which is located approximately 13 km (8 miles) upstream from Wells Dam. The Wells Project is the chief generating resource for Douglas PUD. It includes 10 generating units with a nameplate rating of 774,300 kW and a peaking capacity of approximately 840,000 kW. The design of the Wells Project is unique in that the generating units, spillways, switchyard, and fish passage facilities were combined into a single structure referred to as the hydrocombine. Fish passage facilities reside on both sides of the hydrocombine, which is 344 m long, 51 m wide (1,130 feet long, 168 feet wide), with a crest elevation of 242 m (795 feet) mean sea level (msl) in height. The Wells Reservoir is approximately 48 km (30 miles) long. The Methow and Okanogan rivers are tributaries of the Columbia River within the Wells Reservoir. The Wells Project boundary extends approximately 2.5 km (1.5 miles) up the Methow River and approximately 25 km (15.5 miles) up the Okanogan River. The normal maximum surface area of the reservoir is 39.5 km2 (9,740 acres) with a gross storage capacity of 4.08 million m3 (331,200 acre-feet) and usable storage of 0.12 million m3 (97,985 acre-feet) at elevation of 238 m (781 feet) msl. The normal maximum water surface elevation of the reservoir is 238 m (781 feet) msl.
2.1.1 Bull Trout at Wells Dam During relicensing investigations, Douglas PUD attempted to identify potential Project-related impacts on upstream and downstream passage of adult Bull Trout (fish ≥ 400 mm in length) through Wells Dam and the reservoir. During these investigations radio telemetry was used to monitor upstream and downstream passage.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 1
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Between 2005 and 2008, 26 adult Bull Trout were trapped at Wells Dam and radio-tagged. Concurrently, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Chelan PUD radio-tagged and released 136 adult Bull Trout at other mid-Columbia River basin locations including the Methow River, and Rock Island and Rocky Reach dams. During six years of study, 19 downstream and 79 upstream passage events took place at Wells Dam by radio- tagged Bull Trout within one year of their release. All of the radio-tagged Bull Trout that passed downstream through the dam used either the turbines or spillways. No downstream or upstream passage event resulted in any observed injury or mortality at the Wells Project (LGL and Douglas PUD 2008).
Upstream passage of adult Bull Trout through the fish ladders at Wells Dam has historically peaked in May and June (mean = 89%; Figure 1). During the 2005 and 2008 study, 214 adult Bull Trout (24% of which were radio tagged; n = 52) were counted passing upstream through Wells Dam. Annual counts of Bull Trout at Wells Dam have ranged between 43 and 109 during the years of 2000 to 2017 (Figure 2). At Wells Dam, east and west side ladders operate year round with Bull Trout showing some amount of favoritism each year to specific ladders (Figure 3), but without any multi-year preference or trend.
2.2 Twisp River Weir The Twisp River Weir (Weir) is comprised of a series of hydraulically-controlled panels and two trap boxes (Figure 4, left). The panels of the Weir are permanently installed and kept in the fully lowered position throughout the fall and winter. In the spring the trap boxes are installed and the pickets are raised enough to encourage upstream migrating fish to swim along the sill and through the passage notches. Once fish enter into one of the two passage notches, the fish volitionally enters a trap box.
Each year Douglas PUD installs the trap boxes around March 15th. During the spring (March 15th to mid-July) the trap is operated as part of Douglas PUD’s Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) broodstock collection activities. The trap boxes are usually removed in August or early September and the slide gates (trap exit doors) on the traps are removed during the interim between the end of the Chinook Salmon trapping season and the removal of the traps.
100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75%
June Passage 70% - 65% May 60% 55% 50% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year Average
Figure 1. Annual percentage of Bull Trout that passed Wells Dam during the months of May and June.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 2
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
120 107 109 109 100 100 90 90
76 74 80 71 65 66 62
60 53 51 47 49 43 43 45 40
20 Total WellsDam Ladder Coutns 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year Average
Figure 2. Total annual Bull Trout counts at Wells Dam count windows.
% East (54%) % West (46%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Percent Ladder Use 30% 20% 10% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year Figure 3. Percent of Bull Trout that used each of the two fishway ladders (“West” and “East”) at Wells Dam, by year.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 3
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Figure 4. Twisp River Weir during September removal (left), illustrating the hydraulic pickets; and during a high flow event (right) when it was not operating.
During operation/trapping, the Weir is monitored throughout the day and adjusted to ensure that upstream- migrating fish are directed to pass the weir through one of the two notched gates. When operating, the panels are raised off the river bottom at a negative angle in relation to the river bed (the negative angle allows downstream- moving fish and debris to pass safely over the weir). Typically, the panels are raised only enough to discourage fish from swimming over the Weir. Staff adjusts the weir panels in order to compensate for changing flow levels, and to allow debris passage, as needed. The upstream exits of the trap boxes are protected by a temporary debris boom. The debris boom is installed and removed annually during the same days that the trap boxes are installed and removed. The Weir is considered to be operating whenever the trap boxes are in place, the trap box doors are closed, and the pickets of the weir panels are raised to be flush with the top of the river surface. No trapping or fish sampling is conducted during high flow events because conditions are not safe for personnel to enter the traps to remove captured fish (Figure 4, right). The Weir is operated under guidelines specified in the annual Broodstock Collection Plan and the annual Monitoring and Evaluation Work Plan, developed and approved by the Wells HCP Hatchery Committee (USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, Tribal agencies, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Douglas PUD) and the 2015 Twisp River Weir Operations Plan1.
2.2.1 Bull Trout at the Twisp River Weir The Twisp River is an important spawning and rearing area for Bull Trout in the Methow Core Area. Some proportion of Bull Trout in the Twisp River local population use the Columbia River, the Methow River, and the lower Twisp River as forage, migration, and overwintering (FMO) areas. The upper Twisp River is considered mostly spawning and rearing (S&R) habitat. Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag histories suggest that adult Bull Trout are often repeat spawners in the Twisp River, though spawn frequency is poorly understood. Adults can be present in the FMO habitat both within and outside of their Core Area.
1 Operation of the Weir under ESA is currently authorized by Section 10 Permits 1196 and 1395 (permits extended by NMFS on 20 September 2013). Trap boxes are inspected hourly, and sometimes more frequently.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 4
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
160
140 Number Tagged 137 Total Recaptured 120
100 97 87 80 80 67 60
38 Bull (count) Torut 40 31 26 20 20 15 8 0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year
Figure 5. Number of new and previously PIT tagged adult Bull Trout encountered at the Twisp River Weir, by year from 2010-2015. Note: captures were not standardized by trapping efficiency or effort, precluding detailed annual comparisons. No Bull Trout were tagged at the Twisp River Weir in 2015. Of the fish encountered in 2015, 48% were tagged in 2014, 29% were tagged in 2013, 10% were tagged in 2012, 3% were tagged in 2011 and 3% were tagged in 2010.
Migratory Bull Trout are encountered at the Weir on a seasonal basis. Bull Trout appear to primarily make upstream spawning migrations past the Weir during the months of June and July (Figure 5). Bull Trout observations were low in 2011 compared to recent years, likely as a result of above-average freshet flows that prevented the trap from being safely operated, thus reducing trapping efficiency. Although PIT-tagged Bull Trout generally arrive at the Weir in the months of June and July, arrival was later in 2014 compared to 2015 (Figure 6), likely due to lower flows and warmer water temperatures in 2015. Earlier run-timing was observed at Wells Dam in 2015: 52% of the run arrived in the month of May, whereas the 16-year average was 36%.
Following spawning in the upper reaches of the Twisp River, Bull Trout may move downstream in the Twisp River to find foraging and overwintering habitat. Nelson (2004) found that many Bull Trout can become stranded in the upper Twisp River after spawning (stranding was recently confirmed; Charlie Snow, WDFW, pers. comm.). PIT tags detected near the confluence of the Twisp and Methow Rivers suggest that Bull Trout move downstream past the Weir in late September through November each year.
3 Regulatory Context In this report, we describe a 2016-2017 radio-tracking study which was designed to estimate the upstream and downstream survival and passage success rates of Bull Trout at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir. Assessments occurred in accordance with Douglas PUD’s Aquatic Settlement Agreement and BTMP, Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions, and the Wells Project Biological Opinion Terms and Conditions.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 5
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
35 2014 32 (41%) 30
25
20 17 (22%) 15 (19%) 15
10 Bull (count) Torut 6 (8%) 4 (5%) 5 3 (4%) 1 (1%) 0 0 0 0 6/1 6/6 6/11 6/16 6/21 6/26 7/1 7/6 7/11 7/16 5-day Bin (start date, 2014)
14 2015 12 (32%) 12
10 9 (24%) 8 (21%) 8
6 5 (13%)
4 Bull (count) Torut 2 (5%) 2 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 0 0 0 0 6/1 6/6 6/11 6/16 6/21 6/26 7/1 7/6 7/11 7/16 5-day Bin (start date, 2015)
Figure 6. Arrival dates of previously PIT tagged Bull Trout at the Twisp River Weir in 2014 (upper panel, n = 78) and 2015 (lower panel, n = 38). Bins are 5 days long with numbers above the bars representing bin count, and percent of annual run that the bin represents.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 6
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
3.1 Bull Trout Management Plan Following the completion of Bull Trout radio-telemetry studies (see LGL and Douglas PUD 2008), the BTMP was developed. The BTMP is one of six Aquatic Resource Management Plans within the Aquatic Settlement Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement was developed as part of the Integrated License Process for the Wells Project. The BTMP is largely consistent with Fishway Prescriptions and a Biological Opinion (BIOP) issued by the USFWS in 2012 as part of the relicensing of Wells Hydroelectric Project. The BTMP is incorporated into the BIOP’s incidental take statement and referenced in the terms and conditions section.
The current study was conducted in order to satisfy two sections of requirements found in the BTMP and the USFWS Incidental Take Statement for the Wells Project (emphasis added):
“… BTMP 4.1 Bull Trout Passage Performance Standard (BIOP RPM#1; Terms and Conditions #2): The Licensee shall implement the upstream and downstream measures contained in the Wells Hydroelectric Project BTMP to provide safe, timely, and effective upstream and downstream passage for adult and sub-adult Bull Trout at the Wells Hydroelectric Project. “Safe, timely and effective” passage shall be achieved when the Licensee has demonstrated that the survival and passage success rates for adult marked fish are greater than 95% and greater than or equal to 90%, respectively, and when passage studies demonstrate that the fishway facilities at Wells Dam do not impede the passage of Bull Trout. To ensure that safe, timely and effective passage at Wells Dam is maintained during the term of the new license, the Licensee shall implement the following Bull Trout upstream and downstream measures consistent with the BTMP.
…
4.6 Bull Trout Upstream and Downstream Passage Evaluation (BTMP Section 4.2.1; BIO RPM #5; Terms and Conditions #10): The Licensee shall periodically monitor upstream and downstream passage of Bull Trout through Wells Dam and in the Wells Reservoir through the implementation of a radio-telemetry study. Specifically, in years 5 and 10 of the new license, and continuing every 10 years thereafter during the new license term, the Licensee shall conduct a 1-year monitoring study to verify continued compliance with the Bull Trout passage performance standard (Section 4.1 of this Prescription). These monitoring studies shall employ the same study protocols and radio-telemetry assessment methodologies used at Wells Dam in 2006 and 2007. If the monitoring results demonstrate continued compliance with the Bull Trout passage performance standard (Section 4.1 of this Prescription), then no additional actions are needed. If the monitoring results demonstrate that the Licensee is no longer in compliance with the Bull Trout passage performance standard (Section 4.1 of this Prescription), then the monitoring study will be replicated to confirm the results. If the results after 2 years of monitoring demonstrate that the Licensee is no longer in compliance with the Bull Trout passage performance standard (Section 4.1 of this Prescription), then the Licensee shall, pursuant to Section 4.8 of this Prescription, develop and implement additional measures to improve Bull Trout passage until compliance with the Bull Trout passage performance standard (Section 4.1 of this Prescription) is achieved. If the Bull Trout counts at Wells Dam increase more than two times the existing 5-year average or if there is a significant change in the operation of the fish ladders, bypass, or hydrocombine, then the Licensee shall, in consultation with the FWS, the Aquatic SWG, and the Wells HCP Coordinating Committee (WCC), conduct a 1-year, follow-up monitoring study to verify continued compliance with the Bull Trout performance standard (Section 4.1 of this Prescription).
4.7 Adult Bull Trout Passage Evaluation at Brood Stock Collection Facilities (BTMP Section 4.2.2; RPM #5; Terms and Conditions #11): The Licensee shall, beginning in year 1 of the new license, conduct a 1-year radio-telemetry evaluation to assess upstream and downstream passage of adult Bull Trout at the adult salmon and steelhead brood stock collection facilities associated with the Wells AFA/HCP, including but not limited to, the Twisp River Weir adult collection facility. The Licensee shall capture and tag up to 10 adult, migratory Bull Trout (>400mm) per assessment per year and use fixed receiver stations upstream and downstream of the collection facilities. Assessments shall employ the same study protocols and radio-telemetry assessment methodologies used at Wells Dam in 2006 and 2007. If the evaluation demonstrates that the Licensee is not in compliance with the Bull Trout passage performance standard (Section 4.1 of this Prescription), then the evaluation will be replicated to confirm the results. If the results
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 7
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
after 2 years of evaluation demonstrate that the Licensee is not in compliance with the Bull Trout passage performance standard (Section 4.1 of this Prescription), then the Licensee shall develop, implement, and evaluate additional measures, in consultation with the FWS, WCC and the Aquatic SWG, until the FWS determines that the Bull Trout passage performance standard has been achieved. At such time as the FWS determines the Bull Trout passage performance standard has been achieved, the implementation of this Condition shall be integrated into the 1-year telemetry monitoring program that is to be conducted every 10 years (beginning in year 10 of the new license) at Wells Dam as identified in Section 4.6 above.”
3.2 Twisp River Weir Study Deferral and Consolidation of Studies Douglas PUD was originally required to conduct assessments of Bull Trout passage success at the Twisp River Weir during the first year of the new license term, and a further assessment of Bull Trout passage success at Wells Dam during year 5. Yet, Douglas PUD and USFWS felt that it would be preferable to conduct both assessments in the same year, in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis of project impacts to Bull Trout, and requiring the use of fewer study fish compared to two independent studies (thereby reducing handling impacts on federally- protected Bull Trout).
On 6 September 2013, Douglas PUD, licensee for the Wells Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2149, filed an extension of time request, specifically requesting that the deadline for conducting the study be postponed until year five of the license term, or, November 2017. Included in Douglas PUD’s request to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was a consultation record demonstrating the USFWS and the Aquatic Settlement Work Group’s (Aquatic SWG) support for study deferral. Meeting minutes from the Aquatic SWG meeting dated 10 July 2013 indicated that all members of the Aquatic SWG approved the deferral. Additionally, the USFWS requested that the study be deferred by letter dated 27 June 2013 and filed with the FERC on 22 July 2013. In the same letter, the USFWS reiterated the Aquatic SWG’s concurrence with the request. This letter was also included as part of Douglas PUD’s deferral filing. FERC approved Douglas PUD’s, the Aquatic SWG’s and the USFWS’s request, thus deferring the Twisp River Weir Study to year five of the license in an Order Granting Extension of Time issued on 15 October 2013.
