Search USGSSearch

USGS · ofr20161144

Behavior patterns and fates of adult steelhead, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon released into the upper Cowlitz River Basin, 2005–09 and 2012, Washington

Abstract

A multiyear radiotelemetry evaluation was conducted to monitor adult steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ), and coho salmon ( O. kisutch ) behavior and movement patterns in the upper Cowlitz River Basin. Volitional passage to this area was eliminated by dam construction in the mid-1960s, and a reintroduction program began in the mid-1990s. Fish are transported around the dams using a trap-and-haul program, and adult release sites are located in Lake Scanewa, the uppermost reservoir in the system, and in the Cowlitz and Cispus Rivers. Our goal was to estimate the proportion of tagged fish that fell back downstream of Cowlitz Falls Dam before the spawning period and to determine the proportion that were present in the Cowlitz and Cispus Rivers during the spawning period. Fallback is important because Cowlitz Falls Dam does not have upstream fish passage, so fish that pass the dam are unable to move back upstream and spawn. A total of 2,051 steelhead and salmon were tagged for the study, which was conducted during 2005–09 and 2012, and 173 (8.4 percent) of these regurgitated their transmitter prior to, or shortly after release. Once these fish were removed from the dataset, the final number of fish that was monitored totaled 1,878 fish, including 647 steelhead, 770 Chinook salmon, and 461 coho salmon. Hatchery-origin (HOR) and natural-origin (NOR) steelhead, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon behaved differently following release into Lake Scanewa. Detection records showed that the percentage of HOR fish that moved upstream and entered the Cowlitz River or Cispus River after release was relatively low (steelhead = 38 percent; Chinook salmon = 67 percent; coho salmon = 41 percent) compared to NOR fish (steelhead = 84 percent; Chinook salmon = 82 percent; coho salmon = 76 percent). The elapsed time from release to river entry was significantly lower for NOR fish than for HOR fish for all three species. Tagged fish entered the Cowlitz River in greater proportions than the Cispus River, regardless of origin. We found that 23–47 percent of the HOR fish entered the Cowlitz River and 12–38 percent entered the Cispus River. Similarly, 67–70 percent of the NOR fish entered the Cowlitz River and 38–66 percent entered the Cispus River. These behavioral differences translated into similar differences in fates during the spawning periods as higher percentages of tagged fish were assigned Cowlitz River fates than Cispus River fates. Fallback rates were affected by fish origin and release site. Overall, 12 percent of steelhead, 19 percent of Chinook salmon, and 8 percent of coho salmon fell back downstream of Cowlitz Falls Dam prior to spawning. Fallback rates were lower for fish that were released in the Cowlitz River or the Cispus River than for reservoir-released fish, but statistical comparisons were not robust because of small sample sizes at the river release sites. Fallback rates for fish released at the river release sites were 10 percent lower for steelhead, 4 percent lower for Chinook salmon, and 9 percent lower for coho salmon than for reservoir-released fish. However, fallback rates also were different between HOR and NOR fish. Fallback rates were significantly higher for HOR reservoir-released fish than for NOR reservoir-released fish. This study provided data that were insightful for understanding behavior and movement patterns in the upper Cowlitz River Basin and yielded estimates of fallback rates and fish fates that may be useful for fishery managers in the years to come. Studies from other systems have shown that factors such as prespawn mortality and fallback have resulted in substantial losses to spawning populations where trap-and-haul programs are being used as a restoration tool. Future research in the upper Cowlitz River Basin may use additional telemetry studies, genetic analyses, and spawning ground surveys to provide answers for new questions and to continue to monitor the progress of the reintroduction effort.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 46.41655893628349° to 46.59661864884465° latitude; -122.12677001953124° to -121.69418334960939° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tobias J. Kock, Brian K. Ekstrom, Theresa L. Liedtke, John D. Serl, Mike Kohn. 2016-08-26. Behavior patterns and fates of adult steelhead, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon released into the upper Cowlitz River Basin, 2005–09 and 2012, Washington. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161144

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona