USFWS Ken Sprankle CT River diadromous restoration Jan 2015

Ken Sprankle Connecticut River Coordinator

U. S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceConnecticut River Coordinator’s Office

Commission = Agency Directors and Public Representatives (Policy)Technical Committee = Senior Biologists (Implementation)

Agency cooperative restoration work started on watershed scale in 1967CRASC created in 1983

American shad

Alewife

Blueback herring

Hickory shad

Gizzard shad

Diadromous Fishes

Atlantic salmon

American eel*

Atlantic sturgeon (extirpated)

Sea lamprey

Striped bass & ~ white perch

brown trout (introduced)

Shortnose sturgeon (ESA)

rainbow smelt

Timing of fish migrationsSpecies Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Sea

Lamprey

Atlantic

Salmon

Shad

Alewife

Blueback

EelCatadromous

Uprunner - Adult

Downrunner - Juvenile

Juveniles returning from ocean

Adults leaving freshwater

American shadN

um

be

r P

asse

d

Ho

lyo

ke

Fis

h L

ift

0

200x103

400x103

600x103

800x103

Atlantic salmon

Nu

mb

er

Co

un

ted

(Ba

sin

To

tal)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Blueback herring

Nu

mb

er

Pa

sse

dH

oly

oke

Fis

h L

ift

0

200x103

400x103

600x103

800x103

Connecticut River Fish Counts 1967-2014

Year

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

0

20x103

40x103

60x103

80x103

100x103

120x103

Nu

mb

er

Pa

sse

dH

oly

oke

Fis

h L

ift Sea lamprey

Lets put our local river data

in some broader context…

nearly all diadromous fish

species are in a universal

state of decline range-

wide!

River herring were reviewed

for Federal Endangered

Species Status – East Coast

2013

What does USFWS Fisheries Do?

With Partners…

• Population assessments: species status and trends

• Fish passage: Manhan River Ladder, ongoing guidance

• Hydro-power relicensing / Regulatory: five main stem projects 140

river miles affected, 30 yr. license*, Holyoke Downstream SA*

• Habitat monitoring: water temperatures

• Habitat restoration: Fall River Dam removal

• Population restoration: capture and translocations

• Technical and management team work and planning: ASMFC,

CRASC and subcommittees…

• Research: identify and understand factors that influence survival

…passage…spawning…drivers of population dynamics

(abundance, juvenile production, age structure)

• Outreach/Education: can do better! Interns…volunteers…talks

Downstream passage of spent

adults and juveniles operational and

engineered approaches; gates,

reduced trash rack spacing, louvers

guides, bypass structures

DOES NOT address

Predator fields, concentrated

release, cumulative effects (delay

and sub-lethal)

Fish passage count

data are important

BUT…passage is

effected by many

factors – flows/spill,

debris, structural

issues, mechanical

settings or issues,

others…

If fish can’t, don’t, or won’t use fishways – biologists

must survey populations for data used for

management and restoration (age structure,

abundance indices, growth rates, juvenile production).

Sampled fish are processed

for otoliths and scales in lab

for later examination

River Herring Population

Assessment

Objectives –

1) Survey for fish occurrence over time (run timing) and

space (target areas)

2) Derive relative abundance catch rates (fish/min),

repeated measures, analytical procedures used

3) Determine species freq., lengths, sex, weight, obtain

structures for aging

4) Determine age structure (by sex, area,…)

5) Develop baseline measures and compare year to year

for status, trends…relationships to variables…

…responses to management measures.

2014 2013

Number of sampling dates 21 18

Total Sample Runs 124 81

Total Efishing seconds 55,736 41,177

Total bluebacks captured 2,593 714

Total alewives captured 220 107

Blueback herring oto/scale - lab 655 501*

Alewife oto/scale - lab 188 103*

Draft CTR Alewife Length @ Age2013 Samples

Age

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Toatl L

eng

th (

mm

)

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

Female

Male

Figures by TNC

River Herring Population

Restoration

Objectives –

1) Target of 10,000 river herring, pre-spawn collected in lower river

area

2) Transfer fish to areas of suitable spawning habitat, accessible, but

not utilized

3) Target areas – above dams/fishways in MA and CT, repeated

releases to improve success

4) Evaluate juvenile production

2011 and 2012 CT River American Shad

Migration and Survival Study (140 river

miles) – three main stem dams –

USFWS –

Set up and maintained stationary radio

receiver units (April – Aug)

USGS Conte Research Lab -

Set up and maintained receiver

array at Turners Falls Dam and

Vernon Dam (VT), special array in

place at Turners Falls Canal

USFWS –

• net, tag (radio and PIT and PIT only) and

released shad at river mouth (April – June)

• tag and release shad at Holyoke Dam

USGS Conte Lab –

• tag and release at Turners Falls Dam

• fish double tagged (radio/PIT) and

single tagged

Grand total of 1,002 shad tagged in 2011

and 2012 among three river areas

Preliminary Results – lower river releases only –

2011 – total of 82 shad radio/PIT (double tagged) at mouth

• 48 double tagged fish “viable”

• 35 of those passed at Holyoke Fish Lift = 73% passage

2012 – total of 89 shad radio/PIT (double tagged) at mouth

• 39 double tagged shad “viable”

• 25 of those passed at Holyoke Fish Lift = 64% passage

What rate do they move upstream? What factors (flow) affect

them? When do fish arrive at dams? What proportion pass?

What is the timing/rate? What are factors of influence?...many

more.

Date of tagged shad release (river mouth) vs. number of days until PIT tag detection at HFL - Spring 2011

(PIT tag data, 38 detected of 92 released)

Date shad tagged and released at river mouth

4/25 5/2 5/9 5/16 5/23 5/30 6/6

# D

ays f

rom

re

lea

se

to

pa

ssa

ge

at

HF

L

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40