4 Goals, Hypotheses and Assumptions
4.1 Goals The primary goal of the current study is outlined in Measure 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the BTMP (See section 3.1 of this report). Specifically, Douglas PUD aimed to determine if survival and passage success rates for adult marked Bull Trout are greater than 95% and greater than or equal to 90%, respectively, at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir.
4.2 Hypotheses Null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:
Ho: survival and passage success rates for adult marked fish are greater than 95% and greater than or equal to 90%, respectively.
Ha: survival and passage success rates for adult marked fish are less than or equal to 95%, and less than 90%, respectively.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 8
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
4.3 Assumptions and Treatment Handling (e.g., electro-anesthesia, surgery, netting, etc.) and moving captured Bull Trout downstream may have some effect on the migration behavior of radio and PIT-tagged Bull Trout (see Kelly Ringel et al. 2014). As such, inthe current study, only after an extended recovery period would tagged Bull Trout be assumed to be representative of the untagged population. Specifically, fish tagged at the Twisp River Weir and Wells Dam were only assessed for downstream survival and passage through the facilities (Wells Dam or Twisp River Weir) starting in the fall of 2016; and upstream passage was assessed in 2017. This procedure allowed for a long recovery period prior to survival and passage verification, and was designed to eliminate, to the extent practical, the impacts of handling effect on the study results.
5 Methods
5.1 Sample Size Although section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the BTMP call for ten fish to be radio-tagged at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir, this was thought (by Douglas PUD, the USFWS, and the Aquatic SWG) to be an insufficient sample size for the assessment of survival and passage success rates. We aimed to tag thirty fish at Wells Dam and thirty fish at the Weir. At Wells Dam, fish over 450 mm were targeted. At the Weir, fish over 500 mm were targeted since supply was not expected to be an issue, and since Nelson (2015) found that Twisp River Bull Trout may not be reproductively mature at 450 mm.
Although we had a goal to radio-tag 30 fish at Wells Dam, it was never clear that this was a realistic goal. Table 1, detailing our sample size feasibility estimate (generated during the planning stages of this study), shows that capturing and tagging more than ten Bull Trout at Wells Dam would be an ambitious goal and would be dependent upon trapping effort, ladder favoritism, timing of passage, and run size. As such, the Aquatic SWG agreed that unused radio tags from the Wells Dam allocation could be reassigned to bolster the sample size at the Weir.
Table 1. Number of Bull Trout expected to be captured and radio-tagged at Wells Dam in 2016.
Ladder Trapping 2016 Ladder Favoritism Time (Peak Trapping Estimated Count Estimate (East Ladder Passage 8-6 Days (20 5 days of a Number (16-yr mean: Trapping; 16- PM; 2015 May to 30 seven-day Radio 73 ± 25) yr mean) data) June) week Tagged Best Case 98 0.6 0.85 0.81 0.71 29 Actual estimate 73 0.53 0.85 0.8 0.71 19 Worst Case 48 0.4 0.85 0.76 0.71 9
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 9
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
5.2 Transmitters Coded MCFT2-3A radio tags were purchased by Douglas PUD from Lotek Wireless (New Market, Ontario). Tags operated on 149.260 MHz frequency and transmitted their unique identifier every 5-6 seconds. Six of 60 tags did not pass programming specs and were returned to Lotek for replacement. All tags had an expected tag life of 1075 days (2.9 years)2. Radio tags were outfitted with a motion (or “mortality”) sensor whereby transmissions indicated whether or not the study fish was still active / alive. Tags would change their transmission to the mortality mode after 48 hours of inactivity; but once motion resumed, the tag transmissions reverted back to the normal mode.
Tag burden estimates are provided in Table 2. No fish were weighed for this study, since removal from the electronarcosis table would have resulted in an immediate return of consciousness (see Section 5.4, below). Thus tag burden calculations assumed the length-weight relationship described in Budy et al. (2007). Tag burden calculations also account for the weight of the 12 mm full duplex PIT tag. All tag burdens were considered reasonable based on other tag studies (Brown et al. 2006).
5.3 Capture and Release
5.3.1 Trapping at Wells Bull Trout were trapped at Wells Dam using the broodstock collection facilities located within the East and West fishways. The broodstock collection facilities were located at Pool 40, approximately halfway up each fish ladder. The traps were operated by placing a barrier fence across the entire width of the pool. When a trap was in operation, all fish attempting to ascend the ladder were forced to ascend a steep-pass denil into an upwell enclosure, and then down a sorting chute. When a Bull Trout was observed in the sorting chute, it was redirected into a holding facility; whereas non-target species were shunted back to the ladder upstream of the trapping barrier. Trapping operations occurred during daytime hours throughout the peak of the Bull Trout passage period (17 May to 3 July 2016). Trapping at Wells Dam occurred predominately at the East Fishway, where fish were tagged immediately after capture. Those collected in the West Fishway were tagged at the end of the 24 hour trapping session when the hatchery pond was processed for fish.
Fourteen Bull Trout were captured and tagged at Wells Dam (17 May to 10 June 2016). Fork lengths ranged from 505 to 820 mm (average 635 mm; Figure 7). Fish tagged at Wells Dam were released into the tailrace near the hatchery boat launch (47.9432 °N, 119.8677 °W).
5.3.2 Trapping at the Twisp River Weir The Weir was operated for Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout daily from 0600 to 2200 starting 27 May 2016, but switched to nightly (2200 to 0800) on 10 June 2016, always with WDFW personnel in attendance. The Weir was removed on 23 August, 2016. When the Weir was not fishing (daytime hours), the weir panels were lowered and the traps opened to allow free passage of fish. When fishing, trap-boxes were checked hourly, and all captured Bull Trout were transferred to an in-river holding pen featuring flow-through river water. Each morning, taggers arrived and processed the fish that were captured overnight.
2 The long tag life allowed for a subsequent assessment to be conducted, if required, using the same study fish; and would have allowed for other researchers in the basin to make use of the study fish if they had the need. PIT tag detections will be followed indefinitely by Douglas PUD staff.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 10
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Table 2. Estimated tag burden using 16.0 gram MCFT2-3A radio tags and 0.1 g PIT tag. Fish mass determined from wild Walla Walla River Bull Trout length-weight curves (g = 9.87x10-6 x TL2.99 ; Budy et al. 2007). TL = Total Length.
Expected Combined PIT Fish TL Fish Mass Tag + Radio Tag Tag (mm) (g) Mass (g) Burden 450 846.1 16.1 1.9% 500 1159.4 16.1 1.4% 550 1541.7 16.1 1.0% 600 1999.8 16.1 0.8%
16 Twisp 14 Wells
12
10
8
6
Bull (count) Torut 4
2
0 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Fork Length Range (cm)
Figure 7. Size distribution of 60 Bull Trout radio-tagged and released at Wells Dam (n=14) or the Twisp Weir (n=46).
At the Weir, not all captured Bull Trout were tagged since we wanted to distribute the radio tags across the approximate run duration. Therefore, some trapped Bull Trout were released untagged upstream of the Weir within 18 hours of capture. In all, 46 fish were tagged between 13 June and 5 July 2016. Fork lengths of radio- tagged fish ranged from 490 to 745 mm (average 625 mm; Figure 7). Fish tagged at the Weir were released 8.3 river km upstream, near the Buttermilk Bridge (48.364 °N, 120.337 °W).
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 11
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
5.4 Tagging Procedures Tagging procedures were based on those described in previous Bull Trout radio telemetry studies conducted at Wells Dam (LGL and Douglas PUD 2008), but were updated to reflect recent advances in surgical methodology (e.g., Liedtke et al 2011, Wargo Rub et al. 2014). In general, we considered recent advances in knowledge and understanding of fish health and condition, and efforts were made to minimize impacts to biological and physiological stress (e.g., Cooke et al. 2011a,b, Harnish et al. 2011, Oldenburg et al. 2011, Wagner et al. 2011, Balazik et al. 2013). Specific attention was made to minimize incision length, possibility of infection, handling time, water temperature stressors, and air exposure. One major change from previous methods was that DC electronarcosis (Hudson et al. 2011) was used as a sedative during surgeries instead of MS222. Only staff with experience implanting active tags performed surgeries.
Prior to tagging each fish, all surgical equipment and tags were disinfected with a diluted germicidal (chlorhexidine) solution for at least 10 minutes, and then rinsed in distilled water. Bull Trout selected for tagging were dip-netted from the holding tank, placed into a sanctuary net (a neoprene ‘sock’ that retained water), and then transferred to the electronarcosis tank (Figure 8). The electronarcosis tank contained river water that was constantly being pumped-in and renewed, and which was always within 2°C of the ambient river temperature (trough temperatures at Wells Dam: 10.5-15°C, mean 12.3°C; Twisp: 8-11°C, mean 9.2°C). The tank featured two metal electrodes (one was mounted on a slider to allow the inter-electrode distance to be adjusted) that were connected to a 0-60 V DC power supply. Each fish was placed in a mesh sling that helped maintain its body position perpendicular to the current. Initially, the power was turned on with a low voltage output, and once a fish was in the tank, the power was gradually increased until the fish entered a state of narcosis (immobilization, relaxation, lack of upright orientation). The effects of narcosis could also be adjusted by changing the inter- electrode distance. For the surgeries performed during this study, the DC current output ranged from 30 to 57 V (mean 44.7 V), depending on the size and combativeness of the individual fish (note that the voltage gradient depended on the distance between the electrodes).
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 12
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Figure 8. Bull Trout in the electronarcosis tank. The metal cross-plates are electrodes, delivering 30-57 V. The mesh sling helped maintain the body perpendicular to the current, and helped keep the incision site out of the water during the surgical procedure.
Once a fish lost equilibrium (nearly immediate), it was measured for fork length and girth (measured around the widest part of the fish, anterior of the dorsal fin) using a flexible measuring tape. The fish was then scanned for a PIT tag. Bull Trout that did not have an existing PIT tag were given one by injecting it into the peritoneal cavity with single-use preloaded tags (Biomark, Boise, ID). PIT tags ID numbers of previously-tagged and newly-tagged fish were recorded. A small (1 cm2) clip was taken from the pectoral fin and placed in non-denatured alcohol to be sent to the WDFW for genetic analysis (see section 5.5 below).
To begin the surgical procedure, the fish was placed ventral-side up in the sling, and its position was adjusted to keep the gill lamellae submerged, while ensuring that the incision site was not exposed to river water. A 3-4 cm incision was made 2 cm away from and parallel to the mid-ventral line starting approximately 3 cm anterior to the
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 13
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
pelvic girdle and only deep enough to penetrate the peritoneum. A shielded-needle catheter was then inserted through the incision, posteriorly between the pelvic girdle and viscera, to a point 5-10 cm off-center from the mid- ventral line and posterior to the origin of the pelvic fins. The catheter was then pulled back onto the needle shaft, exposing the point of the needle. Pressure was then applied until both the needle and catheter pierced the skin of the fish. The needle was pulled back out of the incision, leaving the catheter in position to guide the transmitter antenna through the body wall of the fish. The radio transmitter was implanted by first threading the antenna through the incision-end of the catheter. Both the antenna and catheter were then gently pulled posteriorly while the transmitter was inserted into the body cavity through the incision. The position of the transmitter inside the fish was adjusted by gently pulling on the antenna until the transmitter was resting horizontally in the body cavity directly under the incision. The incision was closed with four to five interrupted, absorbable sutures (Vicryl-Plus antibacterial braided suture with tapered CT-1 needle, Ethicon Corp.) evenly spaced across the incision. The fish was then transferred to a recovery tank (a cooler, supplied with flow-through river-water, and supplied with oxygen through an air stone) located on the back of a pickup truck. Once out of the electronarcosis tank, fish immediately regained equilibrium.
90% of the study fish were exposed to electronarcosis for between 8 and 16 minutes (average 11.3 minutes). The remaining six fish took longer to process: four had exposure times between 18 and 20 minutes, and two took 24 minutes. Fish that took longer to tag generally needed an additional suture to close the incision, rolled out of surgery position, or some other task took longer than normal. The two fish with longest surgery times both survived and passed Wells Dam in the upstream direction subsequent to release.
Once a fish was in the recovery tank, the flow-through water was detached from the recovery tank, and the fish was quickly transported to the release site. At the release site, the air stone was removed and the recovery tank was placed into the river. The tank was gently rolled onto its side and the lid was opened allowing the fish to swim free of the vessel. The swimming behavior of the fish was observed and any abnormalities were noted.
5.5 Genetics Douglas PUD provided genetic samples to the WDFW fish genetics laboratory in Olympia, WA for genotyping. All 60 samples were analyzed using similar methods as described in DeHaan et al. (2014) and compared against baseline local population genotypes determined in DeHaan and Neibauer (2012). All Bull Trout samples were assigned to sub-basin and local population, with assignment confidence reported on a probability scale of 0 to 1. Genetic samples were expected to allow Douglas PUD to determine if fish intended to pass upstream of the Project location, especially for fish over 500 mm (Nelson 2015). Samples taken from Bull Trout from 2005-2007 were also sent to WDFW fish genetics laboratory for identical analysis as described above.
5.6 Telemetry Tracking Movements of tagged Bull Trout were monitored using a combination of fixed-station and mobile radio-tracking, along with the existing basin-wide PIT tag detection arrays.
5.6.1 Fixed-Station Radio-Tag Tracking Fixed-station tracking was done using an array of 34 antennas wired into 14 fixed-station receivers (Table 3). Beacon tags (Lotek model MCFT2-3L), programed to transmit their unique identifier every five seconds for one minute at the start of every hour (12 transmissions per hour), were deployed near fixed-station receivers to provide assurance that receivers were functioning normally throughout the study period. Lotek SRX 400 receivers were used at all fixed stations. Detection data were downloaded from the fixed-station Lotek receivers a minimum of two times per month, and more often during periods of peak fish activity. The final downloads were made on 31 August 2017.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 14
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
5.6.2 Mobile Radio-Tag Tracking Lotek SRX 400 receivers were used for all mobile tracking. Mobile tracking was mostly done by fixed-wing aircraft with a Yagi antenna attached to the strut. In total, three flights were performed in late 2016 (late August to late October) and one was performed in April 2017. Flight paths ran along the Columbia River mainstem from Rock Island Dam to the mouth of the Methow River, then followed the Methow River up to its junction with the Twisp River, and then travelled along the Twisp River past Buttermilk and as far as weather conditions and topography would allow. While mobile tracking, the plane flew at approximately 150 to 300 m above the ground, and travelled at 185 km/h (100 knots). Geographic coordinates were recorded for each fish signal detected, by linking the telemetry receiver and a global positioning system (GPS) unit. The position of the fish was determined by the position of the aircraft at the time of the detection with highest signal power.
