Robert H. Gray 00 160 and Dennis D. Dauble Freshwater Sciences Ecosystems Department Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Richland, W ashingcon 993 5 2

Checklist and Relative Abundance of Species from the Hanford Reach of the

Abstract A checklist of fish species collected in over 30 years of research is presented for the Columbia River adjoining the U.S. Energy Research and Development A

Introduction Several sources list fish species inhabiting various pares of the Columbia River system (Schultz and DeLa.cey, 1935; Schultz, 1936; Roebeck et. al., 1954; Davis et. al,., 1956; Miller, 1959; McPhail, 1967; Reimers and Bond, 1967; Eddy, 1969; Patten et. d., 1970). Although fisheries scientists have collected information on resident and anadromous for over 30 years, little quantitative data have been published regarding the ma­ jority of species inhabiting the Columbia River adjoining the Energy Research and Development Administration's Hanford reservation in sourhcentral . The Columbia River adjoins the Hanford reservation beginning about 10 km ( 6 miles ) north of Richland, Washington, between river kilometers (km) 5 50 and 629, and between river miles (rm) 343 and 393 ( Fig. 1). The Hanford reservation is a unique area because of its closure to the general public since 1942 by federal regu­ lations. Furthermore, it contains the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River remaining above Bonneville Dam. Mose early fishery investigations in the Hanford area were concerned with salmon­ ids in association with potential thermal, chemical and radiation impacts from the op­ eration of up to nine plutonium production reactors during World War II and until 1971. In recent years, assessment studies for future siring of nuclear power plants at Hanford have required extensive collections of all fish species. This article lists the fish fauna, relying mainly on data collected during 1973-1975 at two different Han­ ford locations. Less common species collected earlier by ocher workers from sites within the Hanford area are included to provide a composite list.

Methods and Materials From April, 1973, to June, 1974, fish were sampled weekly between Columbia River km 605 and 613 (rm 378-383). In September, 1974, sampling began between km 557 and 566 (rm 348-354) and continued at intervals of about three weeks. After collection, species were identified by using standard taxonomic keys ( Schultz, 1936;

208 Northwest Science, Vol. 51 , No. 3, 1977 I< RI VER KI LO\!\ ETER 605 - 613 (RM 378 - 383)

HANFORD RESERVATION RI VER KI LO'VI ETER ~ / 557 - 566 i)/ IRM 348 - 3541

. . 0 10 km r,..-..--...

C I ,,

... I I

Figure 1. Location of the ERDA Hanford Reservation and fish sampling locations.

Carl et. al., 1967; Eddy, 1969; Bond, 1973). Quesciorui.ble identifications were con­ firmed by taxonomists and fisheries biologists having extensive experience with Colum­ bia River fishes ( C. D. Becker and D. G. Warson, Battelle Northwest Laboratories; C. E. Bond, Oregon Seate University). To insure taxonomic consistency, selected specimens were preserved in 5 percent formalin and maintained in a reference collection. Several types of sampling gear and methods were used to suit various areas and to compensate for gear selectivity. Methods included : gill nets, trammel nets, beach seines, hoop nets, traps, trotlines, elecrroshocker, various types of trawls, and hook and line. Some species were collected from the traveling screens of a water intake strucrnre at Columbia rm 380 ( Gray, Page, Wolf, and Schneider, 1975; Page, Gray,

Fish Species from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River 209 and Wolf, 1975). The resulting species list was derived from all the above methods. However, only gill nets, hoop nets, and beach seine collections provided relative abun­ dance data for one complete annual cycle at the two sampling sites. Gill nets were sec from shore into the river or were sec offshore perpendicular to the current in deeper waters, and were rocaced among various locations at each study area. Nees were about 2 m ( 6-8 ft.) deep and composed of panels of different mesh size ranging in 1.25 cm ( 0.5 in.) increments, from 1.25-10 cm ( 0.5-4 in.) square­ mesh. Nets varied in length from 7.5-37.5 m (25-125 ft.). Nee length was dependent on location and hydrological conditions of the river at the time of set. Gill nets were set in the afterncon and retrieved the next morning about 19 hours later. Hoop nets were usually sec for 1 w"eek periods, checked every 24-72 hours, and rotated among various locations. Hoop nets were composed of two 61 cm ( 24 in.) diameter tunnels, each 3 m ( 10 ft.) long and set in pairs so the mouth of one tunnel faced the mouth of the second. Each tunnel was supported by 6 hoops with throats attached on the first and third hoop. The two tunnels were connected with a lead, 61 cm ( 24 in.) high and 6 m ( 20 ft.) long. Mesh size of the throats, netting surround­ ing the hoops and connecting lead, was 1.2 5 cm ( 0.5 in.) square mesh. Beach seining was done at four locations on both sides of the river at each study site. Seining encompassed about 30 m ( 100 ft.) of shoreline at each location. The seine was 1.2 m ( 4 fr.) deep, 9 m (30 ft.) long and consisted of 0.32 ( Ys in.) mesh. Catch per unit effort ( C/UE) of fish collected by gill net, hoop net, and beach seine was calculated as follows: Gill net C/ UE was the average number of fish caught per overnight set ( about 19 hours) of 3 3 m (100 ft.) of net. Hoop nee C/UE was the average number of fish caught per 24 hours set. Beach seine C/UE was the average number of fish caught per beach seine haul.

