Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Report 2011

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project 2011
By: Andrew Berger Robert Conrad Justin Paul
Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department

Puyallup, WA 98371
January 2012
Acknowledgments
Evaluation of juvenile salmonid production requires a tremendous amount of work. We would like to thank several staff at the Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department for their time in the field. Editorial and statistical support was provided by Robert Conrad from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Other individuals and agencies contributed efforts to this project. We would like to thank the City of Puyallup for the access to the trap site and the Pacific Salmon Treaty for funding the project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures........iii List of Tables...v List of Appendices..........vi Introduction.........1 Goals and Objectives.......2 Methods...3 Trapping Gear and Operations..............3 Sampling Procedures....................3 Measuring Flow, Turbidity and Temperature......4 Capture Efficiency...................................4 Catch Expansion..5 Catch and Flow Regime Stratification.....5 Production Estimates.......6 Results.....8 Flow and Turbidity......8 Temperature..10 CHINOOK...........11 Catch......11 Size....12 Capture Efficiency.........................................................................................................13 Estimated Production.....18 Migration Timing..........19 Freshwater Survival...........21 COHO...22 Catch..22 Size........23 Capture Efficiency.....24 Estimated Production.....27 Migration Timing......27 CHUM...............28 Catch..28 Size........29 Capture Efficiency.30 Estimated Production.....31 Migration Timing..31 STEELHEAD.33 Catch..33 Size........33 Age.34 Capture Efficiency.............36 Migration Timing..36 ASSUMPTIONS...38 Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2011 i
Catch..38 Catch Expansion....38 Trap Efficiency...38 Chinook.38 Coho...38 Chum.....39 Turbidity, Flow and Temperature............39 DISCUSSION....40 Turbidity and Flow....40 Temperature.......40 Migration Timing..42 Catch, Trap Efficiency and Production Estimates.42 Freshwater Survival...45 Mortality....45 Incidental Catch.45 REFERENCES..46 Literature Citations....46 Personal Communications.47
Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2011
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Mean daily flow and NTU for the Puyallup River, 2011......9 Scatter plot of mean daily flow and secchi depth for the Puyallup River, 20119 Scatter plot of mean daily flow and NTU for the combined group Puyallup River, 2011.
Circle represents data points not included in the non-glacial group, or values obtained after the river had become glacially influenced.10
Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13.
Mean daily water temperature recorded on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2011.....11 Five-year average and unmarked Chinook catch on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2011.12
Number of marked and unmarked Chinook catch on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2011.12
Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 0+ Chinook captured in the screw trap, 201113 Plot of estimated daytime and nighttime capture efficiency experiments for Chinook, 2004 - 2011 .......14 Plot of flow and capture efficiency for 2011 daytime and nighttime experiments........15 Plot of secchi disk depth and capture efficiency for 2011 daytime and nighttime experiments........15 Plot of NTU and capture efficiency for 2011 daytime and nighttime experiments...........16 Mean Fork length of hatchery Chinook used in capture efficiency experiments, 2011.....17 Capture efficiency and mean fork length of hatchery Chinook used for markrecapture tests, 2011...18
Figure 14. Annual production estimates of unmarked age 0+ Chinook smolts, 2005 201118
iii
Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17.
Estimated daily migration of unmarked 0+ Chinook smolts with mean daily flow, 2011....20 Percent estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook, 2011....21 Correlation of peak incubation flows (Aug. Feb.) on South Prairie Creek and freshwater survival estimates on the Puyallup River, migration years 2004 201122 Unmarked and marked 1+ coho captured in the screw trap, 2011.....23 Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 1+ coho captured in the smolt trap, 2011 ........24 Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for coho smolt release experiments conducted from 20042011 (daytime and nighttime releases indicated).25 Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus secchi disk depth for 1+ coho salmon releases, 2011.........25 Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus flow for 1+ coho smolt releases, 201126 Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus NTU for 1+ coho smolt releases, 201126 Annual production estimates of unmarked age 1+ coho, 20052011..27 Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants with mean daily flow, 2011..28 Percent migration of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 201128 Total number of chum captured in the Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 201129 Mean weekly fork length and size range of chum captured in the screw trap, 2010........30 Capture efficiency experiments for wild chum captured in the screw trap, 2004 2011 ...30
Annual production estimates of chum captured on the Puyallup River, 2006 2011 31
Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31.
Daily estimated migration of chum with mean daily flows, 2011.....32 iv
Figure 32. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Figure 36. Figure 37. Figure 38. Figure 39. Figure 40. Figure 41.
Percent estimated migration of chum, 2011..32 Total number of unmarked steelhead captured in the Puyallup River screw trap, 20002011...33 Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked steelhead captured in the screw trap, 2011.34 Percent age class from unmarked steelhead migrants captured in the screw trap, 20042010.......35 Mean, maximum and minimum lengths for four combined age classes of unmarked steelhead smolts captured in the screw trap, 20082010..35 Run timing by steelhead smolt age in the Puyallup River screw trap, 2010 .36 Daily and five-year average catch of steelhead migrants with mean daily flows, Puyallup River, 2011 ....37 Percent migration of steelhead captured in the screw trap, Puyallup River 2011....37 Mean monthly temperature (bars) and monthly Chinook abundance (line) for the Puyallup River 2007 2011 .....41 Mean monthly fork length for Chinook Salmon on the Puyallup River 2007 2011....41
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Annual summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments, 20082011..14 Annual summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments in 2011.......17 Total unmarked Chinook catch for diurnal and glacial melt periods, 201119 Freshwater survival of unmarked Chinook from the Puyallup River, 2011....21
Table 5.
Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression of flow and NTU (X) and capture efficiency (Y), 2011.....26
APPENDICES
Figure A1. Figure A2. Figure A3. Table B1. Table B2. Table B3 Table B4. Table C1. Table C2. Table C3. The Puyallup River Watershed.....A1 Diagram of a rotary screw trap...A2 Orientation of the screw trap in the lower Puyallup River channel at R.M. 10.6A3 Fork length data for unmarked age 0+ Chinook migrants, 2011..B1 Fork length data for unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2011....B2 Fork length data for unmarked chum, 2011.......B3 Fork length data for unmarked steelhead, 2011........B4 Hatchery Chinook mark and recapture data for the Puyallup River, 20042011...........C1 Hatchery coho mark and recapture data for the Puyallup River, 20042011.......C3 Hatchery and wild chum mark and recapture data for the Puyallup River, 20042011....C4
vi
INTRODUCTION
The Puyallup River Watershed encompasses 438 square miles and includes three major tributaries: the Carbon River, Mowich River and South Prairie Creek. The Puyallup River flows westward more than 54 miles from the southwest slope of Mount Rainier to Commencement Bay and has an average annual flow of 1,729 cfs near the location of the smolt trap (USGS, 2006). The Puyallup, Carbon and Mowich Rivers originate from glaciers located in Mt. Rainer National Park and exhibit the classic features of glacial streams: frequently shifting braided channels, high turbidity, and low temperatures. South Prairie Creek, which is a non-glacial tributary of the Carbon River, is fed by groundwater and seasonal runoff and offers clear water and moderate temperatures. The Puyallup-White River Watershed is identified as a Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10 by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The watershed supports eight species of anadromous fishes including six species of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), coastal Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Prior to the construction of the Electron Diversion Dam at river mile (R.M.) 41.5 in 1904 natural production occurred throughout the entire Puyallup River Basin. However, the dam eliminated access to 21.5 miles of spawning habitat. In the fall of 2000, the Puyallup Tribe reopened this habitat for fish use by installing a fish ladder at the Electron Dam. The State of Washington began hatchery production within the watershed in 1914 at Voights Creek State Salmon Hatchery. The confluence of Voights Creek enters the Carbon River at R.M. 4.0 (Appendix A1). Currently, Voights Creek Hatchery rears fall Chinook and coho. In 1998, the Puyallup Tribe began planting hatchery-reared fall Chinook and coho into three acclimation ponds in the upper Puyallup watershed. Cowskull pond drains directly into the Puyallup River at R.M. 45.5. The Rushingwater and Mowich ponds drain into the Mowich River, which enters the Puyallup at R.M. 42.3. In addition, surplus Chinook and coho from Voights Creek Hatchery are released above Electron Dam and allowed to spawn naturally in an attempt to repopulate available habitat. Puyallup River fall Chinook were classified as a distinct stock by the 1992 State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) on the basis of geographic distribution. In 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed Puget Sound Chinook as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Also in 1999, the Puyallup Tribe (PTF) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) created a joint fall Chinook recovery plan with a goal of maintaining natural fall Chinook production while evaluating the production potential of the Puyallup River system and current stock status (WDFW and PTF, 2000). In addition to Chinook, Puget Sound steelheads were listed as threatened under the ESA in 2007. Estimating smolt abundance is a necessary step towards evaluating trends in stock productivity and production potential of the Puyallup River system. In 2000, the Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department started the Puyallup River Smolt Production Assessment Project to estimate: (1) juvenile abundance of native salmonids, with an emphasis on natural fall Chinook salmon, and (2) survival of hatchery and acclimation 1
pond Chinook. Beginning in 2000, an E. G. Solutions 5-ft diameter rotary screw trap has been operated annually on the lower Puyallup at R.M. 10.6, just upstream of the confluence with the White River, and has been used to monitor the outmigration of juvenile salmonids. In 2011, a new 8-ft screw replaced the ageing 5-ft screw. As more data become available, juvenile abundance estimates may provide baseline information allowing managers to re-evaluate escapement objectives in the watershed, create a production potential-based management strategy, and accurately forecast future returns of hatchery and naturally produced adults. In addition, a basin spawner/recruit analysis will help: (1) indicate stock productivity, (2) determine the overall health of the watershed, and (3) evaluate the contribution of enhancement projects. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goals of this project are to estimate the abundance of juvenile salmonids, characterize juvenile migration timing, describe the length distribution for all wild salmonid outmigrants, and fulfill the objectives of the Puyallup River Fall Chinook Recovery Plan. To achieve these goals, this project will produce population estimates of outmigrating smolts, estimate species-specific migration timing, compare natural versus hatchery abundance and run timing, analyze mean fork length of wild smolts and detail species composition of the sampled population. The objectives of this project are to: 1. Estimate juvenile abundance for all salmonids in the Puyallup River and estimate freshwater survival for naturally produced juvenile Chinook. 2. Investigate physical factors such as light (day vs. night), river flow, and river turbidity and their importance to trap capture efficiency. 3. Continue and further develop methodologies and models to estimate abundance for salmonids. 4. Detail species length and run timing in order to investigate environmental factors contributing to these life history patterns. In this report, all stated objectives will be met for Chinook and coho salmon for the 2011 smolt outmigration season. Non-target species such as chum and steelhead will be addressed to a lesser extent.
2
METHODS
Trapping Gear and Operations The rotary screw trap used in this project consists of a rotary cone suspended within a steel structure on top of twin, 40-foot pontoons. The opening of the rotary cone is eight feet in diameter, and has a sampling depth of approximately 4.0 feet. The cone and live box assembly are attached to a steel frame that may be raised or lowered by hand winches located at the front and rear of the assembly (Appendix A2). This year was the first year an eight-foot screw was used to trap juveniles, previous trapping utilized a five-foot cone. Two five-ton, bow-mounted anchor winches with 3/8 steel cables are used to secure and adjust the direction of the trap and keep it in the thalweg (Appendix A3). The cables are secured to trees on opposite banks. Additional rear cables are secured to trees located on the banks to further stabilize the trap. The rotary screw trap was installed in the lower Puyallup River (R.M. 10.6) just above the confluence with the White River. This year the trap was positioned in the same location as 2008 - 2010, close to where it had been positioned from 2000 to 2006. Trap operation began on February 3rd and continued, when possible, 24 hours a day seven days a week until August 11th. The trap was not fished during some high flow events and hatchery releases in order to avoid damage to the screw and stress to fish. These dates are described in the catch expansion section of the report. The trap was checked for fish at least twice each day: at dawn and at dusk. Civil twilight, and sunrise and sunset hours, were used to separate catch into day and night periods. During hatchery releases and high flow events personnel remained onsite throughout the night to clear the trap of debris and prevent overcrowding in the live box. Revolutions per minute (rpm), secchi depth (cm) and weather conditions were recorded during each trap check. Sampling Procedures Smolts were anesthetized with MS-222 (tricaine methanesulfonate) for handling purposes and subsequently placed in a recovery bin of river water before release back to the river. This year a procedure using a 1:10 clove oil/ethanol solution for sedation was also used. Juveniles were identified as either natural or hatchery origin. All hatchery fish in the Puyallup system are marked with an adipose fin clip or an adipose fin clip plus a coded wire tag. Therefore, unmarked fish are identified as natural and marked fish are identified as hatchery. Hatchery-origin fish were identified in two ways: (1) by visual inspection for an adipose fin (Ad) clips, and (2) with a Northwest Marine Technology wand detector used for coded wire tag (CWT) detection. Fork length (mm) was measured and recorded for unmarked fish. 3
When possible, at least 50 fish per day were measured for each species, and scale samples were collected on all wild steelhead smolts. Species were separated by size/age class. Chinook smolts were recorded as age 0+ (<150mm) or age 1+ (>150mm), but in some instances were recorded as 0+ or 1+ depending on morphological characteristics and time of season rather than a rigid measuring scale. The age class differentiation was also used for coho, but were identified as fry, age 0+ (<70mm) or smolt, age 1+ (>70mm). All chum were identified as age 0+. Trout fry age 0+ (<60mm) were not differentiated to species. Measuring Flow, Turbidity and Temperature Stream flow measurements were obtained from the United States Geological Surveys (USGS) Alderton gauge, number 12096500 (USGS, 2008), located approximately 1.5 miles above the screw trap. All flow data provided by the USGS is provisional until the following water year. Mean daily flow, measured in cubic feet per second (cfs), was recorded throughout the sample season and stream flow was noted during each capture efficiency experiment. A YSI 6920 sonde multi-parameter water quality meter was used to monitor turbidity (NTU), water temperature (C), pH and Conductivity (uS). The water quality meter was installed on the front of the trap in a large open cylinder, and placed suspended five-feet below the surface of the water. The meter was downloaded and calibrated every 30-days. Turbidity was also measured by taking a secchi disk depth (cm) measurement off the front of the trap during each trap check. Each secchi measurement was applied to its respective day or night catch period. In order to expand secchi readings during un-fished intervals, averages were taken and applied where appropriate, i.e., if fish were migrating and secchi depth was used as a measure of capture efficiency. Water temperature was measured using the YSI multi-parameter meter. Temperature was recorded every half-hour, twenty-four hours a day for the entire migration season. Daily temperature is the average of all measurements taken during each days twenty-four hour period. Capture Efficiency For the 2011 trapping season, marked Chinook and coho were released at the same site 650 meters above the screw trap. Marked wild chum were released 300 meters above the trap. The time of release varied for each species and is described below. Chinook Chinook reared at Clarks Creek Tribal Hatchery and captured in the smolt trap were both used for all capture efficiency experiments in 2011. A combination of fin clipping and Bismarck Brown Y Biological stain solution was used to identify marked fish. No MS222 was used on any Chinook except to measure samples for fork length, and one release that required fin-clips. After marking, fish were transferred to one large aerated container and immediately moved upstream and released. The marked fish were released at either day 4
or night times in order to examine differences in capture efficiency as a result of daylight. Day and night release groups were classified as either day or night by the majority of the first 10 hours after release being in light or dark. Sunrise and sunset times, as well as civil twilight, were used to determine the amount of light for each hour. No control groups were held for releases but all fish were vigorous at release. Coho Coho releases were conducted using hatchery fish reared at Diru Tribal Hatchery. Fish were anesthetized with MS-222 and clipped with either an upper or lower caudal clip. The fish were then transferred to an aerated container and immediately moved upstream and released. All experiments with marked coho occurred at night. No control groups were held for releases but all fish were vigorous at release. Catch Expansion Due to a variety of factors: high flows, hatchery releases and a screw stopper, the trap was not fished continuously throughout the trapping season. There were four days out of 189 possible days when the trap was not fishing for a full 24-hour period, but there were also day or night periods when the trap was not fishing. On these days, the average catch per day (or night) was used to estimate the number of missed fish during that period. The average was calculated by taking the respective catch from the day or night period before and after the un-fished interval, adding them together and then dividing by the total number of periods. Because this method incorporates the catch around the un-fished interval it was used for all un-fished periods throughout the migration season. These dates were: night of March 30th and 31st, night of April 4th and day of April 5th, day and night of May 15th, and night of May 27th. This year all species were treated the same with the methods described above; however not all days had fish expansion because there were no fish present on the listed days. In addition to the dates above, hourly expansion was used during high flow events and periods of high catches of fish. On these days, the trap was fished for a known number of hours, pulled for a known number of hours, and then fished again. The number of fish per hour was calculated during the fished interval and applied to the un-fished interval. Hourly expansion was used on: days of February 5th and 8th, days of March 10th, 30th and 31st , night of March 9th and 10th, day of April 1st 4th, 6th 9th, 11th, 15th and 17th and night of April 1st 3rd , 5th, 8th and 10th, day and night of May16th, day of May 17th, 26th and 27th, night of May 25th, 26th and 31st, day and night of June 1st, day of June 6th 8th , and night of June 7th. When the trap was fished for a 24-hour period without being checked, catch was split using the percent day:night catch ratio from actual paired day and night catches. Further, day: night catch ratios were estimated separately for the two time period strata (pre-glacial and glacial). Catch and Flow Regime Stratification Flow and turbidity data were examined in stratification periods in order to evaluate the relationship between flow and turbidity, the relationship between secchi disk depth and NTU, and the effect of seasonal turbidity events on capture efficiency. The stratification 5
periods were delineated by the date at which secchi disk depth measurements were permanently 50cm for the remainder of the season. This is the glacial period and this year occurred on July 24th. The dates before July 24th are called the non-glacial period, and the combined period consists of all values from the entire season, including the glacial period. In previous years, a similar stratification method was used to estimate Chinook abundance. In addition to glacial stratification using turbidity, catch data was delineated using both day and night. The effect of light on catch was determined by checking the trap during dusk and dawn periods and segregating catch into its respective category. Production Estimates Because of differences in the relationship between environmental variables and capture efficiency for each species, production estimates for each species were calculated using different methods. Although the methods used to estimate production were different for each species, estimated capture efficiency was calculated similarly for each experiment. Capture efficiency ( E ) of the trap for a species and the total catch (C) by the trap (either for the season or a defined period of time) was calculated as follows:
E =r/m and =C/ E N