One tagged fish was encountered by WDFW personnel during their electrofishing studies, and two tags were recovered during WDFW stranding surveys above Buttermilk. Mobile tracking also occurred by foot as a field verification tool, and was instrumental in recovering four tags that were lying in an off-channel beaver pond.
5.6.3 PIT Tag Monitoring: The existing basin wide PIT-tag detection arrays (Figure 9) were queried for detections of study fish. Since some of our study fish already had an existing PIT tag at the time of radio-tag implantation (20 of 60), and since PIT-tag queries produced detections of our fish prior to the start of this study, we attempted to gain insight into spawning periodicity. For these 20 fish, detections at TWR in the spring or fall (i.e., prior to or after the spawning period), were considered as evidence of a Twisp River spawning attempt. Conversely, fish that were not detected in the Twisp River in a given year were considered to have possibly skipped a year (missed detections and straying notwithstanding).
5.7 Data processing Georeferenced data downloaded from fixed-station receivers and all mobile-tracking records (including PIT tag detections from PTAGIS and tag recovery events) were processed using custom database software, Telemetry Manager. Telemetry Manager facilitates data organization, record validation and analysis through the systematic application of user-defined criteria. By using Telemetry Manager, temporal or spatial resolution and noise filtering criteria could be changed at any time without altering the raw data (English et al. 2012). False records (e.g., non- study tags; detections before release) and records that we suspected were the result of electronic noise (e.g., single detections in each 60 minute period; or those that occurred in a sequence which was not probable) were identified, and the remaining records were compressed into a manageable database of sequential detections for each fish. Each record included the tag number, detection location, and the first and last date and time of any sequential detections in that location. QAQC was performed to determine if user-defined filters needed adjustment, and if so, the adjustments were made and the compression algorithm was re-run. The final compressed database was used for all subsequent analyses.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 15
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Table 3. Fixed station receiver locations and antenna configurations at Wells Dam and in the Twisp River.
Virtual Receiver Antenna Location Description Antenna Type Release Number ID
Downstream of Wells Dam Gateway (3 km downstream of Wells) Directional Aerials No 1 1 & 2 West Tailrace Aerial No 2 1 Hatchery Outfall Coax No 2 2 East Tailrace Aerial No 3 1
Wells East Fishway (WEF) WEF Entrance Inside Fixed Dipole Yes 4 1 WEF Weir 1 Fixed Dipole Yes 4 2 WEF Weir 7 Fixed Dipole Yes 4 3 WEF Above Trap Fixed Dipole Yes 5 1 WEF Above Count Coax Yes 5 2 WEF Exit Fixed Dipole Yes 5 3
Wells West Fishway (WWF) WWF Entrance Inside Fixed Dipole Yes 6 1 WWF Weir 1 Fixed Dipole Yes 6 2 WWF Weir 7 Fixed Dipole Yes 6 3 WWF Above Trap Fixed Dipole Yes 7 1 WWF Above Count Coax Yes 7 2 WWF Exit Fixed Dipole Yes 7 3
Wells Forebay Area in front of Units 1&2 Aerial Yes 8 1 Area in front of Units 3&4 Aerial Yes 8 1 Area in front of Units 5&6 Aerial Yes 8 1 Area in front of Units 7&8 Aerial Yes 8 1 Area in front of Units 9&10 Aerial Yes 8 1
Tributary Confluences Methow-Columbia confluence Directional Aerials No 9 1 & 2 Okanogan-Columbia confluence Directional Aerials No 10 1 & 2 Twisp-Methow confluence Directional Aerials No 11 1 & 2
Twisp River Below Weir Aerial Yes 12 1 At Weir Aerial Yes 12 2 Inside Trap Box Coax Yes 12 3 Above Weir Aerial Yes 12 4 Buttermilk (10 km upstream of Weir) Directional Aerials No 13 1 & 2
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 16
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Figure 9. Locations of PIT tag arrays in the Upper Mid-Columbia.
5.8 Data analyses Analyses emphasized survival and passage success rates. In order to determine passage and survival statistics, virtual releases were used (virtual release zones are shown in green in Table 3). Thus, only fish detected on stations immediately above (for downstream passage) or below (for upstream passage) the Twisp River Weir or Wells Dam were used as sample fish that contributed to denominators of the passage metrics (see equations, below). All other fixed array and mobile detections were used to verify passage and/or interaction events. It should be noted that the analyses were not dependent on detection efficiencies of receiver arrays – i.e., fish that clearly moved through a virtual release zone were included in the passage and survival analyses regardless of whether or not they were actually detected in that zone and provided the passage event wasn’t impossible (false) based on previous detection histories.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 17
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Analyses were based on detections of our sixty radio-tagged Bull Trout between August 2016 and September 2017. Since trapping for study fish occurred at both facilities of interest, Bull Trout facility interactions during the tagging period were by definition ‘other than usual’. Thus, to examine the effects of usual operations (and without the influence of tagging/handling procedures), detections made during the tagging period were not included in our analyses: downstream movements past facilities were considered starting in August 2016, and upstream movements were observed in 2017.
The following equations were used to calculate survival and passage success rates: , + , = 𝑤𝑤 ,𝑑𝑑 + 𝑤𝑤 ,𝑢𝑢 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑤𝑤 𝑑𝑑 𝑤𝑤 𝑢𝑢 𝑁𝑁 , + 𝑁𝑁 , = 𝑑𝑑 ,𝑑𝑑 + 𝑑𝑑,𝑢𝑢 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑢𝑢 𝑁𝑁 , + 𝑁𝑁 , = 𝑤𝑤 ,𝑑𝑑 + 𝑤𝑤, 𝑢𝑢 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑤𝑤 𝑑𝑑 𝑤𝑤 𝑢𝑢 𝑃𝑃 , + 𝑃𝑃 , = 𝑑𝑑 ,𝑑𝑑 + 𝑑𝑑,𝑢𝑢 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑢𝑢 where: 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃
• was the number of unique fish that passed the Weir: , was the number of unique fish that passed
the Weir in the downstream direction; and , was the number of unique fish that passed the Weir in the 𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤 𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤 𝑑𝑑 upstream direction. 𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤 𝑢𝑢 • was the number of unique fish that passed Wells Dam: , was the number of unique fish that were
moving downstream in the forebay that subsequently passed into the tailrace; and , was the number 𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑 𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 of unique fish that were detected inside a fishway entrance that were subsequently detected upstream of 𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑 𝑢𝑢 the dam.
• was the number of unique fish that survived passage of the Weir: , was the number of unique fish
that survived passage of the Weir in the downstream direction; and , was the number of unique fish 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤 𝑑𝑑 that survived passage of the Weir in the upstream direction. 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤 𝑢𝑢 • was the number of unique fish that survived passage of Wells Dam: , was the number of unique fish that were moving downstream in the forebay that were subsequently alive downstream of the dam; and 𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑 𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 , was the number of unique fish that were detected inside a fishway entrance that were subsequently alive upstream of the dam. 𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑 𝑢𝑢 • was the number of unique fish that interacted with the Weir: , was the number of unique fish that
interacted with the Weir in the downstream direction; and , was the number of unique fish that 𝑁𝑁𝑤𝑤 𝑁𝑁𝑤𝑤 𝑑𝑑 interacted with the Weir in the upstream direction. 𝑁𝑁𝑤𝑤 𝑢𝑢 • was the number of unique fish that interacted with Wells Dam: , was the number of unique fish
that were moving downstream and interacted with Wells Dam; and , was the number of unique fish 𝑁𝑁𝑑𝑑 𝑁𝑁𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 that were moving upstream that were detected inside a fishway entrance. 𝑁𝑁𝑑𝑑 𝑢𝑢 Thus, • Upstream and downstream interactions were summed at each facility. • A fish that was detected inside the fishway entrance at Wells Dam (or was detected immediately below the Weir), which was not subsequently detected upstream of the dam (or of the Weir) would be
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 18
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
considered a passage failure. The same assumption was made for downstream movements using upstream arrays. • Fish that were observed dead and tags detected in ‘motionless’ mode prior to a passage event were considered passage failures; whereas fish that were observed dead and tags detected in ‘motionless’ mode within a few days following a passage event were considered mortalities.
Detection efficiencies were calculated as the proportion of ‘known events’ that were detected. ‘Known events’ include those that were detected, and those that were inferred from the remainder of a fish’s detection history (e.g., a fish detected at the Gateway and then in the Fishway Entrance was known to have been missed in the tailrace). Because of our specific antenna configurations, fish were expected to be able to move between fishway entrances without being detected in the tailrace; and fish were expected to be able to move upstream from the fishway exits into the Methow without being detected in the forebay (thus detection or lack of detection in these two scenarios did not count for or against the antenna with respect to its detection efficiency).
To statistically compare travel times or residency durations, (nonparametric) Wilcoxon tests were used instead of (parametric) ANOVAs, given the highly skewed distribution of this type of data.
6 Results
6.1 Tracking Results Tracking infrastructure was deployed in the Wells Dam fishways on 10 May; at the Twisp River Weir, Gateway site, Wells forebay, and at the Methow, Okanagan, and Twisp river junctions on 12 May; in the Wells tailrace on 24 May; and at Buttermilk Bridge on 9 June 2016. Receiver function (based on the recording of at least one internal battery check, fish detection, beacon tag detection, or noise event per hour) was generally high (Table 4). Brief periods of malfunction were due to residualized tags filling the memory banks (Left Tailrace, May-June 2016; and Weir, September 2016), an ant invasion (Buttermilk, June 2017), solar panels receiving too little daylight (tailrace, Methow, and Buttermilk Bridge, sporadically from November 2016 through January 2017), or random electronic glitches (Methow, May 2016).
Over the duration of the study period, every one of the 60 radio-tagged Bull Trout were detected at least once. Tracking lasted from 6 to 453 days, depending on the fish. The distribution of track durations was polymodal, with a cluster of fish tracked for less than 15 days, a second cluster tracked from 96 to 183 days, and a third group tracked from 275 to 453 days (Figure 10).
Detection efficiencies of the individual radio-telemetry arrays are shown in Table 5 (signal to noise performance is shown in Appendix A). All but four of the arrays detected more that 97% of the known events. Both fishway entrances missed fish (coming or going) between 6.3 and 8.8% of the time. Within-fishway radio-telemetry arrays detected 98.8-100% of passage events, whereas the PIT-tag antennas detected 75-100% of the radio-tagged fish (Table 6; none of the 18 radio-tagged fish that interacted with the fishways during the study period were missed by the whole PIT detection system at Wells Dam). The Wells forebay missed downstream-passing radio-tagged fish 10% of the time (Table 5). The radio-telemetry receiver at the Twisp River Junction missed 7.5% of the interaction events (Table 5), whereas the PIT detection array missed 26.4% of the passage events (upstream movements were missed 47.6% of the time by the PIT array, and never missed by the radio receivers; downstream movements were missed only 6.5% of the time by PIT arrays, and 9.7% of the time by radio receivers).
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 19
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Table 4. Monthly receiver function, as a percentage of hours deployed. nd = not deployed. Red cells < 99%
Tailrace East Fishway West Fishway Wells River Junctions Twisp R. Butter- Month Gateway East West Lower Upper Lower Upper Forebay Methow Okanog. Twisp Weir milk 2016-05 99.8 76.0 100 100 99.8 100 100 100 97.8 99.6 100 100 nd 2016-06 100 89.3 100 100 100 100 100 99.9 100 100 100 100 97.8 2016-07 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.9 100 100 100 100 100 2016-08 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.6 100 100 2016-09 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 79.6 100 100 2016-10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2016-11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 73.9 2016-12 100 100 96.1 100 100 100 100 100 99.6 100 100 100 77.3 2017-01 100 78.0 99.9 100 100 100 100 100 92.5 100 100 100 100 2017-02 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2017-03 99.9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2017-04 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2017-05 100 100 100 100 100 99.5 100 100 99.9 100 100 100 100 2017-06 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 81.9 2017-07 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.9 100 99.9 2017-08 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.9
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 20
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
20 18 18
16 14 13 12 10 8 8
Bull (count) Torut 6 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 100-125 125-150 150-175 175-200 200-225 225-250 250-275 275-300 300-325 325-350 350-375 375-400 400-425 425-450 450-475 475-500 Tracking Duration (days)
Figure 10. Frequency distribution of tracking durations (time from release to last detection) for 60 radio- tagged Bull Trout.
Table 5. Detection efficiencies of radio-telemetry antenna arrays. Known events include all detections of a given fish at a location, plus all inferred passage events, including repeat detections by individuals moving back and forth between arrays. Red cells < 97%.
Known Detection Radio Telemetry Array Events Detected Efficiency Gateway 127 125 98.4% Wells Tailrace 854 831 97.3% East Fishway – Entrance 669 627 93.7% East Fishway – Lower 105 104 99.0% East Fishway – Upper 17 17 100.0% East Fishway – Exit 7 7 100.0% West Fishway – Entrance 205 187 91.2% West Fishway – Lower 122 122 100.0% West Fishway – Upper 80 79 98.8% West Fishway – Exit 20 20 100.0% Wells Forebay 20 18 90.0% Methow River Junction 59 59 100.0% Twisp River Junction 54 50 92.5% Twisp River Weir 64 64 100.0% Buttermilk Bridge 129 129 100.0%
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 21
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Table 6. Detection efficiencies of Wells Dam fishway PIT-tag antenna arrays. For four PIT-tag antenna locations in each fishway, the table shows the average PIT-tag detection date corresponding to each of the known radio-tagged fish interactions (i.e., radio-tagged fish that interacted with more than just the fishway entrances). Red font shows failed passage attempts.
Radio Pool Pool Pool Overall Tag Max Zone Year Month/ Day 19 67 68 Fishway East Fishway 7 Exited 2016 6/6 Missed 6/06 6/06 Detected 8 Exited 2016 6/23 6/23 6/23 6/23 Detected 10 Exited 2016 6/24 6/24 6/24 6/24 Detected 19 Exited 2017 5/24 5/24 5/24 5/24 Detected 32 Exited 2017 5/19 5/19 5/19 5/19 Detected 35 Exited 2017 5/28 5/28 5/28 5/28 Detected 37 Exited 2017 6/3 6/03 6/03 6/03 Detected 48 Above Trap † 2017 5/28 Missed na na na n events 8 7 7 7 n detected 6 7 7 7 Detection Efficiency 75% 100% 100% 100%
West Fishway 1 Exited 2016 5/25-26 5/25 5/25 Missed Detected 6 Exited 2016 5/29 5/29 5/29 5/29 Detected 7 Exited 2017 6/4 Missed 6/04 6/04 Detected 11 Exited 2016 6/13-14 6/13 Missed 6/14 Detected 16 Exited 2016 6/13 6/13 Missed 6/13 Detected 23 Exited 2017 7/4 Missed 7/04 7/04 Detected 38 Exited 2017 6/15 6/15 6/15 6/15 Detected 48 Above Trap 2016 12/21-22 ‡ 12/21 na na na 50 Exited 2017 6/16-17 6/17 6/17 6/17 Detected 57 Exited 2017 5/28-30 5/28 5/30 5/30 Detected n events 10 9 9 9 n detected 8 7 8 9 Detection Efficiency 80% 78% 89% 100% † Tag 48 was captured in the trap, handled, and released back into the fishway just above the trap fence, after which it dropped back down into the tailrace. ‡ December is considered an unusual time for Bull Trout to be migrating, thus this may not have been a genuine passage attempt.