Results and Discussion Forry-three species of fish representing 13 families have been collected since 1943 in the Columbia River adjoining the Hanford Reservation (Table 1 ) . These include mainly resident, but also anadromous ( Clupeidae, Pecromyzoocidae, Salmonidae) forms. Thirty-seven species of fish representing 12 families were collected at river km 557-566 and 605-613 in 1973-75. Thirty-one species were collected ar km 605-613 and 34 species at km 557566. Differences in species lists between the up and downriver sires were attributable to the presence or absence of various species. Mottled sculpin ( C ottus bairdi), reticu­ late sculpin (C. perplexus) and leopard dace (Rhinichth')'s falcatus) were only collected at km 605-613. Mountain sucker ( Catos to mus platJrhpichus), smallmourh bass ( Mi­ cropterus dolomietti), largemouth bass (M. salmoides), black bullhead (lctalurtts melas), yellow bullhead (I. natalis), and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) were only collected at km 5 5 7- 566. Differences between the two sites are somewhat relative. Fish move up and downriver and all species may be present at both sites at some time during the year. Ac the upriver site, resident (Richardsonius balteatus), northern squaw­ fish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), largescale sucker (Catostomus machrocheilus) and the anadromous chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were caught in near equal numbers and collectively comprised 90 percent of rhe total catch.

210 Gray and Dauble TABLE 1. Composite list of fish species by family collected at Columbia River km 605-613 from March, 1973, through June, 1974; km 55 7-566 from September, 1974, through September, 1975, and elsewhere on the Hanford Reservation. , Other Sample Hanford Family Scientific Name Common Name Location Sires KM 605- KM 557- 613 566 Acipenseridae-Srurgeons Acipenser transmontanus White sturgeon X X Richardson Catostomidae-Sucker~ Catostomus columbianus Bridgelip sucker X X Eigenmann & Eigenmann C. macrocheilus Largescale sucker X X Girard C. plat')'rhynchus Mountain sucker X Cope Centrarchidae-Bass Lepomir gibbosus Pumpkinseed X X and Sunfish Linnaeus L. macrochiws Bluegill X X Rafinesque Microptems dolomieui Smallmourh bass X Lacepede M. salmoides Largemouth bass X Lacepede Pomoxis annularis White crappie Xl Rafinesque P. nigro1naculatus Black crappie X X Leseur Clupeidae-Herrings Alosa sapidi.ssima American shad X X Wilson Cottidae-Sculpins Cottur arper Prickly sculpin X X Richardson C. baird; Mottled sculpin X Girard C. beldingi Piute sculpin X X Eigenmann & Eigenmann C. perplexus Reticulate sculpin X Gilbert & Evermann C. rhothem Torrent sculpin X X Smith - Acrocheilus alutaceur Chi!elmouth X X and Agassiz & Pickering Cyprinus caTpio X X Linnaeus M J!ocheilus caurinus Peamouth X X Richardson Ptychochei:us oregonensis Northern X X Richardson squawfish Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose dace X X Valenciennes R . /alcatus Leopard dace X Eigenmann & Eigenmann R. osculus Speckled dace X X Girard Richardsonius balteatus Redside shiner X X Richardson Tinca tinca Tench xi Linnaeus

Fish Species from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River 211 TABLE 1 ( Continued)

Gadidae-Codfishes Lota Iota Burbot Xl,2,3 Linnaeus Gasterosteidae-Sticklebacks GasterostettS aculeattts Threes pine X X Linnaeus stickleback Ictaluridae-F reshwater Ictal11ms melas Black bullhead X Catfishes Rafinesque I. 11atalis Yellow ·bullhead X Leseur I. pnnctattts Channel catfish X X Rafinesque Percidae-Perches Perea fla vescens Yellow perch X X Mitchell Stizostedion vitre11m Walleye X Mitchell Percopsidae-T rou tperches Percopsis transmo11ta11a Sand Roller X X Ei genmann & Eigenmann Petromyzontidae-Lampreys E11 tosphe11us tridentatm Pacific lamprey X X Gairdner Lampetra ayresi River lamprey x2 · Gunther Salmonidae-Salmon, Corego1ms clupeaformis Lake Whitefish Xl trout, whitefish i\fi tchell 011corh·y11ch11s kisutch Coho salmon X X Walbaum 0 . nerka Sockeye salmon X X Walbaum 0 . tshawytscha Chinook salmon X X Walbaum Prosopium 1t'itliamso11i Mountain Girard Whitefish X X Salmo clarki Cutthroat trout xi Richardson S. gaird11eri- Rainbow trout X X Richardson (steelhead ) Salveli11m ma/ma Dolly Varden X X Walbaum

1 D. G. Watson ( personal communication). 2 C. D . Becker ( personal communication). 3M. P. Fujihara ( personal communication).