where:
E = estimated capture efficiency,

r = number of marked fish recaptured, m = number of marked fish released,
N = total estimated number of migrants passing the trap, and

C = total number of unmarked fish caught in the screw trap. Since our trap was checked twice in a 24-hour period (once in the morning and once in the evening), each morning check roughly reflects the number of fish caught during the previous night and each evening check reflects the number of fish caught during the day. When estimating the total number of migrants passing the trap (N), the number of unmarked fish caught in the smolt trap (C) is the number of fish caught during each dates respective day or night period, and is not the total number of fish counted on the date the trap was checked. In this report, one day will reflect the total number of fish caught in a combined day and night period. For some species, the number of unmarked fish caught in the trap (C) is the sum over some specified amount of time, e.g., day, week, season, or glacial turbidity period. For variance calculations, we assume that each marked fish has the same probability of being recaptured at the trap after release and that the recapture of each marked fish is independent of the recapture of other marked fish released at the same time. The variance of e is that for a binomial proportion and is estimate by: 6
var( E ) =
E x (1 E ) n 1
A 95% confidence interval was estimated for each Chinook capture efficiency experiment using the variance of E using methods described by Fleiss (1981). When the mean of the capture efficiency experiments ( ) was used to estimate capture efficiency over the entire season, the variance of was estimated using standard methods. Since capture efficiency is considered the same each day over the season (on average), the
total Chinook catch (C) divided by estimates total abundance ( N ). approximate variance (estimated using the delta method) are: N
and
N and its
SPSS statistical software was used to analyze data and estimate predictive models of capture efficiency for each species (SPSS, 2003). Chinook Previous years analyses have demonstrated that the capture efficiency of the trap in capturing outmigrating Chinook smolts is influenced by water clarity, (measured by secchi disk depth taken at the trap), diurnal period (daytime and nighttime) and river flow (cfs). Analyses of the complete set of capture efficiency data for Chinook smolts (2004 2009) conducted in 2009 concluded that trap capture efficiency, and its relationship to important environmental variables, was significantly different for the years 2004-2007 compared to 2008 and 2009 data. This coincided with a change in trap location. In 2010, data was combined for the years 2008 2010, and separate models were developed to estimate abundance. In 2011, trap position remained the same, but a larger trap was used to estimate capture efficiency, therefore data collected only in 2011 was used for analysis. The relationships of secchi depth, NTUs, and river flow with capture efficiency were examined using both correlation and regression analyses. The arcsin of the square root of capture efficiency and ln of secchi depth and flow were included in the analyses. Transformed data were used when necessary to linearize relationships, normalize the distributions of the data, and equalize variances among groups. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) strategy was followed to simultaneously examine whether there was a significant relationship between each of the independent X variables (secchi disk depth, NTUs, and flow) and the dependent Y variable (capture efficiency), and if a significant relationship was indicated between X and Y, determine whether the relationship was the same for daytime and nighttime sets (Milliken and Johnson, 2002). Coho Analyses in 2009 of all coho capture efficiency experiments performed from 2004 2009 concluded that capture efficiency and its relationship to important environmental variables was significantly different for the years 2004 2007 compared to 2008 and 2009. This coincided with the change in trap location. In 2010, experiments conducted from 2008 2010 were not significantly different and combined for analysis and model development. In 2011, we only examined data from the current year and regression analyses similar to 7
those conducted for Chinook were used to examine the relationships of secchi depth, NTU and flow with capture efficiency. However, because there were only three coho experiments, all conducted at night, there was no ANCOVA. Chum From 2008 2010 only three wild chum experiments were conducted and all three tests were completed in 2008. Prior to 2008, hatchery versus wild chum capture efficiency analyses was conducted and indicated a significant difference between hatchery and wild chum releases. Since it was not possible to release wild chum in all years, pink salmon capture efficiency results were examined in order to explore the possibility of using pink capture efficiency as a surrogate for chum capture efficiency during even-years. Because pink salmon were not available this year this method was not used. There was only one wild capture efficiency experiment performed for chum salmon this year due to low catch. This was used to estimate abundance.
RESULTS
Flow and Turbidity During the 2011 trapping season there were three distinct peaks in mean daily flow over 3,000 cfs. The largest peak, 7,370 cfs occurred early in the migration season on March 31st and was the second highest flow event during the trapping season since record in 2004 (Figure 1). There was also a significant flow event on May 15th with flows in the excess of 6,000 cfs. These early high-flow events are not typical on the Puyallup, usually flows steadily increase from the start of the season until a peak in late May or early June. Average daily flow for the trapping season, February 3rd to August 10th, was 2,339 cfs, the highest average observed since recorded in 2004. Increased rainfall, due to the La Nina phenomenon was likely the factor of a wetter than average season. This year turbidity was measured by both NTUs and secchi depth for the first time since the projects inception. Figure 2 indicates the relationship between secchi depth and NTUs. As the covariate, flow was significantly correlated with secchi depth in each of two stratification groups (combined and non-glacial), however the r-square values remained low (r-square < .18). NTU was significant in only the non-glacial group (P < .05), but had a better r-squared value than either of the secchi models (r-square = .419) (Figure 3). NTU mirrors flow very well from the beginning of the season until the end, where increased turbidity coincides with high flows and glacially influenced late summer flows (Figure 1). NTU appears to be a better fit with flow than secchi disk for at least a portion of the season, although the relationship remains weak. From this data and continual observation from year to year, it is evident that snow pack and glacial melt influence the timing, and degree, of turbidity on the Puyallup River and therefore the large-scale shift in the flow/turbidity regime during juvenile salmon migration.
8
90
NTU
8000
Flow (cfs)
80 70 60
7000 6000
NTU
50 4000 40 30 20 10 0 2/9 2/24 3/11 3/26 4/10 4/25 5/10 5/25 6/9 6/24 7/9 7/24 8/8 3000 2000 1000 0
Date
Figure 1. Mean daily flow and NTU for the Puyallup River, 2011.
90 R = 0.7496 80 70 60
NTU
50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250
Secchi Depth (cm)
Figure 2. Scatter plot of secchi disk depth and NTU for the Puyallup River, 2011.
Flow (cfs)
5000
9
90 80 70 60
NTU
50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Flow (cfs)
Figure 3. Scatter plot of mean daily flow and NTU for the combined group Puyallup River, 2011. Circle represents data points not included in the non-glacial group, or values obtained after the river had become glacially influenced.
Temperature Daily surface water temperature exceeding 16oC is the limit for Washington Department of Ecology Surface Water Quality Standards for Core Summer Salmonid Habitat use (WDOE, 2006). Figure 4 shows mean daily surface water temperatures, which never exceeded the 16oC limit for 2011, from February 9th to August 9th .Temperatures exceeded 10oC on May 14th, and appeared to stay fairly consistent until mid-June (Figure 4). This pattern is similar to 2009 and 2010. However, this year the first 10oC reading wasnt until mid-May, whereas in 2009 and 2010 this occurred much earlier in late April. Furthermore, in 2009 and 2010 surface water temperature was recorded above 16oC in summer. Overall, temperatures appeared to be cooler than in 2009 and 2010, but warmer than 2008, when temperatures didnt reach 10oC until mid-June. From our multi-year temperature data, when water temperatures reach 10oC at an earlier date, critically high temperatures are evident in late summer. Often times high surface water temperatures are recorded in years when the loss of snow pack results in flooding during late winter, or early spring.
10
16 14 12
Temperature ( C )
10 8 6 4 2 0 2/9 2/24 3/11 3/26 4/10 4/25 5/10 5/25 6/9 6/24 7/9 7/24 8/8
Date
Figure 4. Mean daily surface water temperature recorded on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2011.
CHINOOK Catch Unmarked Chinook A total of 3,474 unmarked Chinook migrants were captured in the screw trap between February 3rd and August 10th. Fifty-four percent (1,882) was actual catch and 46% (1,592) was expanded. This is the second highest catch in the previous five-years (range: 243 4,760) and above the five-year average catch of 1,421. One Chinook was captured on the first day of trapping indicating outmigration had already begun before the trap was fishing, in addition a large flow event occurred prior to installation, likely forcing out some Chinook. Catch continued to be consistent until the beginning of March, when fish began to migrate with increases in flow and the peak in April (Figure 5). Unlike the previous two years, peak catch did not occur with the peak catch of marked hatchery Chinook, rather the early flow event in April, however there was some increase in unmarked catch during the hatchery release indicating some mixed stock interaction (Figure 6).
11
80
400
Umarked Chinook Catch (n=3,474) Five-year Average Catch
Five-year Average Chinook Catch
40
200
20
100
0 2/3 2/18 3/5 3/20 4/4 4/19 5/4 5/19 6/3 6/18 7/3 7/18 8/2
Date
Figure 5. Five-year average and unmarked Chinook catch on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2011.
4000
Number of Marked Chinook Captured
Number of Unmarked Chinook Number of Marked Chinook Captured
3000
200 2000
1000
100
0 2/3 2/18 3/5 3/20 4/4 4/19 5/4 5/19 6/3 6/18 7/3 7/18 8/2
Date
Figure 6. Number of marked and unmarked Chinook catch on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2011.
Size Throughout the trapping season mean fork length of unmarked age 0+ Chinook increased. Between stat week 24 and 25 (mid-June) there was a 10 mm increase in mean fork length from 72 mm to 82 mm (Figure 7). Growth appears to follow the general trend in increased water temperature. The maximum in range increased from 93 mm to 111 mm between stat week 24 and 25, also the same week hatchery Chinook were released from Voights Creek state hatchery (Appendix B1). Similar to previous years, minimum and maximum fork lengths followed a typical progression throughout the migration season with Chinook reaching above the 12
Number of Unmarked Chinook Captured
300
Chinook Catch 2011
60
300
minimum fork length of 50 mm during stat week 20 (early-May) and maximum fork length of 100 mm during stat week 25 (mid-June). Again, this year Chinook were measured in the 30 mm size class, indicating the presence of Chinook fry and some degree of survival for this years brood.
130 120
Fork Length (mm)
110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Statistical Week
Figure 7. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 0+ Chinook captured in the screw trap, 2011.
Capture Efficiency During the 2011 season, seven capture efficiency experiments using hatchery Chinook salmon were conducted from February 15th to July 25th. There were three daytime releases and four nighttime releases. About 500 fish were used in every experiment except for one where only 300 Chinook were released (Appendix C1). A total of 3,556 hatchery Chinook were released during the seven experiments. This year a new screw trap that sampled an area 2.56 times larger than the previous trap (8 screw vs. 5 screw) was used. Therefore, the analysis here examines only data from the 2011 capture efficiency experiments. Also in 2011, NTU data associated with the capture efficiency experiments were collected for the first time. Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates in 2011 to Previous Years Estimates Capture efficiency estimates in 2011 ranged from 5.1% to 12.9%. The larger area sampled by the new screw trap resulted in the two highest capture efficiency estimates for the eight years of this study and the highest annual mean capture efficiency observed (Figure 8). Table 1 summarizes capture efficiency estimates for Chinook since 2008, when the trap was moved to its current location.
13
14.00%
Day
Capture Efficiency Percentage
12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2003
Night
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
Figure 8. Plot of estimated daytime and nighttime capture efficiency experiments for Chinook 2004 - 2011. Table 1. Annual summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments, 2008 2011.
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Mean 4.67% 3.85% 2.83% 8.58% N 8 9 6 7 St. Error 0.79% 0.92% 0.57% 1.04% Median 5.03% 2.60% 2.69% 8.04% 1.18% 0.99% 0.67% 5.14% Range 7.73% 9.15% 4.73% 12.87%
Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth and Flow Previous years analyses have demonstrated that: (1) there is a significant relationship (P for the slope parameter < 0.05) between capture efficiency and both secchi disk depth and flow and (2) these relationships may be different between daylight and nighttime experiments. Based on previous years results, these relationships were examined in greater detail. Figures 9 and 10 show the relationship between capture efficiency and secchi disk depth and flow, respectively, for daytime and nighttime experiments. ANCOVA indicated there was not a significant relationship between capture efficiency and secchi disk depth, or their transformations (all P > 0.16). However, ANCOVA indicated a weak linear relationship between capture efficiency and flow (P = 0.084). The ANCOVA also indicated the hypothesis of equal slopes for the daytime and nighttime experiments could not be rejected (P = 0.598) and that the intercepts for the daytime and nighttime relationships were significantly different (P = 0.008). 14
14.0%
Daytime
12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 500
Nighttime
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Flow (cfs)
Figure 9. Plot of flow and capture efficiency experiments for 2011 daytime and nighttime experiments.
14.0%
Daytime
12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0
Nightime
50
100
150
200
Secchi Depth (cm)
Figure 10. Plot of secchi depth and capture efficiency for 2011 daytime and nighttime experiments.
Although we have found a significant relationship between flow and capture efficiency for Chinook in the past, this year we did not conclude there was a significant relationship for the following reasons: the relationship was not significant ( > .05), albeit marginal, and the estimated relationship indicated a negative correlation between capture efficiency and flow, which is different from the positive correlation between these two variables observed for the 2008 - 2010 data, so additional data is needed to clarify this finding before estimates can be drawn. 15
Capture Efficiency versus NTU In 2011, NTU measurements were collected for the first time. As these measurements are a more precise measurement of water clarity than secchi disk depth we examined the relationship between capture efficiency and NTUs. Figure 11 shows the relationship between capture efficiency and NTUs. Similar to flow, ANCOVA indicated a weak linear relationship between capture efficiency and NTUs (P = 0.072). However, the ANCOVA also rejected the hypothesis of equal slopes for the daylight and nighttime experiments (P = 0.035), and separate regressions for daytime (P = 0.188) and nighttime (P = 0.213) were not significant due to small sample size. For these reasons, NTU was not used for the Chinook abundance estimate; however an additional year of these data may provide sufficient data points to estimate these relationships.
14.0%
Daytime
12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0 15 30
Nighttime
45
NTU
Figure 11. Plot of NTU and capture efficiency for 2011 daytime and nighttime experiments.
Mean Capture Efficiency Based on the lack of any statistically significant explanatory power of secchi depth, NTU and flow for the 2011 experiments the mean capture efficiency of daytime and nighttime experiments was used to estimate abundance. Table 2 provides a summary of experiments completed in 2011 and statistics of the mean.
16
Table 2. Annual summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments in 2011.
Release Date 02/15/11 02/22/11 02/28/11 3/11/11 3/16/11 3/18/11 7/25/11 Average for Experiments Number Released 508 505 511 506 510 505 511 Number Recaptured 33 65 37 26 41 58 45 Estimated Capture Efficiency 6.50% 12.87% 7.24% 5.14% 8.04% 11.49% 8.81% 8.58% Standard Error 0.00049 0.00066 0.00051 0.00044 0.00053 0.00063 0.00056 0.0104 Confidence Interval 4.58% 10.14% 5.22% 3.45% 5.90% 8.90% 6.56% 6.55% 9.09% 16.18% 9.93% 7.54% 10.83% 14.67% 11.69% 10.62%
Hatchery Chinook Length used for Capture Efficiency Experiments Fork length data were collected for all mark-recapture test conducted in 2011. Average fork length of hatchery Chinook used for mark-recapture tests increased over the course of the testing period (Figure 12), but there was no significant relationship between capture efficiency and fork length for the experiments (P > 0.93) (Figure 13).
120
100
Mean Fork Length (mm)
80
60
40
20
0 1/7 2/26 4/17 6/6 7/26 9/14
Date
Figure 12. Mean Fork length of hatchery Chinook used in capture efficiency experiments, 2011.
17
15.00%
Estiamted Capture Efficiency
12.50%
10.00%
7.50%
5.00%
2.50%
0.00% 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Mean Fork Length (mm)
Figure 13. Capture efficiency and mean fork length of hatchery Chinook used for mark-recapture tests, 2011.
Estimated Production Using the mean capture efficiency from seven separate experiments, an estimated total of 40,478 unmarked Chinook passed the screw trap between February 3rd and August 10th. This is the fourth smallest production estimate within the last seven years (Figure 14), but above the five-year average of 36,637. Using the delta method of variance this estimate has a range of 30,890 50,065.
100,000
Estimated Number of Chinook Migrants
90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Figure 14. Annual production estimates of unmarked age 0+ Chinook smolts, 2005 2011.
18
Glacial and Pre-Glacial Catch Every year a majority of Chinook are captured during the pre-glacial period in the Puyallup River and a smaller portion of fish remain in-river during the turbid, glacially influenced period. The pre-glacial melt period fluctuates very little from year to year and is generally defined as the date at which secchi disk depth measurements were 50 cm, or less for the remainder of the trapping season. This year the pre-glacial period extended to July 24th, longer than normal. Ninety-five percent of total catch migrated past the trap during this time period (Table 3). Day and Night Catch Day and night migration is an important aspect of juvenile migration patterns and has been a component of smolt trap operation in the Puget Sound region. On the Green River, Seiler et al. (2004) reported a day/night catch ratio range of 0.25 (January to March-fry period) to 0.46 (May to June-smolt period), indicating a majority of fish were captured during nighttime hours. In addition, daytime migration rates of 0+ age Chinook were found to be affected by turbidity on the Skagit River (Seiler et al., 2004). In previous years, we were able to establish a relationship between turbidity and its effects on capture efficiency in daytime and nighttime conditions, where the trap is less efficient at capturing Chinook during the daytime. This year day to night ratios were different among pre-glacial and glacial periods, 0.80 and 0.58 respectively, so a majority of Chinook tended to migrate at night rather than during the daylight (Table 3). As seen in previous years, when comparing day and night ratios in the non-glacial versus glacial period, Chinook tended to migrate less during daylight in the glacial period when the water was turbid. This may indicate some preference of Chinook to slow migration until darkness, when turbidity is high.
Table 3. Total unmarked Chinook catch for diurnal and glacial melt periods, 2011.
Date Pre-Glacial Glacial Total Day 1,468 60 1,528 (44%) Night 1,842 104 1,946 (56%) Total 3,310 (95%) 164 (5%) 3,474 (100%)
Migration Timing Unmarked 0+ Chinook Migration timing in 2011 was similar to previous years in that Chinook were captured when the trap first began fishing and catches continued through summer until that last day of fishing in mid-August (Figure 15). Typically there are two peaks in migration, one during the early spring and one in early to mid-June, indicating the movement of both fry and smolt stage Chinook. This year, unlike last year, the peak in early spring was evident. In general, the run progressed gradually with the peak occurring on April 1st, following an increase in flow. Typically the peak in migration occurs in June, however this years abundance estimate was completed with a mean capture efficiency for the entire season so no compensation was given to trap efficiency for flow or turbidity. This is likely to skew the 19