6.2 Genetic Results The results of the genetic analyses showed that all but one of our study fish were assigned to populations with spawning areas that are located upstream of Wells Dam (Table 7). In all, 41 fish were identified as being part of the Twisp River population, three were from Gold Creek, one was from Lake Creek (a tributary to Chewuch River),
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 22
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B and eight were from Methow populations (including Beaver Creek, Early Winters Creek, Wolf Creek, and the West Fork of the Methow River). There were six additional fish that were certainly either from Methow or Twisp populations, but for which the specific subpopulation could not be determined with > 90% confidence. There was only one fish that was assigned to a population located downstream of Wells Dam: it was assigned with 99.18% probability to the Mad River (a tributary to the Entiat River) population.
Comparison of tracking results to the genetic determinations (Table 7) suggested either that straying was relatively common or the determinations were not as precise as their ‘assignment probability’ would have suggested. For 50 fish tracked to the Twisp River, genetic determinations were in agreement 84% of the time (42 of 50 fish). The eight other fish (i.e., those with genetic assignments that disagreed with their tracked locations) included one fish assigned to the Entiat Basin, all three fish that were assigned to the Gold Creek population, the only fish assigned to Beaver Creek, two fish assigned to the West Fork of the Methow River, and one fish that was assigned to the Methow River (in either Early Winters or Wolf creeks).
The complete genetic results document, including results from Bull Trout samples taken in 2005-2007, is provided in Appendix B.
Table 7. Genetic determinations and tracking locations for 60 radio-tagged Bull Trout sampled at Wells Dam (n = 14) or at the Twisp River Weir (n = 46) in 2016.
Tracked Location Chewuch Lost Wolf Twisp No Grand Genetic Determination River River Creek River Data Total Chewuch River 1 1
Lake Creek 1 1
Entiat River 1 1
Mad River 1 1
Gold Creek 3 3
Gold Creek 3 3
Methow River 1 1 3 3 8
Beaver Creek 1 1
Early Winters Creek 1 1
Wolf Creek 1 1 2 Early Winters / Wolf 1 1
West Fork Methow R. 1 1 1 3
Twisp River 38 3 41
Twisp River 38 3 41
Unassigned 5 1 6
Twisp River 4 4
West Fork Methow R. 1 1 2
Grand Total 1 1 1 50 7 60
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 23
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Table 8. Summation and calculated Survival/Passage statistics at the Twisp River Weir.
Down- Up- Standards Totals stream stream Total Statistic Goal Achieved? Passage 31 of 35 18 of 18 49 of 53 92.5% * ≥ 90% Yes Survival 30 of 30 18 of 18 48 of 48 100% > 95% Yes * Four tags were recovered upstream of the Weir after appearing to move downstream toward the Weir: we are suspicious that the fish were either moribund or dead prior to arriving in the forebay of the Weir, or were biologically compromised such that predation was easier once they arrived. All four tags were found in an off channel beaver pond and adjacent to an irrigation diversion. See Discussion for further context.
6.3 Passage and Survival
6.3.1 Twisp River Weir Overall, Weir interactions led to 92.5% passage success (49 of 53) and 100% survival (48 of 48; Table 8).
Thirty five fish moved downstream and were detected at the Weir (Table 8) prior to the end of data collection (34 fish between 1 September and 18 November 2016 and one fish on 16 August 2017). Of these, four (Tags 22, 29, 47, and 58) were recovered (dead) immediately upstream of the Weir in an off-channel beaver pond. While these may have been moribund prior to arriving at the Weir, biologically compromised such that predation was more likely, or even already dead upon arrival (washing downstream only to settle out in the forebay and be moved by a predator/scavenger into the of-channel area), we nevertheless counted them as failed passage attempts.
Of the 31 fish that passed the Weir in the downstream direction, 30 clearly survived passage, including one fish (Tag 26) that died about a month later. The post-passage fate of the one other fish (Tag 13) could not be determined, hence the event has been excluded. The complete post-passage detection histories of Tags 13 and 26 are: • Tag 13 was in live mode when it moved past the Twisp River Junction receiver site 18.3 hours after its last detection at the Weir. The tag was still in live mode when it was detected during the 28 September mobile flight (34 hours after Weir passage) in the Methow River downstream of Twisp. Forty-six hours after Weir passage, the fish was detected at the MRC PIT array in the Methow River near Carlton, WA. The detections at the Weir and at the Twisp River junction, and the PIT tag detection at MRC all occurred during night time hours, which is consistent with downstream passage behaviors of living fish, perhaps supporting the concept that the fish was alive for at least 46 hours after Weir passage. However, when the tag was next detected, one month later (27 October), it was in mortality mode in the lower Methow River, immediately adjacent to a Washington State fishing access parking lot, near French Creek Road (Methow, WA). From this sequence of detections, post-passage fate cannot be determined. While this fish may have died during passage (it is possible that we were tracking a carcass as it drifted downstream, since all sequential detections were in a downstream direction), it also may have survived another 3.5 weeks after passage and been caught by an angler. We simply don’t have any detections in the critically informative period that starts 48 hours after passage (the tags do not go into ‘mortality’ mode until the tag has been motionless for 48 hours), so the event was deemed inconclusive, and removed from the analytical sample. • Tag 26 was in live mode as it moved past the Twisp River Junction receiver site 17.3 hours after its last detection at the Weir. The tag was in live mode while the fish was being detected at the mouth of the
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 24
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Methow River, 6.2 to 6.9 days after Weir passage, while it moved in and out of detection range. From there, the fish moved upstream in the Columbia River and was last detected near the town of Brewster, 25.4 days after Weir passage. This may have been a moribund or biologically-compromised post-spawner. Nevertheless, it was still moving around more than six days after passage, and made an upstream movement, signaling that it survived well beyond the time of Weir passage. As such it was counted as a survived passage event.
Eighteen fish moved upstream toward the Weir in 2017 (between 29 June and 17 July). All passed successfully, and survived to move upstream past the Buttermilk receiver site.
Downstream travel times from Buttermilk to the Weir were generally short (74% were less than one day; and 97% were less than six days) although one (Tag 40) individual took 37 days. There were no significant differences in downstream travel times between fish that passed successfully (mean = 55.2 h; median = 19.8 h; when the outlier slow fish was excluded, mean and median were 27.5 and 19.0 h) and those that did not (mean = 26.0 h; median = 14.7 h; χ2 = 0.13, df = 1, P = 0.72).
During downstream passage, the duration of time that fish spent at the Weir (i.e., within the detection range of the antennas) ranged from 3 minutes to 22.2 hours (median = 20.3 minutes): 84% passed in under 2 hours, and 94% in under 4 hours. During 2017, fish moved upstream past the Weir with durations ranging from 32 minutes to 4.3 days (median = 73.5 minutes): 66% passed in < 2h, and 89% passed in < 1 d.
6.3.2 Wells Dam Overall, Wells Dam interactions led to 91.3% (21 of 23) passage success and 100% survival (Table 9).
Twelve fish approached and moved downstream past Wells Dam (two in September, three in October, two in November, one in December 2016, one in March 2017, one in April 2017, and two with unknown dates in 2017), all of which passed successfully. None of the fish were detected in mortality mode in the tailrace, at the Gateway receiver site, or during mobile tracking that occurred after the passage event had taken place. Ten of twelve made subsequent attempts to pass Wells Dam in an upstream direction (confirming their survival). One of the two others was detected live near Beebe Bridge ~6 months later; and the last fish (Tag 43) was never detected after it moved past the Gateway site ~ 3 h after its last forebay detection (it was counted as successful passage, but excluded from survival analysis). The total of 12 approach events does not include a fish (Tag 11) that was last detected in the Wells forebay (30 November 2016). Since we do not know if it turned back (passage failure) or passed undetected (passage success), nor do we know if it survived this interaction, it has been excluded from the analyses.
Table 9. Summation and calculated Survival/Passage statistics at Wells Dam.
Down- Up- Standards Totals stream stream Total Statistic Goal Achieved? Passage 12 of 12 9 of 11 21 of 23 91.3% * ≥ 90% Yes Survival 11 of 11 9 of 9 20 of 20 100% > 95% Yes * We are suspicious that the two fish that ‘failed to pass’ Wells Dam in 2017 could possibly have not had intention to make a spawning migration in 2017, however we counted the fish as passage failures. See Discussion for further context.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 25
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Between 19 May and 4 July 2017, eleven fish interacted with Wells Dam in the upstream direction (10 of these had moved downstream through Wells Dam earlier in the study period; the other fish, Tag 19, left the study area in 2016, but returned to pass Wells Dam in 2017). Of these, nine successfully moved upstream through the fishways and eventually entered the Methow River. Median passage times for the nine successful migrants was 7.9 h. Seven of the nine successful fish passed in under 10 h (3.7 to 9.8 h), one fish passed in 24 hours, and one fish took 58 hours. The two fish that were unsuccessful in 2017 (Tags 10 and 48) made several forays into the fishways but did not pass Wells Dam by the time the study was complete: • Tag 10, after being released below Wells Dam in 2016, moved upstream past the dam, into spawning areas upstream of Buttermilk Bridge, and then returned downstream of Wells Dam in the fall. In 2017 it moved around in the tailrace in July and August, making three entrances into the East Ladder, and departed in the downstream direction on 26 August. • Tag 48 was released above the Weir in 2016. It moved into spawning areas upstream of Buttermilk Bridge, and then moved successfully downstream of the Weir and Wells Dam in the fall. From December 2016 to June 2017, it moved around in the tailrace, making two movements into the both fishways. In its first fishway interaction, the fish moved into the West fishway from 21-22 December 2016, reaching as far up as the trap. The timing of this movement is not consistent with normal Bull Trout spawning migrations (see Figure 1), and we suspect that this was not a genuine passage attempt. On 28 May 2017, the fish entered the East fishway, but was intercepted at the trap by WDFW personnel during their Chinook Salmon broodstock collection activities. WDFW released the fish above the trap, but it quickly moved down the ladder and into the tailrace. From 5 to 15 June, the fish made one movement into the West Ladder and three movements into the East Ladder, never reaching any farther than the collection gallery. The fish subsequently left the tailrace, moving in the downstream direction past the Gateway site on 20 June 2017.
6.4 Upper Twisp Detections In the fall of 2016, 49 fish passed upstream of Buttermilk into the presumed spawning reaches of Twisp River, of which 34 (69%) moved back downstream later in the fall. Upstream detections at Buttermilk Bridge ranged from 18 June to 28 July, and downstream passage ranged from 31 August to 27 October. Of the 15 Bull Trout that never returned downstream, 13 were detected at least once during mobile tracking surveys. The positions of those 13 fish, plus that of a fish that returned downstream post-spawning but which was detected during spawn-timing mobile tracking, are shown in Figure 11. Four tags, located near Gilbert (clustered in the top left of the figure), were in the vicinity of the spawning areas identified by Nelson (2004, 2015). Six tags were located between South Creek and Poplar Flat, the former identified by Nelson (2004) as a post-spawning congregation area, and the latter an area that is dewatered in all but high-rainfall years. One tag was located near the Reynolds Creek inflow (downstream of the dewatered area of the Twisp River), near to where spawning redds were located by Nelson (2015). The last three tags were located farther down the watershed near Buttermilk Bridge.
Of the 34 Twisp fish that moved downstream in the fall of 2016: • 18 (53%) returned in 2017 as consecutive-year spawners, including: o 6 that had moved downstream and then upstream past Wells Dam; o 8 that had overwintered in the Methow River; o 3 that had overwintered in the Methow and/or Columbia rivers; and o 1 that may have overwintered in the Okanogan River (PIT data shows it also spent time in the Okanogan in 2014). • 16 (47%) did not return in 2017, including: o 4 that were mortalities in the off-channel beaver pond upstream of the Weir;
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 26
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
o 6 that were last detected in the Methow or Columbia rivers, including the two that were last detected in ‘mortality’ mode (see Section 6.3.1); o 1 that moved downstream and was last detected in the Wells forebay (Tag 11); and o 5 that passed downstream through Wells Dam (all counted as successful downstream passage events in Table 9), including one that returned upstream in 2017 (Tag 50; counted as an upstream passage success in Table 9) but continued only as far as the Methow River, two (Tags 10 and 48) that entered Wells Dam fishways but that did not pass upstream (both counted as passage failures in Table 9), and two (Tags 43 and 49) that were not subsequently detected.
Figure 11. Bull Trout spawning / mortality locations in the Twisp River. Yellow dots show mobile-tracking locations of 14 fish that either did not leave the area after the fall spawning period, or that were detected during the spawning period. Numerals indicate n where dots are overwriting each other (otherwise a dot represents one tag). For reference, Buttermilk Bridge and Poplar Flats are shown as red stars.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 27
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
6.5 Bull Trout Mortalities Over the sixteen-month period of this study, a total of 20 tags were detected in mortality mode (Figure 12). These included: • 11 of the 15 tags that never moved downstream of the Buttermilk Bridge site after spawning in the fall of 2016; • 4 tags that were recovered from the irrigation channel or beaver pond upstream of the Weir; • 1 fish that died in the lower Methow River within one month of Weir passage; • 1 fish that died in the Columbia River near the town of Brewster; • 3 fish that died downstream of Wells Dam within several weeks of tagging, including one near Rocky Reach Dam, one near Orondo, and one near the Wenatchee River confluence (none were treatment fish for this study).
Figure 12. Last detection locations for the 20 Bull Trout mortalities that were documented during this study. Numerals indicate n where dots are overwriting each other (otherwise a dot represents one tag).
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 28
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
6.6 PIT Tag Detections Prior to Study Period Of our 60 study fish, 20 had existing PIT tags (Table 10). Three of the 20 were PIT tagged in 2010, two in 2012, four in 2013, and 11 in 2014. Of the three fish tagged in 2010, one appeared to have spawned in the Twisp River in all seven years from 2010-2016, one fish was missed 2013, and one fish was missed both 2012 and 2013 (Table 10). ‘Missed fish’ could either result from a failure to detect a tag that was present (note that we observed very high PIT tag detection efficiencies at TWR in the fall but not in the spring, see Section 6.1), or if a fish did not return to spawn in the Twisp River that year. Both fish tagged in 2012 were detected in the Twisp River in all five years from 2012-2016. Three of the four fish tagged in 2013 were detected in the Twisp River in all four years from 2013- 2016, and one fish was detected in all but 2015. Eight of the fish tagged in 2014 were in the Twisp River in all three years from 2014-2016, and three were missed in 2015. In all, four of twenty (20%) were either missed by TWR in the spring and fall in the 2015 spawn year or they did not spawn in 2015 (Table 10). We note that 2015 was a low stream flow and warm stream temperature year when compared to the average; these conditions would favor PIT tag detection capability, thus suggesting that these fish may not have spawned in the Twisp River that year.