At the downriver site, chinook salmon comprised 44 percent of the catch and resi­ dent peamourh chub ( M ylochei!m cattrimts), largescale sucker, northern squawfish, mountain whitefish (Prnsopiitm williamsoni), bridgelip sucker (Catostomtts colum­ bianm), chiselmouch ( Acrocheilm alutacem), and redside shiner comprised another 49 percent. The larger numbers of chinook salmon at km 5 5 7- 566 were 0-age juveniles, occurring seasonally near shore and collected by beach seine. These fish reflect the oc­ currence of major salmon spawning areas between km 566 and 602 (Watson, 1974), the shoreline orientation of downstream migrants (Mains and Smith, 1964), and our shore-oriented sampling methods. To better compare species composition at the two collecting locations, species and C/UE of gill nets, hoop nets, and beach seines were evaluated for the same months of the year at each location ( Table 2) . Although sampling occurred in different years, these methods were used for one annual cycle at each site. For assessment purposes,

212 Gray and Dauble comparisons were made for the periods June, 1973, through May, 1974, at km 605-613; and Ocrnber, 1974, through September, 1975, at km 557-566. r A comparison of methods shows a difference in vulnerability of each species at different stages in its life cycle. However, the composite catch from gill nets, hoop nets, and beach seines provides a good representation of the species, sizes and life stages of fish present. We used this data to derive a numerical value of average relative abundance or a relative abundance index (RAI). We based the RAI on the average of three annual C/UE values for each species at each collecting sire (Table 2). Spe­ cies colleaed at the upriver location between km 605-613 are listed in descending order of abundance or rank. The rank of species collected at the downriver location between km 557-566 is shown in-Table 2 parenthetically next to the RAI for char species. Although small differences in C/UE are insignificant, analysis shows chat species composition and relative abundance of some collected fish differ between the two sites. The difference may reflect our inability to sample equally all habitats, annual differences in river temperatures and flows, or habitat differences in the Columbia Ri­ ver adjoining the Hanford reservation. There are several obvious differences between the two sires. The upriver sample area is a straight and deep channel with no islands, a maximum depth of 10 m and few shcreline indentations. The bottom consists mainly of boulders and large rock C over 10 cm in diameter. The channel at the downriver sire is shallower, wider, and r--.. contains islands; adjoining it are sloughs and backwater areas. The botrom varies from sand to cobble and boulders and is often cemented as outcroppings of upper Ringold-

,.. TABLE 2. C/UE1al and RAJ (bl of numerically dominant species caught by gill net, hoop net and beach seine from June, 1973, through May, 1974, at km 605-613; and O::tober, 19 74, through September, 1975, at km 55 7-566.

Species C/UE at km 605-613 C/UE at km 557-566 ("' Gill Hoop Beach Gill Hoop Beach Net Net Seine RAI Net Net Seine RAJ

Ptychocheilus orego nensis 2.79 0.48 2.98 2.08 2.13 0.28 0.78 1.06 ( 4) (CI Richardsonius balteatus 0.24 0.99 4.64 1.96 0.84 0.17 0.62 0.54 (7) Catostomus macrocheilus 0.64 0.15 2.82 (ll) 1.20 2.84 0.23 l.061lll 1.3 7 (2) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 0. 30 0.01 2.54 0.95 0.09 0.02 17.01 5. 71 (1) r;-... Mylocheilus caurinus 0.49 0.01 0.22 0.24 1.70 0.01 1.59 1.10 (3) Acrocheilus alutacetJJ 0.49 0.01 0.01 0.17 2.23 0.03 0.01 0.76 ( 5) Prosopium williamsoni 0.51 0.01 0.17 0.34 1.84 0. 73 (6) Salmo gairdneri 0.19 0.06 0.50 0.02 0.17 (8) Acipenser transmontar!US 0.19 0.06 0.29 0.10 ( 10) Cyprinus carpio 0.15 0.05 0.27 0.01 0.09 ( 11 ) Gasferosteus aculeatus 0.12 0.02 0.05 Catostomus columbianus 0.12 0.01 0.04 2.17 0.08 0.03 0. 76 ( 5) Perea flavescens 0.01 0.39 0.08 0.01 0.16 (9) Rhinicthys cataractae 0.01 0.01 o.29

(a) Catch per Unit Effort. (b) Relative Abundance Index. (cl Numerical Rank. (dl Includes some juvenile Catostomus sp. (el Includes some juvenile Rhinicthys sp.