run timing, however catches did remain high in the early part of the run indicating there were indeed far fewer individuals later in the migration. A similar migration pattern was seen in 2008, the largest Chinook abundance estimate in eleven years, where a large early migration component led to a large abundance estimate. This early run component may be a positive indicator for Chinook survival.
8000 4000
Estimated Number of Chinook
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
Estimated Number of Chinook (n=40,478) Flow (cfs)
7000 6000
4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2/4 2/18 3/4 3/18 4/1 4/15 4/29 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/24 7/8 7/22 8/5
Date
Figure 15. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook smolts with mean daily flow, 2011.
Based upon our abundance estimates the first 25% of unmarked Chinook migrated by March 26th, 50% by April 6th, just after the peak and 75% by June 4th (Figure 16). Twenty-two percent of Chinook migrated during the four days surrounding the peak. This year quartiles were reached following flow events, and the 25% and 50% quartiles occurred much earlier than is typical, however the 75% quartile was reached on a date similar to previous years.
Flow (cfs)
5000
20
100%
June 4th 75%
Percent Migration
April 6th 50%
March 26th 25%
0% 2/4 2/18 3/4 3/18 4/1 4/15 4/29 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/24 7/8 7/22 8/5
Date
Figure 16. Percent estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook, 2011.
Freshwater Survival Freshwater Survival of Natural 0+ Chinook Relating our total unmarked Chinook outmigration estimate to our potential egg deposition gives us an estimate of freshwater survival to the screw trap (Table 4). This estimate does not include mortality that may occur after fish pass the screw trap. The number of females used to calculate the smolt-to-female ratio and egg production is based on the estimated total number of fish that spawned in the Puyallup River using live/redd counts, or area under the curve (AUC) methodology (Scharpf, Pers. Comm.). The number of females was calculated from the male-to-female ratio from South Prairie Creek and fecundity taken from Voights Creek hatchery fall Chinook was used to estimate total egg production. A fecundity of 4,491 eggs/female was used for the 2010 brood (Davis, Pers. Comm.). Maximum and minimum flows are provisional data from the USGS on South Prairie Creek (Clemens, Pers. Comm.).
Table 4. Freshwater survival of unmarked Chinook from the Puyallup River, 2011.
Total Total Run Year Outmigration Number of Estimate Females 2010-2011
*
Potential Egg Deposition 1,940,365
Maximum and Percent Freshwater Smolt / Minimum Flows Survival Female (#smolts / #eggs) Aug.-Feb.* 94 2,570 45 2.09%
40,478
432
= Data gathered from USGS Water Resource Division
Survival rate for this years brood is above the five-year average of 1.24% and the third lowest of the previous five-years, but is the first time in three years survival has been above one percent. Freshwater survival continues to be correlated with peak incubation flow on South Prairie Creek (P < .05) (Figure 17).
21
3.50%
2004 2006
R = 0.7285
Freshwater Survival Estimate
3.00% 2.50%
2008
2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0 2,000
2011 2005
2010 2007
4,000 6,000 8,000
2009
10,000
Peak incubation flow (cfs) on South Prairie Creek
Figure 17. Correlation of peak incubation flows (Aug. Feb.) on South Prairie Creek and freshwater survival estimates on the Puyallup River, migration years 2004 2011.
COHO Catch Unmarked 1+ Coho We captured a total of 6,898 unmarked coho in the 2011 trapping season. Fourteen percent (968) of the coho were expanded and 86% (5,930) were actual. This is the highest catch recorded since the traps operation in 2000 (range: 370 2,630), and well above the five-year average of 1,262. The first coho migrant was caught on the first day of trap operation on February 3rd and the last on August 8th. Although catch rates varied from day to day overall catch progressed until the peak on May 7th (Figure 18). Seventy percent (4,829) of all coho were captured in the month of May, not in conjunction with periods of high flow, like in previous years. Marked 1+ Coho A total of 11,428 hatchery coho were captured in the screw trap in 2011. Sixty-eight percent (7,806) were Ad-marked coho, nineteen percent (2,195) were Ad-CWT and thirteen percent were (1,427) CWT. This includes efforts for expansion. The first marked coho was captured on February 8th and the last on August 10th, the last day of trapping. This indicates hatchery coho were already migrating to the lower river when trapping began and continued to migrate through the entire season. The peak in catch occurred on April 11th with 27% of all marked coho migrating during the seven-day period surrounding the peak, April 8th 14th (Figure 18). Coho were released from Voights Creek Hatchery on April 1st, so it took ten days for a majority of the fish to move the 11 miles 22
downstream to the screw trap. As in previous years, hatchery coho appeared to be in-river the entire time the trap was fishing.
300 750
Marked 1+ Coho Captured Unmarked 1+ Coho Captured
250
625
200
500
150
375
100
250
50
125
0 2/3 2/18 3/5 3/20 4/4 4/19 5/4 5/19 6/3 6/18 7/3 7/18 8/2
Date
Figure 18. Unmarked and marked 1+ coho captured in the screw trap, 2011.
Size Similar to 2009, unmarked age 1+ coho had a weekly average range between 83 mm and 120 mm throughout the majority of the migration, as opposed to last year when coho in the 80 mm 110 mm size class were missing from the beginning of the migration. There was not a continuous trend in increased mean weekly fork length throughout the season, like Chinook. Instead, as in most years, there was a peak in mean fork length during late April, after which the mean fork length leveled and peaked again in late June (Figure 19). Similar to previous years, the majority of the larger migrants moved past the trap during the peak of the migration, between stat week 14 and 27 (Appendix B2). Migrants measuring 80 mm or less were captured at the beginning of the season as well as near the end. At the end of the season, between stat. week 28 and 32, weekly average length began to fluctuate between 93 mm and 110 mm, and there was a much smaller size range of migrants. This indicates the final migration of the smaller individuals from the brood class.
Marked 1+Hatchery Coho Captured
Unmarked 1+ Coho Captured
23
170 160 150
Fork Length (mm)
140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Statistical Week
Figure 19. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 1+ coho captured in the screw trap, 2011.
Capture Efficiency During the 2011 season three capture efficiency experiments were conducted using hatchery coho. All releases occurred during the nighttime and were conducted from April 21 to May 18 (Appendix C2). About 600 to 800 coho smolts were used in each release. In 2010, evaluation concluded that trap capture efficiency, and its relationship to important environmental variables, was significantly different for the years 2004 2007 compared to 2008 2010 data. This coincides with a change in the trap location. This year because of the new larger screw trap 2011 data was evaluated separately. Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates in 2011 to Previous Years Estimates In 2011, capture efficiency estimates ranged from 4.9% to 9.2% and three of the four highest capture efficiency estimates in the past seven years were completed (Figure 20). Again this is attributed to the larger area fished by the new screw trap relative to previous years. For this reason, a full statistical analysis of inter-annual capture efficiency was not completed.
24
9.00%
Day Night
Estimated Capture Efficiency
7.50% 6.00% 4.50% 3.00% 1.50% 0.00% 2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
Figure 20. Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for coho smolt release experiments conducted from 2004 through 2011 (daytime and nighttime releases indicated).
Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth, NTU and Flow Figures 21, 22, and 23 show the regression of secchi depth, flow, and NTUs with capture efficiency, respectively. There was not a significant relationship between capture efficiency and secchi disk depth, (P = 0.412). The linear relationship between capture efficiency and flow (P = 0.013) and NTUs (P = 0.033) were both significant for the regression through the origin. With only three data points available, regressions through the origin were preferred as they required one less degree of freedom. The adjusted R2 is very high for both the NTU and flow model, Table 5 summarizes the statistics for these regressions.
0.09
y = -0.0003x + 0.1271 Adjusted R = 0.273
Capture Efficiency
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.03 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Secchi Disk Depth (cm)
Figure 21. Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus secchi disk depth for 1+ coho salmon releases, 2011.
25
0.12 y = 0.00003x Adjusted R = 0.998 0.09
Capture Efficiency
0.06
0.03
0.00 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Flow (cfs)
Figure 22. Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus flow for 1+ coho salmon releases, 2011.
0.12 y = 0.0118x Adjusted R = .903 0.09
Capture Efficiency
0.06
0.03
0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
NTU
Figure 23. Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus NTU for 1+ coho salmon releases, 2011. Table 5. Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression of flow and NTU (X) with capture efficiency (Y), 2011.
Model Parameter Flow NTU Estimated Coefficients B 0.00003078 0.01180 Std. Error 0.00000076 0.002198 T statistic 40.318 5.370 Significance 0.001 0.033 95% Confidence Interval for B Lower Bound 0.00002750 0.00235 Upper Bound 0.00003407 0.02126
26
Although both NTU and flow models were significant, previous years haves shown flow to be a better predictor of capture efficiency. However, future results from NTU analysis may prove otherwise. The flow regression relationship was chosen for our annual abundance estimator with the following cautions: There were only three experiments conducted, only representing a flow range of 1,730 2,930 cfs. There were no daytime experiments but there was daytime catch, although previous analysis has concluded no difference between daytime and nighttime experiments. Estimated Production Using combined day and night catch applied to the capture efficiency flow model we estimate that 91,196 unmarked 1+ coho passed the trap from February 3rd to August 8th. This is the largest estimate in the past seven years (Figure 24).
Estimated Number of Coho Migrants
100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Figure 24. Annual production estimates of unmarked age 1+ coho, 2005 - 2011.
Migration Timing Similar to previous years, coho migration was unimodal with one large distinct peak (Figure 25). This year the peak in migration did not coincide with flow as in most years. Instead, like last year, peak migration occurred just prior to the high flow event, with another smaller peak shortly after. Regardless of flow regimes on the Puyallup migration begins early with a majority of migration occurring during the month of May (Figure 26).
27
5,000
Estimated Number of Unmarked +1 coho (n=91,196)
7000 6000 5000 4000
Estimated Number of 1+ coho
4,000
Flow (cfs)
2,000
3000 2000
1,000 1000 0 2/3 2/18 3/5 3/20 4/4 4/19 5/4 5/19 6/3 6/18 7/3 7/18 8/2 0
Date
Figure 25. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 1+ coho with mean daily flow, 2011.
100%
75%
May 27th
Percent Migration
50%
May 17th
25%
May 6th
0% 2/3 2/18 3/5 3/20 4/4 4/19 5/4 5/19 6/3 6/18 7/3 7/18
Date
Figure 26. Percent migration of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2011.
CHUM Catch A total of 11,612 juvenile chum migrants were captured in the screw trap in 2011, the second highest catch since trapping began in 2000 (Figure 27). Sixty percent (6,998) of these fish were actual catch and 40% (4,614) were expanded. The first chum migrant was caught on February 26th and the last on June 19th, with a relatively early peak in catch occurring on April 6th.
Flow (cfs)
3,000
28
15000
13305
12000
11612
Total Number of Chum
9000
6000
4926 2033 2586 1169 2339 1085
3000
0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Figure 27. Total number of chum captured in the Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 - 2011.
Size Unlike the 2010 season, when there was an increase in fork length after stat week 17, this year we observed weekly average fork length between 35 mm 40 mm throughout the majority of the year, except for stat. weeks 22 and 25 which had low sample size and large individuals (Figure 28). It was also observed that a weekly average fork length of over 40 mm was not seen until stat. week 22, 3 to 6 weeks later than oberserved in previous years (Appendix B3). Similar to previous years however, size range increased throughout the season. The maximum length increased from 39 mm at the beginning of the season to 69 mm towards the end, while the minimum fork length remained relatively constant (Appendix B3). This years findings are comparible to 2008 when mean weekly fork lengths for chum remained constant, coinciding with colder than usual surface water temperatures.
29
85 80 75 70
Forkl Length (mm)
65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Statistical Week
Figure 28. Mean weekly fork length and size range of chum captured in the screw trap, 2011.
Capture Efficiency There was only one wild chum capture efficiency experiment completed this year. Because there was only one experiment, and a larger screw trap was used to capture migrants there was no data available for a comprehensive multi-year analysis. The single experiment, with a capture efficiency of 1.56% was used for the abundance estimate, and is lower than previous wild tests conducted in 2008 (Figure 29). Unlike coho and Chinook capture efficiency experiments performed this year, the chum estimate is lower than previous years. Future work will focus on completing more capture efficiency experiments for a more thorough analysis.
5.00% 4.50%
Wild Chum Experiments
Estimated Capture Efficiency
4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Figure 29. Capture efficiency experiments for wild chum captured in the screw trap, 2004 - 2011.
30
Estimated Production Using the capture efficiency estimate of 1.56%, we estimate that 744,327 chum passed the trap in 2011. This years production estimate is the highest in the past six years (Figure 30). However, it is likely this estimate is biased high for a couple reasons: The estimator of 1.56% is smaller than previous years estimators (2.24% for 2008 2010), contrary to capture efficiency estimates for coho and Chinook which were greater this year compared to previous years, so its likely our single efficiency test is not representative of the actual efficiency of this years trap. Chum catch, like all other salmon species, was high this year compared to previous years due to the increased sampling area of the trap, and if a lower capture efficiency, rather than a higher efficiency, is applied to a higher catch than total abundance will be inflated. And, escapement to the spawning grounds was low compared to previous years.
In conclusion, its likely that further experiments for chum would have resulted in higher efficiencies. For this reason, the abundance estimate for 2011 is likely over estimated.
750,000
Estimated Number of Chum Migrants
675,000 600,000 525,000 450,000 375,000 300,000 225,000 150,000 75,000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Figure 30. Annual production estimates of chum captured on the Puyallup River, 2006 2011.
Migration Timing Using production estimates, the peak of the migration occurred on April 6th when 80,192 chum, 11% of the total run, passed the trap (Figure 31). Unlike previous years, the peak migration did not coincide with a peak in flow, instead the peak occurred one week after the high flow event on March 31st. This is the earliest peak within the past six years by three weeks; however 50% of fish migrated passed the trap by April 20th, which is comparable to other years (Figure 32).
31
Last year we observed a relatively early outmigration as well, which we attributed to warm water temperatures; however this year water temperatures were colder than in 2010 yet an early outmigration was also observed. In comparing years, flow was significantly higher this year and included a large early flow event compared to 2010 when flow was low until the beginning of June. This suggests chum outmigration may be affected by both temperature and/or flow depending on which factor is presented to the fish each year. Future work will focus on analysis of these competing factors.
82,500 8250 7500 6750 6000
Estimated Number of Chum Migrants
75,000 67,500 60,000 52,500 45,000 37,500 30,000 22,500 15,000 7,500 0
Estimated Migrants N=744,327 Mean Flow (cfs)
4500 3750 3000 2250 1500 750 0 2/4 2/16 2/28 3/12 3/24 4/5 4/17 4/29 5/11 5/23 6/4 6/16
Date
Figure 31. Daily estimated migration of chum with mean daily flows, 2011.
100%
May 5th 75%
Percent Migration
50%
April 20th
April 6th 25%
0% 2/4 2/16 2/28 3/12 3/24 4/5 4/17 4/29 5/11 5/23 6/4 6/16
Date
Figure 32. Percent estimated migration of chum, 2011.
Flow (cfs)
5250
32
STEELHEAD Catch Five-hundred and seventy-nine unmarked steelhead were captured in the smolt trap during the 2011 trapping season, the highest catch of steelhead since trapping began in 2000 (Figure 33). This is a similar catch total to 2000 and a significant improvement in catch compared to the years 2003 - 2007. Again, it is likely that the larger screw trap used this year is responsible for the large catch, so an increase in abundance of steelhead may not be certain. Monitoring catch in future will determine the trend of abundance. No capture efficiency tests are completed for steelhead so a total abundance estimate is not provided. Seventy-four percent (431) of unmarked catch was actual and 26% (148) was expanded.
700 600 579 539 482
Unmarked Steelhead Captured
500 400 300 200 100 0 156 74 39 77 54
250 189 199
25
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Figure 33. Total number of unmarked steelhead captured in the Puyallup River screw trap, 20002011.
Size There does not appear to be any trend of growth during the 20 weeks of migration and there is a wide range in length among samples throughout the sampling period (Figure 34). There appears to be steelhead present in the 160 180 mm size class from week to week, indicating this length, or age class, of steelhead is actively migrating throughout the trapping period. Maximum and minimum fork length was variable for each statistical week, and in six of the possible 12 stat weeks, with more than one sample, there was a difference of over 100 mm between the maximum and minimum steelhead sampled, further four of these weeks were consecutive in the month of May (Appendix B4). There was no ad-marked hatchery steelhead captured in the screw trap this year, since the hatchery steelhead program was discontinued at Voights Creek Hatchery in 2009.
33
285 260
Fork Length (mm)
235 210 185 160 135 110 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Statistical Week
Figure 34. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked steelhead captured in the screw trap, 2011.
Age Scale samples have been collected from individual unmarked steelhead captured in the screw trap from 2004 - 2010. Samples were identified by the WDFW scale sample laboratory in Olympia, WA. Since 2004, forty-seven percent of samples have been identified as two-year old smolt, followed by one-year olds (39%), three-year olds (12%) and four-year olds (1%) (Figure 35). Although there is considerable overlap between maximum and minimum length there is a 16 mm difference between mean length for all age classes, 2008 2010 data only (Figure 36). For the 2008 2010 data, the ANOVA for mean length of age classes indicated a significant difference (P < .000), but Levens test of the homogeneity of group variances was significant (P = 0.043), indicating separation in length between age classes, but high variance. For the 2010 data, four-year old smolts were aged for only the second time in seven years and there appears to be some age migration trend at the trap, as one-year old smolt (the dominate age class) appear first, followed by two and three-year olds, and then in June the reverse, one-year old smolt leave first followed by the older class (Figure 37). For these data, there were only two four-year old samples, both migrated during the peak in May. The 2010 data is similar to 2008 and 2009, in that the dominate age class tends to have a longer migration period and arrive first at the trap.
34
80% 70% 60%
Percent Age Class
Age1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010
Figure 35. Percent age class from unmarked steelhead migrants captured in the Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 - 2010.
275 250 225
Fork Length (mm)
200 175 150 125 100 75 0 1 2 3 4 5
Age
Figure 36. Mean, maximum and minimum lengths for four combined age classes of unmarked steelhead smolts captured in the Puyallup River screw trap, 2008 - 2010.
35
9 Age 1
Count of Individuals in Age Group
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 30-Mar
Age 2 Age 3 Age 4
28-Apr
4-May
12-May
19-May
3-Jun
Date
Figure 37. Run timing by steelhead smolt age in the Puyallup River screw trap, 2010.