Table 10. Years in which 20 PIT-tagged fish were detected (yellow cells) at the TWR detection array in the Twisp River, or missed (pink cells).
Tag 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
9 26 56 15 29 17 28 42 47 2 6 11 13 20 21 23 33 46 49 60
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 29
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
7 Discussion
7.1 Passage and Survival The results from the tracking analyses have not permitted the rejection of the null hypothesis that “survival and passage success rates for adult marked fish are greater than 95% and greater than or equal to 90%, respectively”. Specifically, survival rates at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir were 100 and 98%, respectively; and passage success rates were 91.3 and 92.5%, respectively. Results at Wells Dam were similar to those observed from similar studies conducted from 2005-2008 (LGL and Douglas PUD 2008), wherein survival was 100% and no passage problems were identified.
Interpretation of most of the passage and survival data was straightforward, but there were a few fish whose tracks were less intuitive. For example, there was too little information to determine the fate of Tag 11, after it moved from the Methow River into the Columbia River. The fish’s last detection was in the Wells Forebay, thus we had no information to determine whether it stayed in the Reservoir or passed Wells Dam undetected; and if it did pass, we had no way to determine whether or not it survived the interaction. While this fish certainly ‘interacted’ with Wells Dam (as per our definition, given that it was detected in one of our virtual release zones), the interaction was excluded from our analyses since we couldn’t assign it a passage or survival fate. By contrast, we did include Tag 43, a fish that certainly moved downstream past Wells Dam, since it was detected in the forebay and then three hours later at the Gateway site. After passing the Gateway site, there were no subsequent detections of Tag 43, despite a mobile-tracking flight, done about a month later, that surveyed the tailrace and the mainstem downstream to the mouth of the Wenatchee River. For this tag, we inferred that the fish likely continued downstream out of the study area, and counted it as a passage and survival success.
For fish moving in the downstream direction, especially at the Weir, it was difficult to distinguish Project effects from the natural mortality of post-spawning fish. Post-spawning fish would be depleted of energy and in some cases moribund (energetically compromised) since somatic energy is invested in gonadal development and physical spawning. Nelson et al. (2011) speculated that at least one adult bull trout was lost due to post-spawning energetics, if not a combination of post-spawning condition, energetics, metabolic rate, and warm water temperatures. Although rates of natural post-spawning Bull Trout mortality in the Twisp River are not known, it follows that physiologically spent post-spawning fish would be more susceptible to stranding or predation. For example, there were two fish that died within one month of passing the Weir, who may have succumbed to latent post-spawning effects, or to other natural (Tag 26 was last detected in the Wells Reservoir in a backwater shallow pool near where avian or mammalian predators are suspected to forage and inhabit) or fishing (Tag 13 was last detected in the lower Methow River immediately adjacent to a fishing access location off of Highway 153) related effects. Moreover, there were four tags that were found in an off-channel beaver pond located upstream of the Weir (Figure 13) -- we are assuming that the four fish died (although no remains were found with the recovered tags) since none of their PIT tags have been detected since the radio tags went into mortality mode. Interestingly, none of the four tags were recovered from within the Twisp River channel itself. This is consistent with the idea that predation may have been the source of mortality. Further supporting this suspicion, there was physical damage to the antenna of two of the tags (Figure 14; the antennas are normally coated with a plastic, but it had been removed down to the wire in some of the recovered tags). Lindstrom and Hubert (2004) found that Mink (Neovison vison) predation was an important source of trout mortality, killing at least 8% of the tagged Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) and 28% of the tagged Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Both Jakober (1995) and Simpkins (1997) found substantial effects of Mink on natural mortality rates of fluvial salmonids. Here, it is impossible to know if the fish were killed by a predator once they entered the irrigation ditch, or if predators carried already-dead or dying bodies.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 30
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Figure 13. Approximate locations of four radio tags recovered upstream of the Twisp River Weir. All tags were found away from the main Twisp River channel in an irrigation ditch, or in a beaver pond connected to the ditch as indicated by the red lines.
Figure 14. Antennas from tags recovered in beaver pond and irrigation channel upstream of the Twisp River Weir appear to have bite marks that could indicate predation.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 31
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
120 3.4
100 2.8
80 2.3
60 1.7
Twisp Flow (cfs) 40 1.1 Twsip Flow (m3/s)
20 0.6
0 0.0 9/1 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/29 10/6 10/13 Date
Figure 15. Quarter-hourly Twisp River flows (1 September to 15 October 2016) and times when four tags stopped moving (48 hours prior to the onset of the tag’s mortality function; red stars).
We examined the area and found that it would be easy for a downstream migrant to enter the irrigation ditch, provided the fish were traveling along the Twisp River’s left bank. If a fish did so, it would have been susceptible to predation, given that the shallow water and narrow stream-width would impede escape behaviors. With Twisp River flows at 1.5 m3/s (50 cfs) at the time of mortality (Figure 15), the irrigation ditches were shallow indeed, and all tags were found where depths were < 45 cm.
Another source of uncertainty was related to Bull Trout’s spawning periodicity. If fish do not spawn every year, then movements in a given year cannot be assumed to be directed, making behaviors harder to interpret. As an example, a fish that is not intending to spawn in a given year could nevertheless approach Wells Dam from the downstream direction and interact with fishway entrances without an intention to pass (should this interaction be counted as a failed passage attempt?). Tags 10 and 48 could be examples of this situation in our study, but we nevertheless counted these fish as passage failures in Table 9. Paragamian and Walters (2011) found that 50% of Kootenay River Bull Trout were alternate-year spawners, Hvenegaard and Thera (2001) found that 67% of Lynx Creek (Alberta) Bull Trout displayed alternate-year spawning, and Fraley and Shepard (1989) found that 57% of Bull Trout spawn annually in the Flathead system. Higher rates of repeat-year spawning were found in other systems including 93% in Trestle Creek, Idaho (Downs et al. 2006); whereas in the Salmon River, Idaho, Hogen and Scarnecchia (2006) characterized 82% (14 of 17) of their fluvial Bull Trout as non-consecutive-year spawners. In this study, 18 of the 34 fish that left the Twisp River spawning grounds in 2016 returned in 2017, possibly indicating a skipped year for some of the remaining 16 fish (though we know that 6 of those died, and will not be sure of the fates of the other 10 without further tracking data). In addition, 20 of or 60 study fish were PIT tag prior to 2016. Of these, 20% appeared not to have spawned in 2015, and an additional two skipped spawning in 2012 or 2013. Although this study was not designed to address the question, these data suggest that Bull Trout in our study population are potentially capable of taking a year off from spawning. Also evident in our study area is
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 32
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
inconsistent use of spawning rivers. For example, the radio-tagged Bull Trout that were tracked from 2005 to 2008, included five individuals that spent a spawning season within the Entiat drainage, of which four (80%) were tracked in the Methow drainage during a previous or subsequent spawning period (LGL and Douglas PUD 2008). Straying and exploration may be adaptive strategies that allow Bull Trout to take advantage of unpredictable food supplies, to colonize new areas, and to protect populations against catastrophic but local events (Power 2002). The complexities of Bull Trout life history strategies (including straying/exploration and non-consecutive-year spawning) preclude us from predicting migratory movements in a given year, and we cannot know if any given fish is motivated to perform a given migration, regardless of where it spawned the previous year. This makes it difficult to interpret the Bull Trout tracks, especially those of the two fish that visited Wells Dam without passing in 2017.
7.2 Mortality In this study, we documented 31% (15 of 49 radio-tagged fish) mortality of Bull Trout on the Twisp River spawning grounds. Nelson (2004) identified a stretch of the Twisp River near Poplar Flats Campground that flows subsurface in late summer (except in years of heavy rainfall), thereby delaying some Bull Trout from returning downstream after spawning. In some years, the delays are enough to cause mortality (stranding, freezing, vulnerability to predation; see Nelson 2015). While certainly some of our study fish were affected by low flows (two of our fish were stranded and found by WDFW surveyors in the Poplar Flat area in 2016), we would nevertheless expect some level of natural post-spawning mortality, even in the absence of such delays. For example, Salow and Hostettler (2004) found 66% (6 of 9) spawning-ground mortality in the Boise River Basin, Idaho; and Hogen and Scarnecchia (2006) reported a loss of 47% (24 of 51) of their tributary spawners in the Salmon River, Idaho.
During this 16-month tracking study, we detected 20 of our 60 tags in mortality mode. One (Tag 14) of these was potentially a tagging / handling related mortality: the fish was detected in the tailrace upon release, had moved past the Gateway site within 1.5 days of release, and was next detected ~4 months later, in mortality mode, in the Columbia River near Orondo. That said, we cannot rule out the possibility that this fish moved into the Entiat for spawning, since it was not detected during a late August mobile track in the mainstem of the Columbia River in August, especially given the expected low detection efficiency of the Entiat River PIT-tag detection arrays at that time of year. Two other tags (Tags 4 and 5) went into mortality mode shortly after release, both of which were detected moving around in the tailrace for 6-8 days prior to moving downstream, where they eventually died or expelled their tags. Other than these three tags, the other 17 mortalities occurred after fish had moved into spawning areas in the Twisp River. The relatively low rate of tagging-related mortality was not surprising. For example, we radio-tagged 26 Bull Trout at Wells Dam from 2005 to 2007, and had 100% post-release survival (LGL and Douglas PUD 2008). This is because the impacts of the relatively invasive surgical implantation procedure are minimized by using surgeons that are well trained, and by following basin-wide best practices (Liedtke et al. 2002; Cooke et al. 2011b, Wargo Rub et al. 2014).
7.3 Recommendations for Future Studies Detection efficiencies suggested that radio telemetry stations performed well, and we suggest similar locations for antennas in subsequent studies of this nature. PIT tagging fish was helpful to verify radio telemetry detections in some cases. The addition of another fixed array below Wells Dam may or may not help determine the fate and overwintering locations of fish that travel below Wells Dam and below the Gateway location. Potential locations for additional arrays include the Chelan Falls Hatchery outfall or the Chelan River mouth (both areas where BioAnalysts reported observing our study fish; Steve Hemstrom, Chelan PUD, pers. comm.), which may provide foraging opportunities and cold water refuge. Mobile flights suggested that the Beebe Bridge area was used by Bull Trout in our study. Also, one of our study fish was genetically assigned to the Entiat River, and others traveled below Rocky Reach Dam, although none were detected in the Wenatchee or Entiat rivers. Additional studies
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 33
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
would therefore benefit from non-District support and maintenance of fixed stations at other locations below Wells Dam.
The condition and location of tags recovered in a beaver pond above the Twisp River Weir suggest that fish were predated upon either pre or post mortem. As a best management practice, there may be reason to examine the irrigation canal intake upstream of the Weir. A PIT tag antenna above the Weir may also be helpful to passively monitor Bull Trout near the canal intake, assuming PIT tagging of adults is supported in the future by managing agencies. Additional PIT tag monitoring in the Columbia River is not recommended, since the water volume is too large to make the technology useful.
Weir operations seem to have little survival or passage effect on Bull Trout traveling upstream since all fish passed and continued on to Buttermilk, presumably to spawn. As such, Weir operators should continue the successful practice of checking traps frequently when in operation. When possible, leaving the trap open and not operating during crepuscular and nighttime hours would be preferred for Bull Trout passage, since our detections suggested the they predominately pass the Weir during low light conditions. Specific to downstream detections, peak Bull Trout movement occurred during the month of October, but has occurred as early as late August. As such, District staff should strive to remove the Weir on or before 15 August each year, or as soon as Spring Chinook Salmon broodstock collection operations have ended.
8 Conclusions At the Twisp River Weir, passage success was at least 92.5% (49 of 53 fish) and survival was 100% (48 of 48 fish). At Wells Dam, passage success was at least 91.3% (21 of 23 fish) and survival was 100% (20 of 20 fish). Bull Trout passage and success rates were higher than minimum compliance targets, suggesting minimal operational impact of the Twisp River Weir and Wells Dam on Bull Trout migration, population connectivity, and survival. Results presented in this report are similar to those from the 2005-2008 studies of Bull Trout passage at Wells Dam.
9 Acknowledgements We thank the Aquatic SWG, in particular both the Endangered Species and Field Research offices of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, for their guidance during the planning phases of this study. We also thank WDFW and Wells Hatchery staff for Twisp River Weir and Wells fishway trap operations, without which collection of study fish would have been even more difficult. Surgical procedures were supervised by Lucia Ferreira, and carried out by the authors, Bryan Nass, and Katie Menke, with help from Chas Kyger and Mary Mayo. We thank Greg Mackey for advice on electronarcosis, and Dana Marsh for constructing the electronarcosis tagging trough. Telemetry arrays were designed by Bryan Nass, installed by him and Steve Crawford, and maintained throughout the study by him, Lynda Andrew Dolomont, and Barb Wolfe. Bryan Nass conducted all the mobile flights, with help from pilot Dave Smith (Golden Wings Aviation). Genetic analyses were carried out by Maureen Small and Mitch Kissler at the WDFW Molecular Genetics Lab. Thanks are due to Chris Johnson (MSRF) and Gebbers Fruit who granted permission and access to their private lands for the setup and maintenance of the fixed-station telemetry equipment. We also thank Mary Mayo, Marion McIntosh and Alana Summerlin for mindful handling of accounts. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Aquatic SWG made significant editorial contributions throughout the reporting process.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 34
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
10 References Balazik, B.M., B.C. Langford , G.C. Garman , M.L. Fine , J.K. Stewart , R.J. Latour, and S.P. McIninch. 2013. Comparison of MS-222 and electronarcosis as anesthetics on cortisol levels in juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142: 1640-1643.
Brown, R.S., D.R. Geist, K.A. Deters, and A. Grassell. 2006. Effects of surgically implanted acoustic transmitters. 2% of body mass on the swimming performance, survival, and growth of juvenile sockeye and Chinook salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 69: 1626-1638.
Budy, P., R. Al-Chokhachy and G.P. Thiede. 2007. Bull Trout population assessment in northeastern Oregon: a template for recovery planning. Annual Progress Report for 2006. USGS Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Aquatic, Watershed, and Earth Resources Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322- 5210.
Cooke, S.J., C.M. Woodley, M.B. Eppard, R.S. Brown, and J.L. Nielsen. 2011a. Advancing the surgical implantation of electronic tags in fish: a gap analysis and research agenda based on a review of trends in intracoelomic tagging effects studies. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 21: 127-151.
Cooke, S.J., G.N.Wagner, R.S. Brown, and K.A. Deters. 2011b. Training considerations for the intracoelomic implantation of electronic tags in fish with a summary of common surgical errors. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 21: 11-24.
DeHaan, P., and J. Neibauer. 2012. Analysis of genetic variation within and among upper Columbia River Bull Trout populations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Abernathy Fish Technology Center. Longview, WA.