Fish Species from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River 213 cype material ( Page, Wolf, Gray, and Schneider, 1974). Additionally, the downriver! area is under the influence of the upper end of McNary Dam pool and the free-flow­ ing Columbia River above. Both lotic and lentic habitats, as well as wider temperature ranges, are available. Thus, the downriver area has a greater habitat diversity than the upriver collecting sires. Other species known to inhabit the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River (Table 1) are documented in fish collections at Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. These include white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), tench (Tinca tinca), burbot (Lota Iota), ri­ ver lamprey (Lampetra ayresi), lake whit~fish (Coregonrts clupeaformis), and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki): Cutthroat trout were collected before construction of McNary Dam but not since ( Watson, personal communication) . Several other species collected from Columbia River backwater areas south of Rich­ land or occasionally caught by sport fishermen and known co inhabit the lower Snake and Yakima Rivers may be present. These include mosquito fish (Gambttsia affinis), blue catfish (I ctalurus fur cat us), nine spine stickleback ( Pttngitius pttngitim ), and western brook lamprey (Lampetra rich(lrdsoni) (Becker and Warson, person:il commu­ nication ). To our knowledge this is the first complete fish species list ever published for the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, now an environmental research park, and should be of value for ichthyologists in future nuclear power plant siring considerations.

Acknowledgments We thank C. D . Becker, C. E. Cushing, M. P. Fujihara, and D. G. Warson, who crm­ cally reviewed the manuscript and provided information on less commonly encountered fish species. This work was supported in part by the Washingcon Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington.

Literature Cited Bond, C. E. 1973. Keys to Oregon Freshwater Fishes. Tech. Bull. 58. Agric. Exp. Sta. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. Carl, G. C., W. A. Clemens, and C. C. Lindsey. 1967. The Freshv.:ater Fishes of British Colum­ bia. Handbook No. 5. Provincial Museum, Victoria, B.C. Davis, ]. ]., D. G. Watson, and C. C. Palmiter. 1956. Radiobiological Studies of che Columbia River Through 1955. USAEC Document HW 36074. Tech. Information Service, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Eddy, S. E. 1969. The Freshwater Fishes. Wm. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, Iowa, 2nd Edition, p. 286. Gray, R. H., T. L. Page, E. G. Wolf, and M. J. Schneider. 1975. A Study of Screen Impinge­ ment and Fish Passage ac Hanford Generating Project-A Progress Report. Battelle Northwest, Richland, Washington. McPhail, ]. D. 1967. Distribution of Freshwater Fishes in Western Washington. Northwest Sci­ ence 4 0 ( 1 ) : 1-11. Miller, R. R. 1959. Origin and Affinities of the Fauna of Western North Am­ erica. In Zoogeography Am. Assoc. Advance Sci., Washington, D.C., Pub. 52, pp. 187-222. Page, T. L., E. G . Wolf, R. H. Gray, and M. J. Schneider. 1974. Ecological Comparison of the Hanford No. 1 and WNP-2 Sires on the Columbia River. Baccelle Northwest, Richland, Wash­ ington. -----, R. H. Gray, and E. G. Wolf. 1975. Report on Impingement Studies Conducted ac Hanford Generating Project March and April 197 5, Battelle Northwest, Richtand, Washing­ ton. Patten, B. G ., R. B. Thompson, and W. D. Gronlund. 1970. Distribution and Abundance of Fish in the Yakima River, Washington, April 1957 to :May 1958. U.S. Fish. Wild!. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 603. Reimers, P. E. and C. E. Bond. 1967. Distribution of Fishes in Tributaries of the Lower Colum­ bia River. Copeia 1967 ( 3): 541-550. Robeck, G. C., C. Henderson, and R. C. Palange. 1954. Water Quality Studies on the Columbia River. U.S. Dept. Health, Education and Welfare.

214 Gray and Dauble Schultz, L. P. 1936. Keys to the Fishes of Washington, Oregon and closely adjoining regions. Univ. of Wash. Pub. Biol. 2(4): 103-228. 1 -----, and A. C. Delacey. 1935. Fishes of the American Northwest. A catalog of the fishes of Washington and Oregon with distributional records and a bibliography. Mid. Pa­ cific Mag. Vol. X No. 4: 365-380. Watson, D. G. 1974. Salmon Spawning Studies. In Annual Report for 1974 Part 2. Ecol. Sci. BNWL-1950: 88-89. Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs., Richland, Washington.

Received ]ttly 12, 1976 Accepted for publication December 17, 1976

i Ii c • •

..

Fish Species from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River 215