Capture Efficiency No capture efficiency tests were completed this year, or in any previous year due to the difficulty of obtaining and marking sufficient numbers of steelhead. In 2009, the last brood of steelhead was released from Voights Creek State Hatchery. The two-year (2008 and 2009) mean capture percentage from hatchery ad-marked steelhead released was 0.43%. In each of the previous six years (2004 2009), capture percentage remained below 1%. Migration Timing Different from other species, steelhead catch is used to characterize migration. The first steelhead was caught on February 20th and the last on June 19th. There was a single large peak on May 11th following a small peak in flow, however 24% of the steelhead passed the trap during the one week surrounding the highest flow on May 15th (Figure 38). May is typically the peak month for migration, followed by April and then June. Similar to previous years, a majority of the migrants were caught on periods of high flows between late April and early June. This year 66% of steelhead migrated during the month of May (Figure 39).
36
35
Steelhead Catch 2011 (n=579)
8000
Average Five-year Catch Flow (cfs)
Number of Steelhead Captured
30 25 20
7000 6000
4000 15 3000 10 5 0 2/4 2/19 3/6 3/21 4/5 4/20 5/5 5/20 6/4 6/19 7/4 7/19 8/3 2000 1000 0
Date
Figure 38. Daily and five-year average catch of steelhead migrants with mean daily flows, Puyallup River, 2011.
100%
Percent of Steelhead Captured
75%
May 26th
50%
May 16th
25%
May 8th
0% 2/3 2/18 3/5 3/20 4/4 4/19 5/4 5/19 6/3 6/18 7/3
Date
Figure 39. Percent migration of steelhead captured in the screw trap, Puyallup River 2011.
Flow (cfs)
5000
37
ASSUMPTIONS
Catch Catch recorded during morning and evening trap checks is the actual number of fish that outmigrated during the night and day periods, respectively. Catch Expansion Our data represents actual and observed samples, except during certain instances when the trap could not be fished due to any number of reasons: high flows and debris, high volume of hatchery fish or trap maintenance. During these un-fished intervals, average daily catch and hourly sub-sampling was used to expand for the missed catch. Catch data for these un-fished periods is assumed to be what would have been captured had the trap been operating. For most species, we expanded a significant amount of fish during times when the trap was not fishing. The percent expanded is provided for each species in their respective sections. We feel that expanding for times when the trap is not fishing is better than assuming no catch at all. We will continue to monitor the actual and expanded percentages of fish captured in the trap. The entire outmigration season for all species was sampled. Complete migration curves were generated for Chinook, coho, chum and steelhead. The trap was fished twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week with the exception of the periods noted above. During these periods catch numbers were extrapolated to adequately reflect the catch that was missed. Trap Efficiency All marked fish are identified and recorded. The number of marked fish passing the trap is known. Survival from release site to trap is 100%. Release strata are contained within the measured period (i.e., marked fish pass the trap within a week and have no chance of being counted in the following weeks release group). All fish in a release group have an equal chance of being captured. Chinook Marked hatchery Chinook are captured at the same rate as wild Chinook. Chinook capture efficiency for the entire season is represented by the mean of daytime and nighttime capture efficiency estimates. There was a difference in capture efficiency between the combined 2008 - 2010 data and this years data, so data was not combined. Coho Marked hatchery coho are captured at the same rate as wild coho. Coho capture rate is a function of mean daily flow.
38
The flow range from only three capture efficiency experiments is sufficient to generate a linear model across all flows encountered throughout the year.
Chum The single experiment performed this year accurately reflects the capture efficiency for the entire year. Turbidity, Flow and Temperature Ambient light at each secchi measurement remained similar throughout the sampling period to ensure an accurate measurement. Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) accurately reflects the clarity of the water during the entirety of that time period strata. Secchi measurements taken in day and night time actually reflect the clarity of water during the entirety of that time period strata. Flows obtained from the USGS after the sampling season are actual and true flows that are represented at the trap site. Actual flow data are corrected and published the following fiscal year, therefore flows recorded may not be the actual flows published by USGS. Water temperature recorded by the multi-parameter water quality probe on the front of the trap is the true river water temperature.
39
DISCUSSION
Turbidity and Flow From secchi disk depth and NTU data, there is evidence that flow effects turbidity throughout the migration of juvenile salmonids. As flow increases and pulses throughout the year turbidity cycles in synchronicity in response. Capture efficiency of the trap is correlated with both parameters for all salmon species. In addition, there is a trend toward increased flow and turbidity in relation to increasing air temperature as the summer progresses. During the flow/turbidity regime, flow initially increases in conjunction with turbidity, but after some time flow steadily decreases and turbidity begins to increase as flow becomes low and stable. This usually occurs during late June or early July. The event will continue through summer until fall when air temperatures begin to decrease and rains contribute clear cool water. This shift in flow regime is a seasonal phenomenon on the Puyallup River and is attributed to the degree of snow and glacial melting at higher elevations, as annually acquired snow pack begins to melt and glacial melt begins to contribute more flow. The influence of this flow/turbidity regime on salmonids is important as conditions for rearing are likely degraded under such low flow and turbid conditions. We will continue to monitor all environmental variables associated with this phenomenon at each trap check and evaluate its effect on capture efficiency, and therefore abundance of juvenile salmonids. The importance of other environmental factors such as, air temperature, annual snow pack and freezing levels at glacial elevations are being monitored since these factors may dictate the timing of migration and ultimately the life history patterns of juvenile salmonids. Temperature Temperature is the dominate factor for embryonic development and alevin emergence. It may take up to an additional month for Chinook fry to emerge from the gravel when temperatures are 8o (C) compared to 11o (C) (Quinn, 2005). Surface water temperature data was collected using an Onset hobo and a YSI multi-parameter sondes probe from 2007 - 2011, so comparison of the affect of temperature on development and growth in other years is difficult; however temperature data is collected at other sites in the Puyallup River and future work will explore the affects of temperature on migration timing and growth. In 2011, mean monthly water temperature was cooler at the beginning of trapping in February compared to all previous years since 2007, and also the second coolest for all five years for the months May July (Figure 40). Although not as cool in February as 2011, 2008 had the coldest months from April to July. Further, both years had the first and second highest Chinook production for the years 2007 2011, indicating some interaction between cool water and abundance during the migration. However, there may be other environmental factors which we lack data for, such as water temperature for the development period of Chinook, or annual snow pack, which may have significant impacts on abundance. In addition, there appears to be some relationship between temperature and mean monthly fork length of Chinook. As temperature warms throughout the migration period length also 40
increases (Figure 41). Further, years with cooler water temperatures appear to have decreased fork length. In 2008, the coolest year, fork length was the smallest on average than any other year, and conversely 2010 the warmest at the earliest months had increased growth, particularly early. Finally, the two years with the highest mean monthly temperatures in May July (2007 and 2009) were also the two years with the lowest abundance and survival of Chinook. These two years were also the years with high flows during the incubation period of Chinook. During these events, the early loss of snow pack resulted in a decreases of snow available to maintain cool water temperature throughout the spring and summer, but also these early melt events contributed to flooding, which led to gravel scour and decreased survival of Chinook fry.
16 14
2007 2009 2011 2008 2010 2008 2010 2007 2009 2011
45000 40000 35000 30000 25000
Mean Montly Temperature ( C )
12 10 8
20000 6 15000 4 2 0 Feb. March April 10000 5000 0
Date
May
June
July
Figure 40. Mean monthly temperature (bars) and monthly Chinook abundance (line) for the Puyallup River 2007 2011.
110
2007 2008 2010
100
2009 2011
Mean Montly Length ( mm )
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Feb. March April May June July
Date
Figure 41. Mean monthly fork length for Chinook Salmon on the Puyallup River 2007 2011.
Monthly Production Totals
41
Migration Timing Using smolt trap catches to monitor migration timing does not take into account the influence of a dynamic river system on the capture efficiency of the screw trap. We found differences between the migration timing of juvenile Chinook and coho using screw trap catches as opposed to daily production estimates. Due to differences in capture efficiency of the screw trap under various environmental conditions for differing species, we believe the best way to quantify migration is to use daily estimated production because it attempts to normalize all catch days. This year we began fishing the trap at the beginning of February, the same date as 2009 but later than last year and near the start of other trapping seasons. In an attempt to reduce the damage to the trap during high flow events we adjust our start date depending on the degree of snow pack in the mountains and forecast for el nino/la nina events in late winter, so in some years the degree of early migration may be missed. This year there was both a high flow event in January and we captured a Chinook on the first day of fishing, so its likely that fish were already migrating to the lower river when the trap was installed. Further, there were also Chinook captured on the last day of fishing, so Chinook migration spanned the entire length of our fishing period and likely beyond. Our data suggests that the migration window for Chinook is at least five months in duration, the longest window of any salmon on the Puyallup. Although we do not feel we are missing a significant portion of fish we try to install the trap as early as possible each year. Catch, Trap Efficiency and Production Estimates Chinook In 2009, analysis showed a difference in capture efficiency experiments conducted in 2008/2009 compared to previous years (2004 2007). In 2010, capture efficiency experiments were combined with data from 2008 and 2009 to develop a capture efficiency/flow model. This year with the addition of a new larger screw trap no data were available for a multi-year analysis. Statistical analysis using ANCOVA could not confirm a significant relationship using an alpha level of .05 for this years experiments, albeit both flow and NTU had P < .085. Instead the mean was used to estimate abundance. This was the first time since 2007 the mean was used to estimate capture efficiency. It is very likely that there is a difference between the total abundance estimate using a model that incorporates environmental variation into capture efficiency, and an annual mean. Additional experiments in future years will expectantly establish a significant relationship. This year there we did not observe an increase in the catch of unmarked Chinook during the release of hatchery Chinook, as in previous years. However, a smaller peak of unmarked Chinook was still evident during the bulk of hatchery migration. Since all fish are identified by both visual and electronic methods at the trap there may be either significant numbers of marked hatchery-origin (HOR) Chinook being identified as unmarked natural origin Chinook (NOR), or NOR Chinook are intermixed and actively migrating along with HOR Chinook. In 42
all years, there is some degree of mass marking error associated with tagging. If this mass marking error is significant, there may be implications regarding both juvenile and adult production and escapement estimates. There has been no attempt to apply the mass marking error rate to production estimates in any years. Further, although we did not catch hatchery Chinook earlier than the release date, a large ad-marked Chinook from last years brood was captured in early April, indicating some residualism among hatchery reared Chinook from year to year. The D:N catch and production ratios from 2005 2007, and 2010, indicate that a majority of fish are captured during the night, but a majority of production is generated from the day; except in 2008 where there was both more catch and production during the day. In 2009, there was both more catch and production during the night than during the day. Whether or not there is actually more fish migrating during the daytime hours than nighttime hours for some years could be a function of low capture efficiency estimates applied to daytime catches, however we noticed that during the morning hours, just after light, a number of Chinook are captured in the trap. This would be counted as day catch. It is likely that juvenile Chinook are migrating aggressively during the night only to reach the traps location in the early morning, which would explain the large D:N ratios. This year we captured several Chinook in the 30 mm size class beginning on the first day of fishing, so it appears Chinook were present in the fry stage at the beginning of trapping. This indicates that we did not miss the early fry-stage component, although we may have missed a portion of migrants because Chinook were captured on the first day of fishing. In some years, this life stage is absent and often correlates with low abundance and survival. Coho For all coho mark-recapture tests completed from 2004 2010 a significant relationship between flow and capture efficiency exists. Mark-recapture tests completed in 2004 - 2006 revealed a relationship between capture efficiency and flow, where capture efficiency increased with increased flow. With the inclusion of the 2007 and 2008 data the relationship between flow and capture efficiency became less evident. With the addition of 2009 data, a significant relationship was again found between flow and capture efficiency but for only 2008 and 2009 experiments combined. In 2008, the trap location was changed from its location in 2007, and its likely that this is the factor contributing to the change in capture efficiency between years. Analyses in 2010 included experiments from 2008 2010 and again a positive relationship between capture efficiency and flow was significant. This year with the larger screw trap capture efficiency was again positively related to flow, but at higher capture efficiency than previous years. This year both the estimate and catch total was the largest since trapping began in 2000. Coho were captured at the beginning of fishing and catch remained fairly consistent throughout the year. This is in contrast to previous years, where catch was intermittent throughout the early part of the migration. This may be in part due to the larger screw. Although we assume we were catching a proportional number of coho in comparison to other years, we have a greater number of fish days that are applied to the abundance estimate, unlike previous years where a 43
majority of days in the beginning of trapping were zero catch days. Whether or not this has any implications for the total abundance estimate from year to year will be evaluated. No mark-recapture tests were completed for sub-yearling coho captured in the screw trap. There were 995 0+ age coho captured this year, there is evidence that this age class may be an important aspect of the life history strategy for coho salmon and may be an indication of factors contributing to the survival of coho salmon (Miller et. al., 2003). The number of 0+ age coho will continue to be monitored on the Puyallup River. Chum Using ANCOVA analysis for all available data from 2004 2009, we were able to find a significant difference between the capture efficiency of wild and hatchery chum and model wild chum capture efficiency using flow. However, we were not able to establish a difference between groups of years for wild chum due to the low numbers of releases in 2008 and 2009 combined. Although we modeled flow and capture efficiency using wild chum there was some indication from experiments performed using Chinook and coho that there were differences between years. In 2010, there were again no wild chum releases, and instead we employed an adjusted capture efficiency using the relative capture of pink salmon to chum for years when data was available. This produced one single capture efficiency estimate for the abundance. In 2011, we used a single capture efficiency experiment to estimate chum abundance. This estimate was lower than previous years capture efficiency estimate and led to the largest abundance estimate in the previous seven years. It is very likely had other experiments been performed we would have had a greater efficiency, as found for Chinook and coho using the larger trap. Future, experiments will be conducted to again establish a relationship between chum and flow. For all data from 2004 2009, we found the modeled capture efficiency for hatchery chum was 1.0% higher than the modeled capture efficiency for wild chum. If this finding is true for other species of salmonids, our reported capture efficiencies using hatchery Chinook and coho are likely biased high. Since chum are the only species where large numbers of both hatchery and wild fish are available for testing, future analysis of the relationship between the efficiency of the trap in capturing wild and hatchery chum should be completed. Steelhead This year unmarked steelhead catch was the largest since trapping began on the Puyallup. Whether or not this is an actual trend in population abundance or an artifact of annual variation of trap efficiency cannot be determined. From 2004 2009 capture efficiency of hatchery steelhead from Voights Creek Hatchery ranged from 0.08% to 0.45%, so a reliable estimate of efficiency is not available. However, if these capture efficiency results are applied to their respective years unmarked steelhead catch, the trend in the total number of steelhead differs between catch and the abundance estimate. There has been no attempt to estimate capture efficiency for steelhead since the steelhead program was discontinued at Voights Creek hatchery in 2009. Although we cannot assume abundance is actually greater this year 44
compared to other years, it is a relief to see that catch actually increases with a larger trap, and there are in fact numbers of steelhead migrating from the Puyallup. This year we combined several years of age scale data from the Puyallup River. Scale data indicated that there were four age classes of steelhead on the Puyallup for at least a couple years, with the majority of steelhead in the one or two-year age class. This data follows that of the White River, which periodically encounters four and five-year freshwater aged steelhead. This age structure is important in allowing steelhead to rebound from stochastic processes that occur in nature, and indicate that there is at least a quality of habitat to support the multi-year life history of steelhead. Freshwater Survival Freshwater Survival of Wild 0+ Age Chinook This year survival was above two percent and above the five-year average, but still remains low compared to survival in other systems, Skagit River (Kinsel et. al., 2008), Green River (Topping et al., 2011) Cedar River and Bear Creek (Kiyohara et al., 2011) and the Stillaguamish River (Griffith et al., 2009). As indicated in Figure 17, flow appears to be the dictating environmental factor contributing to smolt survival in the Puyallup River, and other rivers on the west slope of the Cascades. Maximum and minimum flows in conjunction with freshwater survival will continue to be monitored on the Puyallup River to better understand the influence of flow regimes on the survival of juvenile Chinook salmon. Mortality No mortalities were recorded on wild steelhead or cutthroat trout. However, screw trap mortalities did include: 19 unmarked 0+ Chinook, 478 Ad-marked 0+ Chinook, 5 unmarked 0+ coho, 18 unmarked 1+ coho, 10 Ad 1+ coho, 1 Ad/CWT 1+ coho and 299 wild chum. Measures were taken to reduce predation on chum and Chinook fry by coho and steelhead smolts through the inclusion of artificial, protective habitat structures in the live box. We found the inclusion of black plastic Bio-Rings strung together in the water column was the most effective in reducing mortality and predation. Incidental Catch In addition to the focus species, we also caught 49 cutthroat trout, 995 wild 0+ coho fry, three unmarked yearling Chinook and five eulachon. Non-salmonid species caught in the screw trap included brook lamprey, pacific lamprey, sculpin, long-nose dace, stickleback, bass, and sunfish.
45
REFERENCES Literature Citations