DeHaan, P., B. Adams, and M. Nelson. 2014. Fine-scale population structure analysis and genetic population assignments of Wenatchee River sub-basin Bull Trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Abernathy Fish Technology Center. Longview, WA.
Downs, C.C., D. Horan, E. Morgan-Harris, and R. Jakubowski. 2006. Spawning demographics and juvenile dispersal of an adfluvial Bull Trout population in Tresle Creek, Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26: 190-200.
English, K.K., D. Robichaud, and P. Wainwright. 2012. Database management and "real-time" data analysis systems for fish telemetry sudies. Chapter 9.4 in N.S. Adams, J.W. Beeman, and J.H. Eiler, editors. Telemetry Techniques: A User Guide for Fisheries Research. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Fraley J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. Northwest Science 63: 133-143.
Haas, G.R., and J.D. McPhail. 1991. Systematics and distribution of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 2191-2211.
Harnish, R.A., A.H.A. Colotelo, and R.S. Brown. 2011. A review of polymer-based water conditioners for reduction of handling-related injury. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 21: 43-49.
Hogen D.M., and D.L. Scarnecchia. 2006. Distinct fluvial and adfluvial migration patterns of a relict charr, Salvelinus confluentus, stock in a mountainous watershed, Idaho, USA. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 15: 376-387.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 35
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Hudson, J.M., J.R. Johnson, and B. Kynard. 2011. A portable electronarcosis system for anesthetizing salmonids and other fish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31: 335-339.
Hvenegaard, P.J., and T.M. Thera. 2001. Monitoring the Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) spawning run in Lynx Creek, a tributary to the Kakwa River, West Central Alberta. Pages 153–157 in Brewin, M.K., A.J. Paul, and M. Monita, eds. Bull Trout II Conference Proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, AB.
Jakober, M.J. 1995. Autumn and winter movement and habitat use of resident Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Montana. Master’s thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman.
Kelly Ringel, B.M., J. Neibauer, K. Fulmer, and M. C. Nelson. 2014. Migration patterns of adult Bull Trout in the Wenatchee River, Washington 2000-2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, Washington.
LGL and Douglas PUD. 2008. Wells Bull Trout monitoring and management plan 2005-2008 final report. Report to Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, East Wenatchee, WA.
Liedtke, T.L., J.W. Beeman, and L.P. Gee. 2012. A standard operating procedure for the surgical implantation of transmitters in juvenile salmonids: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1267.
Lindstrom J.W., and W.A. Hubert. 2004. Mink predation on radio-tagged trout during winter in a low-gradient reach of a mountain stream, Wyoming. Western North American Naturalist 64: 551–553.
Nelson, M.C. 2004. Movements, habitat use, and mortality of adult fluvial Bull Trout isolated by seasonal subsurface flow in the Twisp River, WA. Report to USFWS Mid-Columbia River Fishery Resource Office, Leavenworth, WA.
Nelson, M.C. 2015. Migrations of radio-tagged adult fluvial Bull Trout in the Twisp River, 2006 – 2009. Draft report to USFWS Mid-Columbia River Fishery Resource Office, Leavenworth, WA.
Nelson, M.C, A. Johnsen, and R.D. Nelle. 2011. Seasonal movements of adult fluvial bull trout and redd surveys in Icicle Creek, 2009. Annual Report. Report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth WA.
Oldenburg, E.W., A.H.A. Colotelo, R.S. Brown, and M.B. Eppard. 2011. Holding of juvenile salmonids for surgical implantation of electronic tags: a review and recommendations. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 21: 35-42.
Paragamian, V.L., and J.P. Walters. 2011. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) movement in a transboundary river. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 26:65-76.
Pratt, K.L. 1992. A review of Bull Trout life history. Pages 5-9 in Howell, P.J., and D.V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout workshop. American Fisheries Society, Oregon Chapter, Corvallis.
Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee and R.F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, status and likely future trends of Bull Trout within the Columbia River and Klamath Basins. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 1111-1125.
Salow, T., and L. Hostettler. 2004. Movement and mortality patterns of adult adfluvial Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Boise River Basin, Idaho. Report for the Arrowrock Dam Valve Replacement Project, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Snake River Area Office, Boise ID.
Simpkins, D.G. 1997. Winter movements and habitat use by small Rainbow Trout in the Big Horn River, below Boysen Reservoir, Wyoming. Master’s thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 36
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Wagner, G.N., S.J. Cooke, R.S. Brown, and K.A. Deters. 2011. Surgical implantation techniques for electronic tags in fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 21: 71-81.
Wargo Rub, A.M., N. Jepsen, T.L. Liedtke, M.L. Moser, E.P.S. Weber III. 2014. Surgical insertion of transmitters and telemetry methods in fisheries research. American Journal of Veterinary Research 75: 402-416.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 37
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Appendix A
Signal and noise time-series from radio telemetry receivers
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 38
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Figure A1. Signal and noise time-series at each fixed-station receiver. Blue lines (right axis) show the number of unique individual radio-tagged fish detected each day. Red lines show the daily beacon tag performance as the proportion of transmissions detected (full Y axis height = 100%). Gray bars (left axis) show the number of noise (i.e., not a fish or a beacon tag) events.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 39
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Figure A1 continued.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 40
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Figure A1 continued.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 41
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Figure A1 continued.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 42
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Figure A1 continued.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 43
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Appendix B
Genetic Results Document
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 44
Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
GENETIC ASSIGNMENTS FOR BULL TROUT COLLECTED AT WELLS DAM IN THE UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER
FOR DOUGLAS COUNTY PUD
APRIL 2017, REPORT
Maureen P. Small1, Andrew Gingerich2, and Mitch Kissler1
1WDFW Molecular Genetics Lab, Conservation Unit, 1111 Washington St. SE, Olympia, WA 98501 2Public Utility No. 1 of Douglas County, 1151 Valley Mall Parkway, East Wenatchee, WA 98802
INTRODUCTION Inland Bull Trout, Salvelinus confluentus, are a highly migratory species of trout inhabiting cold water tributaries originating in the Cascade and Rocky Mountains. Migration describes their life history expressions, which include residents that live out their life in their natal tributary, fluvials that migrate to larger tributaries for feeding and maturation, and adfluvials that migrate to lakes (or reservoirs) for feeding and maturation, then return to natal tributaries to spawn. Tagging studies and tribal oral histories describe extensive Bull trout migrations through tributaries and the mainstem of the Columbia River up to Priest Lake and other important feeding areas for Bull Trout. Migration is thus a critical part of Bull Trout life history and a determinant of the health and persistence of Bull Trout populations. Despite barriers to Bull Trout migration, such as dams lacking effective fish passage, which prevent or impede migratory Bull Trout below the barrier from returning to spawn in their natal stream, Bull Trout continue to express migratory behavior. In this study, migratory Bull Trout were collected at Wells Dam in the Columbia River (Figure B1) to determine where these migratory Bull Trout originated. Several Bull Trout populations from above and below Wells Dam (Table B1) comprise the baseline to which the unknown fish were compared.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 45 Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
METHODS Tissue samples were collected from migratory Bull Trout encountered at Wells Dam in the Columbia River in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2016 (Table B2). For each tissue sample (fin clips) DNA was extracted using silica membrane based kits (Macherey-Nagel) following the manufacturers protocol. The standard 16-locus suite of Bull Trout microsatellites (Ardren et al. 2011) was amplified by PCR (polymerase chain reaction) using fluorescently end-labeled primers with poly- adenylated tails to stabilize the reactions and some primers were labeled with fluorescent vector tails (see Table B3). PCR conditions are given for the loci in Table B3. PCRs were conducted using an M-J Research PTC-200 thermal cycler or an Applied Biosystems 9700 duel block thermal cycler, with a simple thermal profile consisting of: initial denature at 95o C for 3 min., followed by 4 cycles of denature at 95o C for 30 sec., anneal for 30 sec at a touchdown temperature starting at 60°C decreasing 1°C each cycle, extend at 72o C for 1 min., followed by 36 cycles of denature at 95°C for 30 sec, anneal at 50°C for 30 sec and then extend at 72°C for 1 min (40 cycles total), final extension at 72o C for 10 min (see Table B3). PCR products were visualized using an ABI-3730 DNA Analyzer with internal size standards (GS500LIZ 3730) and GeneMapper 3.7 software. Alleles were binned and named to AFTC standardized nomenclature using GeneMapper 3.7 software.
To estimate origins of the unknown Bull Trout encountered at Wells Dam, we used the program GeneClass (Piry et al. 2004). GeneClass uses maximum likelihood to assign unknown individuals in a mixture to a genetic baseline, based on the genotype of the individual and the allele frequencies of the populations in the genetic baseline. The baseline consists of Bull Trout collections from tributaries of rivers below (Wenatchee and Entiat) and above (Methow) Wells Dam (sees Table B1 and Figure B1). When collections from tributaries in the same river (e.g. Methow tributaries) are genetically similar there could be similar likelihoods of assignment to these collections and no single assignment to an individual tributary would be highly likely. We thus first estimated assignments to individual tributary collections and then collections were organized into “reporting groups” by rivers and assignment likelihoods were combined for an overall likelihood of assignment to the river with the Twisp River kept separate from the rest of the Methow tributaries. Because Bull Trout populations tend to be distinctive, we set the threshold for a positive assignment at 90% when assigning to river. Individuals where the highest relative likelihood of assignment fell below the 90% threshold were considered unassigned. This can indicate that the individual has mixed ancestry and assigned with nearly equal likelihood to two reporting groups or just by chance, the individual has alleles that are common in two or more reporting groups.
Because there are Bull Trout populations in tributaries of the Columbia River up river of the Methow River that may have been the origins of these unknown Bull Trout, we ran an exclusion analysis to test whether the population of origin for any Bull Trout was excluded from the baseline. This analysis simulates the range of genotype possibilities for 10,000 individuals from each baseline collection and calculates the likelihood of assignment for each of the simulated individuals to develop a distribution of assignment likelihoods for each baseline collection. The assignment likelihoods for the unknown individuals are compared to this distribution of likelihoods to assess whether the unknown individual’s genotype could have been sampled from each baseline collection. If its population of origin is absent (excluded) from the baseline, then the individual’s assignment likelihood will fall outside the distribution of expected likelihoods.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 46 Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Genotyping was mostly successful with generally 10 or more loci amplifying per individual. Eight samples collected in 2007 were missing data at the same five loci (Omm1128, Sco105, Sco109, Sco215, and Smm22). There was still sufficient data to assign these individuals to their population of origin. There were also three individuals collected in 2016 (16MH0016, 16MH0017, and 16MH0033) that had Brook Trout alleles at the same three loci (Sco102, Sco107, and Sfo18).
In the assignment test, the individuals with Brook Trout alleles assigned to the Twisp population (Appendix I), suggesting some genetic interactions between Brook and Bull Trout in the Twisp River. The exclusion test indicated that one individual (16MH0024) came from a population outside the baseline. However, this individual also assigned with high likelihood to the Entiat population. This conflicting result arose because the individual had an allele (Sco102*133) that was absent from the baseline collections and the simulation only models genotypes from alleles in the baseline collections. The individual was assigned to the Entiat because the rest of its alleles were common in the Entiat population and it most likely was born in the Entiat River population.
We kept the assignment results for the Twisp River separate from the rest of the Methow tributaries to highlight the Twisp River as a source of migratory Bull Trout. The assignment test indicated that most of the Bull Trout originated in the Twisp River and the West Fork of the Methow River was the second largest source (Tables B4 and B5). As a whole, the Methow River produced most of the migratory Bull Trout and one Bull Trout originated in the Entiat River below Wells Dam.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Samples were collected by Meghan Mathews, Bryan Nass and Douglas Co. PUD personnel. Bull Trout genetic baseline was provided by USFWS Abernathy Lab. Todd Kassler administered the contract for WDFW. Funding was provided by Douglas Co. PUD and Washington State General Funds.
REFERENCES Ardren WR, et al. 2011. Genetic Structure, Evolutionary History, and Conservation Units of Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 140: 506- 525.
Angers, B. and L. Bernachez. (1996). Usefulness of heterologous microsatellites obtained from brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis Mitchill, in other Salvelinus species. Molecular Ecology 5(2):317– 319.
Belkhir, K., P. Borsa, L. Chikhi, N. Raufaste, and F. Bonhomme. 2004. GENETIX, logiciel sous WindowsTM pour la génétique des populations. Laboratoire Génome, Populations, Interactions CNRS UMR 5000, Université de Montpellier II, Montpellier (France). Available at http://www.univ- montp2.fr/~genetix/ genetix/genetix.htm.
Crane, P. A., C. J. Lewis, E. J. Kretschmer, S. J. Miller, W. J. Spearman, A. L. DeCicco, M. J. Lisac, and J. K. Wenburg. (2004). Characterization and inheritance of seven microsatellite loci from Dolly
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 47 Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Varden, Salvelinus malma, and cross-species amplification in Arctic char, S. alpinus. Conservation Genetics 5(5):737-741.
DeHaan P. W. and W. R. Ardren. (2005). Characterization of 20 highly variable tetranucleotide microsatellite loci for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and cross amplification in other Salvelinus species. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5(3):582-585.
Dunham J. and 12 co-authors. 2008 Evolution, ecology and conservation of Dolly Varden, white- spotted char, and bull trout. Fisheries 33(11): 537-550.
Goudet J. 1995. FSTAT (Version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. Journal of Heredity 86: 485-486.
Piry S, Alapetite A, Cornuet J-M, Paetkau D, Baudouin L, Estoup A. 2004. GENECLASS2: A software for genetic assignment and first-generation migrant detection. Journal of Heredity 95: 536-539.
Rexroad, C. E. III, R. L. Coleman, A. M. Martin, W. K. Hershberger, and J. Killefer. 2001. Thirty-five polymorphic microsatellite markers for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Animal Genetics 32:317-319.
Rieman, B. E. and J. B. Dunham (2000) Metapopulations and salmonids: a synthesis oflife history patterns and empirical observations. Ecology of Freshwater Fishes 9:51-64.
Rousset F. 2008. GENEPOP'007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Molecular Ecology Resources 8: 103-106.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I (of II) Puget Sound Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 389 + xvii pp.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 48 Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Table B1. List of Bull Trout collections in the Upper Columbia genetic baseline used to assign unknown fish back to their tributary of origin. Data were from USFWS Abernathy Lab.
River Tributary Wenatchee Icicle Wenatchee Etienne Wenatchee Ingalls Wenatchee Chiwaukum Wenatchee Nason Wenatchee White Wenatchee Chiwawa Entiat Mad Entiat Entiat Chewuch Chewuch Chewuch Lake Methow Beaver Methow Early Winters Methow Goat Methow Lost Methow WFMethow Wolf Wolf Twisp Twisp Gold Gold
Table B2. Number of Bull Trout samples collected at Wells Dam each year and the WDFW collection codes.
year WDFW code N 2005 05QL 6 2006 06LQ 10 2007 07OO 10 2016 16MH 63 Total 89
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 49 Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Table B3. Information for multiplexes and loci including annealing temperature (°C) and primer and vector concentration. Annealing profiles are detailed below the table. References for primer sequences are under Citation. The +a indicated a poly-a tail on the primer.