Conover, W. J. 1980. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 493 p. Conrad, R.and M. T. MacKay. 2000. Use of a Rotary Screwtrap to monitor the Out-migration of Chinook Salmon Smolts from the Nooksack River:1994-1998. Northwest Fishery Resource Bulletin. Proj. Report Series No. 10. NWIFC. Olympia, Washington. Fleiss, J.L. 1981. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley. Griffith, Jason, Rick Van Arman and John Drotts. Stillaguamish Smolt Trapping Project, Annual Report 2008. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Natural Resources Department. November 2009. Kinsel, Clayton, Mara Zimmerman, Lori Kishimoto and Pete Topping. 2008. 2007 Skagit River Wild Salmon Production Evaluation Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, WA. Kiyohara, Kelly and Mara Zimmerman. 2011. Evaluation of Juvenile Salmon Production in 2010 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, WA. Miller, B.A., S. Sadro. 2003. Residence Time and Seasonal Movements of Juvenile Coho Salmon in the Ecotone and Lower Eustuary of Winchester Creek, South Slough, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Volume 132:546-559. Milliken, G. A. and D. E. Johnson. 2002. Analysis of Messy Data, Volume III: Analysis of Covariance. Chapman and Hall, Inc., New York. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2007. Regional Mark Information System. www.rmis.org Quinn, Thomas P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology Of Pacific Salmon And Trout. University of Washington Press, Canada. Region 6-Fish Management Division and Puyallup Tribe of Indians. 2000. Puyallup River Fall Chinook Baseline Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Seber, G.A.F. 1982. The Estimation of Animal Abundance, Second Edition. MacMillan 46
Publishing Co. New York: 654. Seiler, D., G, Volkhardt, P. Topping and L. Kishimoto. 2004. Green River Juvenile Salmonid Production Evaluation. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Annual Report, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, Washington Seiler, D., S, Neuhausyer and L. Kishimoto. 2004. 2003 Skagit River Wild 0+ Chinook Production and Evaluation. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Annual Report, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, Washington SPSS. 2003. SPSS version 12.0 for windows. SPSS Inc. Topping, Pete and Mara Zimmerman. Green River Juvenile Salmonid Production Evaluation: 2009 and 2010 Annual Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, WA. USGS Surface-Water Annual Statistics for Washington, USGS 12096500 Puyallup River at Alderton. 2006. United States Geological Survey. December 2006. <http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/uv/?site_no=12096500&PARAmeter_cd=000 60,00065> Washington State Department of Ecology. 2006. Water Quality Standards for the Surface Waters of the State of Washington Chapter 173-201A WAC. Publication number 06-10-091 November 2006.
Personal Communications
Davis, S. WDFW Voights Creek Hatchery. November 2011 Sharpf, M. Fisheries Biologist. WDFW Region 6. October 2011. Clemens, John. United States Geological Survey. Media Contact USGS. USGS Washington Water Science Center. November 2011.
47
Appendix A
Puyallup River Screw Trap Location, Design and Position
Figure A1. The Puyallup River Watershed, the red dot depicts screw trap location at R.M. 10.6 and the black dot depicts Voights Creek State Salmon Hatchery on the Carbon River at RM 4.0.
A1
Figure A2. Diagram of the Puyallup River screw trap, 2011.
A2
Figure A1. Position of the screw trap in the lower Puyallup River at R.M. 10.6
A3
Appendix B
Mean Weekly Fork Length Data for Unmarked Chinook, Coho, Chum and Steelhead, Puyallup River Screw Trap 2011
Table B1. Fork length data of unmarked age 0+ Chinook migrants, 2011.
Dates 1/31-2/6 2/7-2/13 2/14-2/20 2/21-2/27 2/28-3/6 3/7-3/13 3/14-3/20 3/21-3/27 3/28-4/3 4/4-4/10 4/11 - 4/17 4/18 - 4/24 4/25 - 5/1 5/2 - 5/8 5/9 - 5/15 5/16 - 5/22 5/23 - 5/29 5/30 - 6/5 6/6 - 6/12 6/13 - 6/19 6/20 - 6/26 6/27 - 7/3 7/4 - 7/10 7/11 - 7/17 7/18 - 7/24 7/25 - 7/31 8/1-8/7 8/8-8/14 Stat Week 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Average Fork Length (mm) 39 40 39 39 41 40 39 38 42 48 55 59 62 65 71 70 74 69 72 82 86 91 98 100 105 107 109 114 Max 43 48 43 42 49 48 43 40 52 58 65 79 87 82 96 96 91 80 93 111 105 111 112 122 130 131 123 133 Min 35 35 35 35 35 34 37 36 37 36 45 40 45 40 51 53 60 54 51 62 72 69 78 80 95 88 86 102 Standard Deviation 1.58 1.66 1.75 1.90 2.66 1.95 1.46 1.21 2.90 6.29 7.07 10.20 7.67 10.37 9.75 8.63 8.11 9.18 9.86 9.40 7.01 7.28 6.62 7.41 7.03 8.57 10.09 11.82 N 23 140 69 39 43 114 72 11 139 36 14 27 43 25 26 84 39 9 96 92 54 145 51 52 32 114 27 8
B1 Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project 2011
Table B2. Fork length data of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2011.
Dates Stat Week 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Average Fork Length (mm) 83 87 87 84 89 78 86 97 111 114 115 108 109 108 109 110 111 111 107 109 120 119 93 104 101.5 106 111 141 Max Min Standard Deviation 7.38 9.95 14.17 11.59 5.68 8.62 14.08 21.49 11.22 22.61 17.98 14.56 16.01 12.29 12.58 10.64 10.47 10.41 9.69 12.39 20.92 26.90 7.70 7.23 4.54 13.77 1.41 N
1/31-2/6 2/7-2/13 2/14-2/20 2/21-2/27 2/28-3/6 3/7-3/13 3/14-3/20 3/21-3/27 3/28-4/3 4/4 - 4/10 4/11 - 4/17 4/18 - 4/24 4/25 - 5/1 5/2 - 5/8 5/9 - 5/15 5/16 - 5/22 5/23 - 5/29 5/30 - 6/5 6/6 - 6/12 6/13 - 6/19 6/20 - 6/26 6/27 - 7/3 7/4 - 7/10 7/11-7/17 7/18-7/24 7/25-7/31 8/1-8/7 8/8-8/14
98 100 105 102 100 94 107 135 120 147 157 141 263 151 157 136 141 134 140 142 149 155 105 110 106 117 112 141
73 71 61 64 84 67 55 75 96 85 69 64 76 81 82 85 85 95 92 85 79 72 85 95 94 82 110 141
15 10 8 11 6 15 18 9 5 24 108 123 330 264 252 118 43 54 108 67 42 19 7 4 8 5 2 1
Table B3. Fork length data for wild chum migrants, 2011.
Dates 2/21/ - 2/27 2/28 - 3/6 3/7 - 3/13 3/14 - 3/20 3/21 - 3/28 3/28 - 4/03 4/4 - 4/10 4/11 - 4/17 4/18 - 4/24 4/25 - 5/1 5/2 - 5/8 5/9 - 5/15 5/16 - 5/22 5/23 - 5/29 5/30 - 6/5 6/6 - 6/12 6/13 - 6/19 Average Stat Week Fork Length (mm) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36.0 38 36 37 37 37 37 37 38 37 37 39 39 44 39 40 52 Max 42 39 41 43 44 42 46 52 53 59 66 69 69 43 47 60 Min 31 32 32 30 32 31 32 32 32 33 33 32 35 34 37 35 Standard Deviation 2.38 2.19 1.81 1.74 1.91 1.59 1.81 3.63 2.90 2.67 5.83 7.02 9.70 2.40 5.77 6.93 N 1 18 37 84 187 176 146 219 211 347 239 168 162 18 13 3 15
Table B4. Fork length data of unmarked steelhead migrants, 2011.

Dates Average Stat Week Fork Length (mm) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 183 0 150 165 0 190 198 240 190 177 187 193 191 190 194 182 187 188 184 Max 183 0 150 165 0 226 198 240 235 231 205 280 260 260 275 202 208 245 202 Min 183 0 150 165 0 152 198 240 118 131 154 156 151 118 151 160 166 154 163 Standard Deviation 0 0 34 44 26 29 22 24 21 24 14 11 21 14 N 1 0 1 1 0 4 1 1 5 11 3 45 62 76 128 30 18 21 5
2/1-2/7 2/8-2/14 2/15-2/21 2/22-2/28 3/1-3/7 3/8-3/14 3/14-3/20 3/21-3/27 3/28-4/3 4/4-4/10 4/11-4/17 4/18-4/24 4/25-5/1 5/2-5/8 5/9-5/15 5/16-5/22 5/23-5/29 5/30-6/5 6/6-6/12 6/13-6/19
Appendix C
Mark Recapture Data for Chinook, Coho and Chum, Puyallup River Screw Trap, 2004 - 2011
Table C1. Capture efficiency results for hatchery Chinook, 2004 - 2011.
Release Date
5/19/2004 5/25/2004 6/1/2004 6/4/2004 6/7/2004 6/10/2004 6/15/2004 6/17/2004 6/22/2004 6/23/2004 7/1/2004 7/6/2004 7/7/2004 7/12/2004 7/13/2004 5/2/2005 5/3/2005 5/17/2005 5/18/2005 6/7/2005 6/22/2005 6/23/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 4/18/2006 4/28/2006 5/15/2006 5/25/2006 6/13/2006 6/14/2006 3/8/2007 4/10/2007 5/8/2007 5/11/2007 6/6/2007 6/7/2007 6/11/2007 2/11/2008 3/5/2008 3/19/2008 3/21/2008 3/25/2008 5/24/2008 6/2/2008 6/27/2008
Year
2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008
Release Time
1500 1530 1600 1550 1615 2015 2200 2230 1630 2200 2115 1730 2200 1745 2145 2107 1115 2130 1145 2115 2045 1115 1145 2045 2052 1000 2145 2105 2130 945 1830 2004 2130 1400 1120 2130 2145 2115 1115 1415 2030 2230 2200 2145 1330
Day or Night
D D D D D N N N D N N D N D N N D N D N N D D N N D N N N D N N N D D N N N D D N N N N D
Glacial Number Number Capture Period* Released Recaptured Efficiency