Multiplex Locus Anneal profile conc [uM] Citation Sco-E Omm-1128 +a 1 0.14 Rexroad et al. (2001) Sco-105 +a 1 0.08 WDFW unpublished data Sco-1.1 Sco-218 V1+a 2 0.16 DeHaan and Ardren (2005) V1 0.08 Sco-202 V2+a 2 0.13 DeHaan and Ardren (2005) V2 0.06 Sco-200 V4+a 2 0.21 DeHaan and Ardren (2005) V4 0.1 Sco-1.2 Sco-220 V3+a 2 0.12 DeHaan and Ardren (2005) V3 0.06 Sco-J Sco-216 V2+a 2 0.16 DeHaan and Ardren (2005) V2 0.08 Sco-215 V4+a 2 0.11 DeHaan and Ardren (2005) V4 0.05 Sco-K Sco-109 +a 2 0.26 WDFW unpublished data Sfo-18 V3 +a 2 0.14 Angiers and Bernachez (1996) V3 0.07 Smm-22 V4 +a 2 0.17 Crane et al. (2004) V4 0.08 Sco-L Sco-106 +a 1 0.14 WDFW unpublished data Sco-102 +a 1 0.07 WDFW unpublished data Omm-1130 +a 1 0.15 Rexroad et al. (2001) Sco-M Sco-212 V2 +a 1 0.16 DeHaan and Ardren (2005) V2 0.08 Sco-107 +a 1 0.13 WDFW unpublished data
Anneal profile 1: 4 cycles 94º for 30 sec, 60º anneal for 30 sec (decrease 1° per cycle), 72º for 60 sec then 36 cycles with 50º anneal (no decrease)
Anneal profile 2: 10 cycles 94º for 30 sec, 60º anneal for 30 sec (decrease 1° per cycle), 72º for 60 sec then 30 cycles with 50º anneal (no decrease)
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 50 Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Table B4. Tally of Bull Trout assignments for unknown fish collected at Wells Dam in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2016. The top table tallies the assignments to tributary collections with no minimum threshold for assignment and one fish collected in 2016 had equal likelihood of assignment to Early Winters and Wolf Creek. The bottom table tallies assignments to rivers (Twisp tallied separately from the other tributaries of the Methow) with a 90% relative likelihood of assignment threshold. Individuals with an assignment likelihood value below the threshold value were considered “unassigned”. Individual assignments and likelihood values are in Appendix I.
Count of highest tributary Tributaries Collections Beaver EarlyWinters EarlyWinters/Wolf Goat Gold Lake Mad Twisp WFMethow Wolf Total 05QL 1 4 1 6 06LQ 1 1 7 1 10 07OO 2 6 2 10 16MH 1 1 1 3 2 1 45 7 2 63 Grand Total 1 3 1 1 5 2 1 62 11 2 89
Count of >90% to river Rivers Collections Wenatchee Entiat Methow Twisp unassign 05QL 2 3 1 06LQ 2 6 2 07OO 2 5 3 16MH 1 15 41 6 Grand Total 0 1 21 55 12
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 51 Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Table B5. List of Bull Trout analyzed in the study and their highest relative likelihood assignment values to tributary and their likelihood of assignment to four rivers with tributaries grouped by river. Yellow cells were individuals with Brook Trout alleles. Unassigned individuals had less than 90% relative likelihood of assignment to a single river. Relative likelihood values are colored with a heat map from green for low values to red for high values. The number of loci in an individuals’ genotype is under “N loci”.
collections grouped by river % likelihood highest tributary >90% to river Wenatchee Entiat Chewuch Methow Twisp N loci 05QL001 100.00 WFMethow Methow 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15 05QL002 86.19 Twisp unassign 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.80 86.20 14 05QL003 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 05QL004 95.52 Gold Gold 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15 05QL005 98.02 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.98 98.02 15 05QL006 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 06LQ001 79.97 Gold unassign 0.00 0.00 0.00 79.96 20.04 15 06LQ002 90.54 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.46 90.54 14 06LQ003 78.77 Twisp unassign 0.25 0.00 0.00 20.96 78.79 13 06LQ004 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 06LQ005 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 14 06LQ006 100.00 Goat Methow 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 13 06LQ007 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 06LQ008 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 06LQ009 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 06LQ010 89.67 WFMethow Methow 0.00 0.00 1.56 98.44 0.00 15 07OO001 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 99.99 14 07OO002 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 12 07OO003 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 99.99 10 07OO004 64.78 Twisp unassign 0.00 0.02 0.00 35.19 64.79 10 07OO005 100.00 WFMethow Methow 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 10 07OO006 96.93 WFMethow Methow 0.00 0.00 0.04 99.96 0.00 9 07OO007 69.45 EarlyWinters unassign 0.00 0.00 0.00 78.18 21.82 10 07OO008 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 10 07OO009 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 99.70 10 07OO010 85.10 EarlyWinters unassign 0.00 0.00 10.94 89.06 0.00 9 16MH001 100.00 Lake Chewuch 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 15 16MH002 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH003 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH004 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH005 63.10 WFMethow Methow 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15 16MH006 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH007 100.00 Wolf Methow 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15 16MH008 85.72 Wolf Methow 0.00 0.01 0.00 99.99 0.00 15 16MH009 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH010 63.60 WFMethow unassign 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.07 28.93 15 16MH011 100.00 EarlyWinters Methow 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15 16MH012 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH013 93.10 WFMethow Methow 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15 16MH014 84.77 WFMethow unassign 0.00 3.51 0.00 84.92 11.57 14 16MH015 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH016 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 99.64 11 16MH017 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 99.94 10 16MH018 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH019 88.92 Twisp unassign 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.09 88.91 15 16MH020 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH021 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH022 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 99.97 15
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 52 Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
collections grouped by river % likelihood highest tributary >90% to river Wenatchee Entiat Chewuch Methow Twisp N loci 16MH023 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH024 100.00 Mad Entiat 0.10 99.18 0.24 0.48 0.00 14 16MH025 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH026 95.96 Beaver Methow 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.95 0.05 15 16MH027 94.89 Gold Gold 0.00 0.02 0.00 99.98 0.00 14 16MH028 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH029 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH030 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH031 100.00 Gold Gold 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15 16MH032 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH033 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 99.96 8 16MH034 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH035 87.57 Twisp unassign 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.42 87.58 15 16MH036 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH037 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH038 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH039 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH040 94.98 WFMethow Methow 0.00 4.30 0.00 95.69 0.01 14 16MH041 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH042 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH043 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 99.99 15 16MH044 87.33 Twisp unassign 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.68 87.32 15 16MH045 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH046 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH047 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 99.95 15 16MH048 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 13 16MH049 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 99.79 15 16MH050 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 14 16MH051 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 99.95 15 16MH052 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 99.81 15 16MH053 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH054 59.55 EarlyWinters/Wolf Methow 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.85 0.15 15 16MH055 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH056 100.00 Gold Gold 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15 16MH057 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 14 16MH058 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 14 16MH059 100.00 Twisp Twisp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 15 16MH060 84.97 Twisp unassign 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.01 84.99 15 16MH061 100.00 WFMethow Methow 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 13 16MH062 91.70 WFMethow Methow 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.69 8.30 14 16MH063 100.00 Lake Chewuch 0.00 0.03 99.85 0.12 0.00 13
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 53 Douglas PUD Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring EA3605-B
Figure B1. Map of rivers that support Bull Trout populations above and below Wells Dam on the Columbia River.
LGL Limited & Douglas PUD Page 54 EXHIBIT B
PRE-FILING CONSULTATION RECORD FOR THE BULL TROUT PASSAGE AND TAKE MONITORING AT WELLS DAM AND THE TWISP RIVER WEIR REPORT EMAIL TO AQUATIC SETTLEMENT WORK GROUP REGARDING REVIEW OF THE BULL TROUT PASSAGE AND TAKE MONITORING AT WELLS DAM AND THE TWISP RIVER WEIR REPORT
OCTOBER 11, 2017 From: Sarah Montgomery
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Hi ASWG: Please see the email below from Andrew and the attached draft report for review, Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir, along with its Appendix B (Genetic assignments for Bull Trout collected at Wells Dam in the upper Columbia River). As discussed today, please provide edits and comments to Andrew no later than COB Friday October 27. These drafts are also available for download from the ASWG Extranet site under: Documents > Reports. Thanks!—Sarah
Instructions: To gain access to the Aquatic SWG Extranet Homepage, please use the following procedure: * Visit: https://extranet.dcpud.net/sites/nr/aswg/ * Login using “Forms Authentication” (for non-Douglas PUD employees)
You should now be at the Aquatic SWG homepage.
If you encounter problems, or need a login username and password to access the site: Please feel free to contact me, Andrew Gingerich, or Julene McGregor [[email protected]; (509) 881-2236] and we will gladly assist you with questions or issues.
Sarah Montgomery
ANCHOR QEA, LLC
From: Andrew Gingerich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:55 PM To: Sarah Montgomery
1 Sarah, specific to the below email, and the agreement of those on the phone today (Aquatic Settlement WG Conference Call), I have attached the discussed draft Bull Trout Report for review. This should provide a 16 day review period and keep us on track towards filing this report with the FERC by November 8, 2017. In addition to exceeding the BTMP, BiOp, Fishway Prescription standards, I believe the report provides some very good info on life history, genetics, spawning periodicity, and biology of bull trout in the region. It should help support the growing body of bull trout work in the Upper Mid‐C.
Or course, if folks do wish to provide comments I would encourage them to do so as early as possible. We’ll work hard turning a revised version around to the group in advance of the November conference call so everyone can see how we addressed comments.
Lastly, I have attached a draft genetic appendix report as well. I’d be happy to provide additional context as needed.
I appreciate everyone’s timely review in advance.
Respectfully, Andrew
Andrew Gingerich Senior Aquatic Resource Biologist Public Utility No. 1 of Douglas County 1151 Valley Mall Parkway East Wenatchee, WA 98802 Office: (509) 881‐2323
From: Sarah Montgomery [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:30 AM To: Andrew Gingerich; Bao Le; Bill Towey ([email protected]); Bob Rose; 'Brad James'; 'Bret Nine'; 'Chad Jackson'; Chas Kyger; Chris Sheridan; Donella Miller ([email protected]); Fortier, Ryan T (DFW); Jason McLellan; John Ferguson; Keith Hatch ([email protected]); Keith Kirkendall ([email protected]); Kirk Truscott; Kristi Geris; Mark Peterschmidt ([email protected]); Mary Mayo; Patrick Verhey ([email protected]); Paul Ward ([email protected]); Ralph Lampman ([email protected]); Sean Goudy ([email protected]); Shane Bickford; Steve Hemstrom ([email protected]); 'Steve Lewis'; Steve Parker; Zimmerman, Breean (ECY) Subject: ASWG: Agreement--Bull Trout Report expedited review timeline
Hi ASWG: During today’s ASWG 10/11 conference call, Douglas PUD requested an expedited review timeline for their Bull Trout Report, to meet FERC deadlines. Representatives present discussed and agreed to the following timeline, including a two‐week ASWG review period:
COB Friday 10/13: Douglas PUD provides draft Bull Trout Report (approx. 30 pages) to ASWG for two‐week review COB Friday 10/27: ASWG provides comments to Douglas PUD Friday 10/27 to Wednesday 11/8: Douglas PUD addresses comments and provides revised Bull Trout Report for approval Wednesday 11/8 (ASWG meeting): If not approved earlier, Douglas PUD will ask for the ASWG to approve the revised report, and will then submit the Final Bull Trout Report to FERC
If you have any questions about this timeline please let me, John, or Andrew know. Thanks!—Sarah 😊
Sarah Montgomery
ANCHOR QEA, LLC [email protected]
2 EMAIL FROM WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE REGARDING THE BULL TROUT PASSAGE AND TAKE MONITORING AT WELLS DAM AND THE TWISP RIVER WEIR REPORT
OCTOBER 25, 2017 From: Andrew Gingerich Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:01 AM To: 'Verhey, Patrick M (DFW)'; Sarah Montgomery Cc: Steve Lewis; Zimmerman, Breean (ECY) Subject: RE: ASWG: Draft Bull Trout Report for review
Thanks Patrick. I agree, we should make sure we characterize it right. I’ll take a close look and suggest a modifification.
Steve, just a reminder that were hoping to get a review complete by the team over there and the balance of the Aquatic SWG by COB Friday.
Andrew
From: Verhey, Patrick M (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 3:13 PM To: Sarah Montgomery; Andrew Gingerich Cc: Steve Lewis; Zimmerman, Breean (ECY) Subject: RE: ASWG: Draft Bull Trout Report for review
Andrew, you might take a look at the third paragraph of the executive summary. The statement is made that one of the 4 mortalities were due to weir operations. Then it is stated that there were no mortalities. Once I read the rest of the document it made sense. But you may want to clarify the third paragraph a bit better. Overall a good report.
Patrick
From: Sarah Montgomery [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 7:32 PM To: Andrew Gingerich ([email protected])
Hi ASWG: Please see the email below from Andrew and the attached draft report for review, Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring at Wells Dam and the Twisp River Weir, along with its Appendix B (Genetic assignments for Bull Trout collected at Wells Dam in the upper Columbia River). As discussed today, please provide edits and comments to Andrew no later than COB Friday October 27. These drafts are also available for download from the ASWG Extranet site under: Documents > Reports. Thanks!—Sarah
1 Instructions: To gain access to the Aquatic SWG Extranet Homepage, please use the following procedure: * Visit: https://extranet.dcpud.net/sites/nr/aswg/ * Login using “Forms Authentication” (for non-Douglas PUD employees)
You should now be at the Aquatic SWG homepage.
If you encounter problems, or need a login username and password to access the site: Please feel free to contact me, Andrew Gingerich, or Julene McGregor [[email protected]; (509) 881-2236] and we will gladly assist you with questions or issues.
Sarah Montgomery
ANCHOR QEA, LLC
From: Andrew Gingerich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:55 PM To: Sarah Montgomery
Sarah, specific to the below email, and the agreement of those on the phone today (Aquatic Settlement WG Conference Call), I have attached the discussed draft Bull Trout Report for review. This should provide a 16 day review period and keep us on track towards filing this report with the FERC by November 8, 2017. In addition to exceeding the BTMP, BiOp, Fishway Prescription standards, I believe the report provides some very good info on life history, genetics, spawning periodicity, and biology of bull trout in the region. It should help support the growing body of bull trout work in the Upper Mid‐C.
Or course, if folks do wish to provide comments I would encourage them to do so as early as possible. We’ll work hard turning a revised version around to the group in advance of the November conference call so everyone can see how we addressed comments.
Lastly, I have attached a draft genetic appendix report as well. I’d be happy to provide additional context as needed.
I appreciate everyone’s timely review in advance.