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 800 601 628 609 610 613 610 595 604 610 608 602 615 609 419 1,011 1,017 855 1,025 806 804 804 812 828 512 556 801 810 591 605 503 522 510 507 493 265 384 520 500 509 509 496 556 505 501 5 5 5 5 5 2 9 3 5 20 36 15 30 18 23 26 1 17 7 19 27 5 27 53 17 1 16 28 23 12 11 16 8 4 14 2 4 24 13 32 6 27 43 33 15 0.00625 0.00832 0.00796 0.00821 0.00820 0.00326 0.01475 0.00504 0.00828 0.03279 0.05921 0.02492 0.04878 0.02956 0.05489 0.02572 0.00098 0.01988 0.00683 0.02357 0.03358 0.00622 0.03325 0.06401 0.03320 0.00180 0.01998 0.03457 0.03892 0.01983 0.02187 0.03065 0.01569 0.00789 0.02840 0.00755 0.01042 0.04615 0.02600 0.06287 0.01179 0.05444 0.07734 0.06535 0.02994
Secchi Depth (cm)

104 150 65 82 66 94 113 130 34 13 28 32 30 30 18 139 163 72 84 144 33 29 29 28 206 175 100 79 40 43 200 180 135 200 34 61 63 78 229 219 220 211 48 99 45
NTU
-
Flow (cfs)
1,480 1,110 2,740 1,980 2,370 2,050 1,750 1,610 1,640 1,880 1,390 1,370 1,310 1,070 1,270 1,700 1,810 2,440 2,310 1,380 1,750 1,740 1,340 1,210 1,630 1,530 1,476 1,879 2,172 2,333 2,420 1,890 1,480 1,430 1,850 1,290 1,610 2,870 1,170 1,360 1,200 1,090 2,610 2,120 2,030
C1
Release Date
3/2/2009 3/17/2009 4/23/2009 4/27/2009 5/14/2009 5/27/2009 5/30/2009 6/10/2009 7/7/2009 2/8/2010 2/18/2010 3/12/2010 3/29/2010 7/15/2010 7/22/2010 2/15/2011 2/22/2011 2/28/2011 3/11/2011 3/16/2011 3/18/2011 7/25/2011
Year
2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011
Release Day or Glacial Number Number Capture Time Night Period* Released Recaptured Efficiency
1903 2115 2100 1115 2215 1030 2130 1130 2200 1845 1145 1945 2100 2230 1030 1945 1020 1845 1900 1200 1030 2130 N N N D N D N D N N D N N N D N D N N D D N 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1004 504 503 503 505 505 503 502 500 504 503 520 507 500 300 508 505 511 506 510 505 511 15 9 22 46 23 5 36 13 13 13 12 20 24 14 2 33 65 37 26 41 58 45 0.01494 0.01786 0.04374 0.09145 0.04554 0.00990 0.07157 0.02590 0.02600 0.02579 0.02386 0.03846 0.04734 0.02800 0.00667 0.06496 0.12871 0.07241 0.05138 0.08039 0.11485 0.08806
Secchi Depth (cm)