Respectfully, Andrew
Andrew Gingerich Senior Aquatic Resource Biologist Public Utility No. 1 of Douglas County 1151 Valley Mall Parkway East Wenatchee, WA 98802 Office: (509) 881‐2323
From: Sarah Montgomery [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:30 AM
2 To: Andrew Gingerich; Bao Le; Bill Towey ([email protected]); Bob Rose; 'Brad James'; 'Bret Nine'; 'Chad Jackson'; Chas Kyger; Chris Sheridan; Donella Miller ([email protected]); Fortier, Ryan T (DFW); Jason McLellan; John Ferguson; Keith Hatch ([email protected]); Keith Kirkendall ([email protected]); Kirk Truscott; Kristi Geris; Mark Peterschmidt ([email protected]); Mary Mayo; Patrick Verhey ([email protected]); Paul Ward ([email protected]); Ralph Lampman ([email protected]); Sean Goudy ([email protected]); Shane Bickford; Steve Hemstrom ([email protected]); 'Steve Lewis'; Steve Parker; Zimmerman, Breean (ECY) Subject: ASWG: Agreement--Bull Trout Report expedited review timeline
Hi ASWG: During today’s ASWG 10/11 conference call, Douglas PUD requested an expedited review timeline for their Bull Trout Report, to meet FERC deadlines. Representatives present discussed and agreed to the following timeline, including a two‐week ASWG review period:
COB Friday 10/13: Douglas PUD provides draft Bull Trout Report (approx. 30 pages) to ASWG for two‐week review COB Friday 10/27: ASWG provides comments to Douglas PUD Friday 10/27 to Wednesday 11/8: Douglas PUD addresses comments and provides revised Bull Trout Report for approval Wednesday 11/8 (ASWG meeting): If not approved earlier, Douglas PUD will ask for the ASWG to approve the revised report, and will then submit the Final Bull Trout Report to FERC
If you have any questions about this timeline please let me, John, or Andrew know. Thanks!—Sarah 😊
Sarah Montgomery
ANCHOR QEA, LLC [email protected] 720 Olive Way, Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98101 D: 206.903.3351 | C: 425.736.3731
ANCHOR QEA,LLC Please consider the environment before printing this email. This electronic message transmission contains information that may be confidential and/or privileged work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone at (206) 287‐9130.
3 EMAIL FROM YAKAMA NATION REGARDING THE BULL TROUT PASSAGE AND TAKE MONITORING AT WELLS DAM AND THE TWISP RIVER WEIR REPORT
OCTOBER 31, 2017 From: Ralph Lampman
Thanks, Andrew!
Ralph Lampman Yakama Nation FRMP, Pacific Lamprey Project [email protected] 509-388-3871
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Andrew Gingerich
Hi Ralph,
I’ve attached a close up of the pickets. March 15 to August 1st is rough guess for the time of operation but it depends on Spring Chinook brood collection being complete. Some years the Weir trapping is complete in July. I’m not sure we have ever operated it past August 15. Note that we have never captured a fish that is less than 400 mm FL. The trap boxes and pickets allow for smaller fish to pass. The pickets themselves are ½ inch by 4 inch bars with the ½ inch face pointing up and downstream. 1.5 inch spacing is between bars (based on the engineering spec). The best way to see the Weir and understand how it works is to do a site visit. Let me know if you have time and or would like a visit to the site. It’s about 5 miles from Twisp, WA.
For your second question let’s chat on the phone or during the conference call in November. In the meantime from the report, “The radio-telemetry receiver at the Twisp River Junction missed 7.5% of the interaction events (Table 5), whereas the PIT detection array missed 26.4% of the passage events (upstream movements were missed 47.6% of the time by the PIT array, and never missed by the radio receivers; downstream movements were missed only 6.5% of the time by PIT arrays, and 9.7% of the time by radio receivers).”
What this means is during higher flows in June and July TWR was about 50/50. In the fall when the fish leave and flows are much lighter it’s nearly 100%. We didn’t do this for the LMR site but it is the only other site we could compute a PIT array detection efficiency. I can tell you with a fair bit of confidence it performs much worse than TWR during both seasons (It’s always been crumby since it has to detect fish in a larger column of water). Also LMR is often destroyed by spring freshets and has to be replaced in the late summer. Since we don’t have RT stations at the same locations as other PIT arrays we couldn’t produce detection efficiencies for those sites (MRT, GLC, CRW etc). PIT detection for salmonids at Wells Dam Fish ladders approach 100% historically, and we saw that again in our study as reported in the draft.
1 As you already know, I would just point out that detection efficiencies of PIT arrays are going to be subject to seasonal river condition as stated above, but also species of interest since they may have different behaviors as they cross the arrays (Lamprey and salmonids might interact with the array differently?). Hopefully the above answers the questions?
Respectfully,
Andrew
From: Ralph Lampman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:06 AM To: Kristi Geris Cc: Andrew Gingerich; Bob Rose; Chas Kyger; Donella Miller ([email protected]); Jason McLellan; John Ferguson; Mark Peterschmidt ([email protected]); Patrick Verhey ([email protected]); Sean Goudy ([email protected]); Steve Lewis; Zimmerman, Breean (ECY); Sarah Montgomery; RD Nelle Subject: Re: FW: ASWG: Draft Bull Trout Report for review - REMINDER
Hi Andrew,
Not a comment per se, but just had a couple questions.
1. The weir on Twisp - what is the spacing on the bars and what is the location (GPS or river km)? Sounds like there are two boxes - do you have more photos of the boxes and the configuration of the notches (I see one photo, but would like to see more). Sounds like it runs from March 15 - September, which covers the two run timing (spring / fall) of Pacific Lamprey, so wanted to get more info on this weir.
2. Sounds like a detection efficiency test for the radio telemetry array was conducted. If these fish were indeed double tagged, is there a way to also give some estimates on the PIT array detection efficiencies? (very useful for getting to know more about each of these arrays in these systems - even if it is coarse "rough" data).
Ralph Lampman
Yakama Nation FRMP, Pacific Lamprey Project
2 EMAIL TO THE AQUATIC SETTLEMENT WORK GROUP REGARDING REVIEW OF THE REVISED BULL TROUT PASSAGE AND TAKE MONITORING AT WELLS DAM AND TWISP RIVER WEIR REPORT
NOVEMBER 1, 2017 From: Kristi Geris
Hi Aquatic SWG: please see the email below from Andrew and the attached Revised 2016‐2017 Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring at Wells Dam and Twisp River Weir Study Report.
The attached report is also available for download from the Aquatic SWG Extranet Site, under: Documents > All by Mtg Date > 11/8/2017 (instructions below). Thanks! –kristi 😊
Instructions: To gain access to the Aquatic SWG Extranet Homepage, please use the following procedure: * Visit: https://extranet.dcpud.net/sites/nr/aswg/ * Login using “Forms Authentication” (for non-Douglas PUD employees)
You should now be at the Aquatic SWG homepage.
If you encounter problems, or need a login username and password to access the site: Please feel free to contact me, Andrew Gingerich, or Julene McGregor [[email protected]; (509) 881-2236] and we will gladly assist you with questions or issues.
Kristi Geris
ANCHOR QEA, LLC [email protected] C 360.220.3988
From: Andrew Gingerich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 2:39 PM To: 'Lewis, Stephen'
1 Steve,
I appreciate the review below. Many of the comments improved the quality of the document. We have had a chance to review and made modifications to the original draft based on your suggestions. Please find attached a new draft report. You were the only Aquatic SWG member that provided lengthy comments during the review period. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s comment about the executive summary was one that you also pointed out and I believe is now addressed. The Yakama Nation’s comments were mostly related to Pacific Lamprey applications, which we addressed separately. I’ve attached WDFW and YN correspondence here.
In the attached version we left your original comments in the margin. Below them I have added “AG:” or “DR:” where Dave Robichaud or I have attempted to address your comments or questions. I think you will find it relatively straightforward. My hope is that you and other Aquatic SWG members will have time to review this version over the next week, with specific emphasis on examining how we addressed your questions or comments.
If acceptable to you and others, I would ask that we approve this version with track changes off and comments removed on Wednesday November 8, 2017 during our normal monthly Aquatic SWG conference call. Approving this report on Wednesday the 8th will allow us to file the document with the FERC on November 9, 2017 and meet our compliance deadline.
Thanks again for the review. Give me a ring or shoot me a note if you have questions.
Respectfully, Andrew
P.s. Kristi, please distribute to the Aquatic SWG.
Andrew Gingerich Senior Aquatic Resource Biologist Public Utility No. 1 of Douglas County 1151 Valley Mall Parkway East Wenatchee, WA 98802 Office: (509) 881‐2323
2 EMAIL FROM UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING THE BULL TROUT PASSAGE AND TAKE MONITORING AT WELLS DAM AND THE TWISP RIVER WEIR REPORT
NOVEMBER 7, 2017 From: Lewis, Stephen
I should be ready to approve by Wednesday...thanks for coordinating with us!
Got my elk over in MT (cow that is)...
S-
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrew Gingerich
Steve,
I appreciate the review below. Many of the comments improved the quality of the document. We have had a chance to review and made modifications to the original draft based on your suggestions. Please find attached a new draft report. You were the only Aquatic SWG member that provided lengthy comments during the review period. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s comment about the executive summary was one that you also pointed out and I believe is now addressed. The Yakama Nation’s comments were mostly related to Pacific Lamprey applications, which we addressed separately. I’ve attached WDFW and YN correspondence here.
In the attached version we left your original comments in the margin. Below them I have added “AG:” or “DR:” where Dave Robichaud or I have attempted to address your comments or questions. I think you will find it relatively straightforward. My hope is that you and other Aquatic SWG members will have time to review this version over the next week, with specific emphasis on examining how we addressed your questions or comments.
If acceptable to you and others, I would ask that we approve this version with track changes off and comments removed on Wednesday November 8, 2017 during our normal monthly Aquatic SWG conference call. Approving this report on Wednesday the 8th will allow us to file the document with the FERC on November 9, 2017 and meet our compliance deadline.
Thanks again for the review. Give me a ring or shoot me a note if you have questions.
Respectfully,
1 Andrew
P.s. Kristi, please distribute to the Aquatic SWG.
Andrew Gingerich
Senior Aquatic Resource Biologist
Public Utility No. 1 of Douglas County
1151 Valley Mall Parkway
East Wenatchee, WA 98802
Office: (509) 881‐2323
From: Lewis, Stephen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:47 AM To: Andrew Gingerich Subject: Draft Wells Dam & Twisp Weir Bull Trout Passage Study Results (USFWS Review)
Hi Andrew-
Attached are my comments for your consideration before submittal to FERC. As you will see, they are captured in track changes bubble comments on the right margin of the document.
Judy and RD will likely have additional comments and will attempt to submit those to you shortly after the 10/27/17 deadline...sorry for any delays, but they're doing the best they can with other workload as well.
S-
2 --
************************************************
Stephen T. Lewis
Hydropower and Energy Coordinator
US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
CENTRAL WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE
215 MELODY LANE STE 103
WENATCHEE, WA 98801-8122 phone: (509) 665-3508 Ext. 2002 e-mail: [email protected]
"If a road has no obstacles, it probably doesn't lead to anywhere." S. Lewis
------Forwarded message ------From: Andrew Gingerich
Thanks Patrick. I agree, we should make sure we characterize it right. I’ll take a close look and suggest a modifification.
Steve, just a reminder that were hoping to get a review complete by the team over there and the balance of the Aquatic SWG by COB Friday.
Andrew
3 APPROVAL FROM THE AQUATIC SETTLEMENT WORK GROUP FOR THE BULL TROUT PASSAGE AND TAKE MONITORING AT WELLS DAM AND THE TWISP RIVER WEIR REPORT
NOVEMBER 8, 2017 FINAL
Conference Call Action Items
Aquatic Settlement Work Group
To: Aquatic SWG Parties Date: November 8, 2017 From: John Ferguson, Chair (Anchor QEA, LLC) Re: Final Action Items of the November 8, 2017 Aquatic SWG Conference Call
Below is a summary of Action Items from the Aquatic Settlement Work Group (SWG) meeting that was held by conference call on Wednesday, November 8, 2017, from 10:00 to 11:45 a.m. Attendees are listed in Attachment A. These action items include the following:
I. Summary of Action Items 1. Douglas PUD will develop a draft Statement of Agreement (SOA) describing how Douglas PUD will support Pacific Lamprey translocation efforts in future years (Item VI-1).
2. Andrew Gingerich will revise the figure showing total daily Pacific Lamprey counts at Wells Dam during reduced head differential treatment periods to include flow, temperature, and Rocky Reach Dam Pacific Lamprey count data; the figure or figures will be included in a technical memorandum (Item VI-1).
3. Douglas PUD will provide Wells Dam turbine unit flow, Rocky Reach Dam forebay elevation, and Wells Dam tailrace elevation data, grouped in zones as requested, to Kristi Geris for distribution to the Aquatic SWG (Item VI-5).
4. The Aquatic SWG will formalize responses to the questions received from a Pacific Lamprey Subgroup on October 11, 2017, in the form of the Aquatic SWG-approved November 8, 2017 meeting minutes, which will be provided to Tracy Hillman (Rocky Reach Fish Forum [RRFF] Facilitator) for distribution to the subgroup (Item VI-6).
5. The Aquatic SWG meeting on December 13, 2017, will be held by conference call (Item VII-1).
I. Summary of Decisions 1. Aquatic SWG members present approved the 2016-2017 Bull Trout Passage and Take Monitoring at Wells Dam and Twisp River Weir Study Report, as revised, with the Yakama Nation (YN) abstaining (Item VI-2). Action Items FINAL November 8, 2017 Page 2
II. Agreements 1. Aquatic SWG members present agreed to provide responses to the questions received from a Pacific Lamprey Subgroup on October 11, 2017, in the form of the Aquatic SWG-approved November 8, 2017 meeting minutes (Item VI-6).
III. Review Items 1. There are no documents currently available for review.
IV. Documents Finalized 1. The Final Public Transition Plan for Wells and Methow Fish Hatcheries was distributed to the Aquatic SWG by Kristi Geris on November 7, 2017 (Item VI-3).
Aquatic Settlement Work Group Action Items FINAL November 8, 2017 Page 3
Attachment A – List of Attendees Name Role Organization John Ferguson Aquatic SWG Chairman Anchor QEA, LLC Kristi Geris Administration/Technical Support Anchor QEA, LLC Andrew Gingerich Aquatic SWG Technical Representative Douglas PUD Chas Kyger Technical Support Douglas PUD Dave Robichaud Observer LGL Limited Steve Lewis Aquatic SWG Technical Representative U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Department of Fish Patrick Verhey Aquatic SWG Technical Representative and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish Chad Jackson Technical Support and Wildlife Washington State Department Breean Zimmerman Aquatic SWG Technical Representative of Ecology Jason McLellan Aquatic SWG Technical Representative Colville Confederated Tribes Bob Rose Aquatic SWG Technical Representative Yakama Nation Sean Goudy Technical Support Yakama Nation
Aquatic Settlement Work Group