118 158 162 221 116 191 50 48 48 207 221 152 57 40 38 190 165 67 87 97 175 39
NTU
5.3 3.9 15.3 11.4 9.9 4.2 26.0
Flow (cfs)
1,350 1,120 2,310 1,880 3,260 2,710 3,440 2,590 1,210 980 1,190 1,230 1,910 980 1,130 1950 1350 1700 2810 2740 2110 1850
*1 = Non-glacial Period and 2 = Glacial Period
C2
Table C2. Capture efficiency results for 1+ hatchery coho, 2004 - 2011.
Date Year Time of Release Number Released Number Secchi Depth (cm) Recaptured NTU Flow (cfs) LN (Flow) Capture Efficiency
4/14/2004 5/3/2004 3/21/2005 3/23/2005 3/29/2005 3/31/2005 4/13/2005 4/14/2005 4/17/2006 4/27/2006 5/15/2006 3/21/2007 4/12/2007 4/9/2008 4/14/2008 4/22/2009 4/27/2009 5/7/2009 4/7/2010 5/4/2010 4/21/2011 5/12/2011 5/18/2011
2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011
1930 2030 1715 1145 1330 1711 1915 1215 1700 2045 2145 1945 2030 2130 2130 2115 2115 2145 2030 2130 2115 2200 2200
208 211 502 513 516 513 511 516 506 520 494 804 611 805 807 804 800 800 815 801 810 811 608
3 4 4 6 10 11 9 10 7 7 6 9 6 14 23 45 36 31 11 15 40 59 56
150 92 138 138 79 155 162 195 206 188 100 133 203 219 159 106 225 81 212 120 191 198 107
1.9 5.1 8.9
1010 1230 759 704 2470 1590 1240 1260 1790 1400 1476 2730 1480 1150 1670 2590 1840 3180 1020 2170 1730 2360 2920
6.92 7.11 6.63 6.56 7.81 7.37 7.12 7.14 7.49 7.24 7.30 7.91 7.30 7.05 7.42 7.86 7.52 8.06 6.93 7.68 7.46 7.77 7.98
0.01440 0.01900 0.00800 0.01170 0.01940 0.02140 0.01760 0.01940 0.01380 0.01350 0.01210 0.01119 0.00982 0.01739 0.02850 0.05597 0.04500 0.03875 0.01350 0.01873 0.04938 0.07275 0.09211
C3
Table C3. Capture efficiency results for hatchery and wild chum, 2004 - 2011.
Date
3/31/2004 4/1/2004 4/6/2004 4/7/2004 4/9/2004 4/15/2004 4/16/2004 4/19/2004 4/28/2004 5/10/2004 5/18/2004 5/25/2004 6/1/2004 3/16/2005 3/19/2005 3/27/2005 3/28/2005 4/19/2005 4/20/2005 5/11/2005 5/13/2005 5/19/2005 4/12/2006 4/19/2006 4/24/2006 5/1/2006 5/10/2006 5/24/2006 4/2/2007 4/4/2007 4/8/2007 4/13/2007 4/16/2007 4/25/2007 5/18/2007 2/25/2008 3/25/2008 4/16/2008 4/24/2008 5/6/2008 3/6/2009 3/13/2009 3/26/2009 4/3/2009 5/2/2011
Year
04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 11
Time of Release
800 1900 2010 900 1900 850 2000 1945 2010 2000 1945 1745 1945 1733 1030 1710 915 1115 1830 2040 917 2050 2030 2035 2130 2130 2100 2030 1945 1945 2030 2100 2000 2300 2100 1845 2215 2115 2200 2225 1850 2015 2030 2100 2145
Day or Night
D N N D N D N N N N N N N N D N D D N N D N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Hatchery or Wild
H H H H W H H W W W W W H H H H H H H W H H H H H W W W H W W W H W W H H W W W H H H H W
Number Number Secchi Released Recaptured Depth (cm)

534 539 518 461 156 519 514 233 200 157 564 151 518 540 525 531 515 525 525 526 530 535 119 492 518 58 51 51 506 27 53 48 523 114 60 516 525 379 630 662 498 505 507 500 514 20 26 24 20 2 23 15 6 4 7 15 1 7 19 26 3 21 7 20 6 8 5 3 17 4 0 1 1 21 0 0 0 27 4 0 7 11 6 12 19 23 26 13 8 8 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 65 138 138 23 40 192 192 132 165 124 201 198 195 198 190 79 154 180 130 200 210 192 200 220 211 219 203 148 162 148 129 81 200
NTU
2.7
Flow Capture (cfs) Efficiency

1340 1230 832 832 817 964 840 683 940 1000 940 1100 2570 704 677 4480 3750 1810 1550 2080 1810 2400 1410 1378 1450 1537 1378 2136 1940 1650 1960 1430 1350 1180 1270 1150 1090 1330 908 1700 1070 790 1690 2310 2010 0.03745 0.04824 0.04633 0.04338 0.01282 0.04432 0.02918 0.02575 0.02000 0.04459 0.02660 0.00662 0.01351 0.03519 0.04952 0.00565 0.04102 0.01333 0.03810 0.01154 0.01518 0.00943 0.02521 0.03455 0.00772 0.00000 0.01961 0.01961 0.04150 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.05163 0.03509 0.00000 0.01357 0.02095 0.01583 0.01905 0.02870 0.04618 0.05149 0.02564 0.01600 0.01556
C4 Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project 2011

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Report 2011

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Report 2011

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project 2011

By: Andrew Berger Robert Conrad Justin Paul

Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2011

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2011

Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17.

Daily estimated migration of chum with mean daily flows, 2011.....32 iv

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2011

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2011

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2011

E =r/m and =C/ E N

E = estimated capture efficiency,

N = total estimated number of migrants passing the trap, and

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250

Secchi Depth (cm)

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Five-year Average Chinook Catch

Number of Marked Chinook Captured

Number of Unmarked Chinook Number of Marked Chinook Captured

Number of Unmarked Chinook Captured

Chinook Catch 2011

Fork Length (mm)

Capture Efficiency Percentage

12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2003

Capture Efficiency Percentage

12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 500

Capture Efficiency Percentage

12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0

Secchi Depth (cm)

Capture Efficiency Percentage

12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0 15 30

Mean Fork Length (mm)

0 1/7 2/26 4/17 6/6 7/26 9/14

Estiamted Capture Efficiency

0.00% 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Mean Fork Length (mm)

Estimated Number of Chinook Migrants

Estimated Number of Chinook

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Estimated Number of Chinook (n=40,478) Flow (cfs)

June 4th 75%

April 6th 50%

March 26th 25%

Potential Egg Deposition 1,940,365

= Data gathered from USGS Water Resource Division

Freshwater Survival Estimate

Peak incubation flow (cfs) on South Prairie Creek

Marked 1+Hatchery Coho Captured

Unmarked 1+ Coho Captured

170 160 150

Fork Length (mm)

140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34

Estimated Capture Efficiency

7.50% 6.00% 4.50% 3.00% 1.50% 0.00% 2003

y = -0.0003x + 0.1271 Adjusted R = 0.273

0.03 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

Secchi Disk Depth (cm)

0.12 y = 0.00003x Adjusted R = 0.998 0.09

0.00 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

7000 6000 5000 4000

Estimated Number of 1+ coho

Figure 26. Percent migration of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2011.

Total Number of Chum

4926 2033 2586 1169 2339 1085