25 years of juvenile chinook salmon monitoring on the ...€¦ · 8/27/2015 35 31.7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0...
TRANSCRIPT
Juvenile Chinook Salmon Monitoring on the Mainstem Trinity
River, California
• USFWS Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office
• Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program• Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries
Department
Outline History Why Monitor Juvenile Salmon
Outmigration? How Data are Currently Presented Preliminary Analytical Results Other Uses of Data Questions for TAMWG
XWillow Creek
Trap Site X
Pear Tree Trap Site
Willow Creek 1989-2016
Junction City 1992-2004
Pear Tree 2003-2016
Outmigrant Review 2009 – Need for More Mark-Recapture for Population Estimates
2003--Move to Pear Tree from Junction City to estimate Chinook Salmon production in upper 40 Miles
Willow Creek -- estimate Chinook Salmon migration timing and production of Trinity River basin
Implementing Outmigrant Review Recommendations
Trap Earlier -> Catch more of ‘Spring Chinook’ emigration period (Dec-Mar)
Use Hatchery Fish for Mark-Recapture•Implemented Freeze Branding in 2009
•130,000 Hatchery Chinook Salmon•Unique mark for each release group/site•Up to 8 unique marks per week
Partners USFWS
Operated Willow Creek Site 1989-2002 2003-2010 Jointly With Yurok Tribal Fisheries (YTFP)
Oversee Population Estimation Coordinate with YTFP and Hoopa Tribal Fisheries
Department
Yurok Tribe Willow Creek Site Operations
Hoopa Valley Tribe Pear Tree Site Operations
Why Monitor Juvenile Salmon
Integrated Assessment Plan Objective 3: Restore and maintain natural
production of anadromous fish populations. Sub-objective 3.2: Increase freshwater production of anadromous fish.
Abundance of Juvenile Chinook Salmon is Key Metric for assessing Objective 3 & 3.2
Juveniles vs Adults Juvenile should be a more direct measure of
restoration/management actions
How Data Are Currently Presented
ReportsAFWO website: https://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/reportsDisplay.html
Population EstimatesFork Length SummariesCondition FactorMuch More
Population Estimates
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
Wee
kly
Popu
latio
n E
stim
ate
Week of Year (Start date)
Natural HatcheryWCRST 2015
Population Estimates
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
Wee
kly
Popu
latio
n E
stim
ate
Week of Year (Start date)
Natural HatcheryPTRST 2015
Fork Length Summaries
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Week of the Year
PTRST 2015 Chinook SalmonAge-0 Age-1
Mea
nfo
rk le
ngth
(mm
)
Condition Index – Fulton’s Condition Factor (K)
Lots of Data (1 appendix of 15)Week
Starting
Week of
Year
Mean Daily
Discharge m3/s
Trap Days
Sampled
Weekly Chinook Salmon Catch Weekly Chinook Salmon Index Hatchery Natural Catch
Total Hatchery Natural Index
Total NC AD Age-1 Age-0 Age-1 NC AD Age-1 Age-0 Age-1 1/8/15 2 16.7 3 0 0 4 4,518 0 4,522 0 0 51 57,401 0 57,452
1/15/2015 3 23.4 5 0 0 3 10,257 0 10,260 0 0 32 109,304 0 109,336 1/22/2015 4 17.0 5 0 0 0 13,864 4 13,868 0 0 0 128,369 37 128,406 1/30/2015 5 18.7 5 0 0 0 13,781 1 13,782 0 0 0 140,487 10 140,497 2/5/2015 6 124.6 2 0 0 0 1,885 0 1,885 0 0 0 351,715 0 351,715
2/12/2015 7 41.2 4 0 0 0 5,526 0 5,526 0 0 0 161,841 0 161,841 2/19/2015 8 24.5 5 0 0 0 2,741 2 2,743 0 0 0 37,335 27 37,362 2/26/2015 9 19.4 5 0 0 0 1,801 0 1,801 0 0 0 19,852 0 19,852 3/5/2015 10 17.0 5 0 0 4 735 2 741 0 0 29 7,352 14 7,395
3/12/2015 11 17.0 5 0 0 0 509 2 511 0 0 0 5,006 20 5,026 3/19/2015 12 16.1 5 0 0 6 531 0 537 0 0 52 4,690 0 4,742 3/26/2015 13 16.7 5 0 0 0 903 2 905 0 0 0 8,210 18 8,228 4/2/2015 14 14.8 5 0 0 0 2,206 3 2,209 0 0 0 18,698 25 18,723 4/9/2015 15 15.3 5 0 0 0 2,500 7 2,507 0 0 0 21,567 60 21,627
4/16/2015 16 15.1 5 0 0 0 1,786 2 1,788 0 0 0 16,605 19 16,624 4/23/2015 17 19.7 5 0 0 0 1,674 1 1,675 0 0 0 20,160 12 20,172 4/30/2015 18 123.5 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5/7/2015 19 119.2 4 0 0 0 332 0 332 0 0 0 30,396 0 30,396
5/14/2015 20 62.0 5 0 0 0 458 0 458 0 0 0 15,711 0 15,711 5/21/2015 21 59.7 4 0 0 0 156 0 156 0 0 0 5,863 0 5,863 5/28/2015 22 46.2 5 662 199 0 292 0 1,153 15,245 4,582 0 6,719 0 26,546 6/4/2015 23 34.0 5 2,858 859 0 78 0 3,795 47,329 14,225 0 1,291 0 62,845
6/11/2015 24 22.2 5 1,707 560 0 0 0 2,267 20,272 6,650 0 0 0 26,922 6/18/2015 25 19.1 5 1,527 459 0 95 0 2,081 15,132 4,548 0 941 0 20,621 6/25/2015 26 15.3 5 1,486 481 0 0 0 1,967 12,103 3,918 0 0 0 16,021 7/2/2015 27 12.6 3 506 152 0 287 0 945 10,833 3,256 0 6,154 0 20,243 7/9/2015 28 13.8 5 343 104 0 0 0 447 8,999 2,728 0 0 0 11,727
7/16/2015 29 13.0 5 203 61 0 19 0 283 5,507 1,655 0 518 0 7,680 7/23/2015 30 12.7 5 47 14 0 12 0 73 1,437 432 0 384 0 2,253 7/30/2015 31 12.6 5 26 10 0 0 0 36 356 137 0 0 0 493 8/6/2015 32 12.6 4 9 5 0 0 0 14 276 153 0 0 0 429
8/13/2015 33 27.8 3 6 2 0 0 0 8 509 170 0 0 0 679 8/20/2015 34 28.3 4 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 37 0 37 8/27/2015 35 31.7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 147 9,380 2,906 17 66,948 26 79,277 137,998 42,454 164 1,176,606 242 1,357,464
Other Species
Coho Salmon / steelhead No Population Estimates Flow Based Abundance Index Length/Weight
Green Sturgeon Lamprey Brown Trout Others
Database Management
Standardized Outmigrant Database for entire Klamath Basin Ensures data is comparable across sampling
sites Graphing Features Custom Queries
Preliminary Analytical Results
Four Modes of Restoration1. Flow Management from Lewiston Dam2. Construct Channel Rehabilitation Sites3. Augmentation of Spawning gravels4. Control of fine sediments
Willow Creek Population Time Series
1989-2014
Mark-Recapture Population Estimates for
Juvenile Chinook Salmon
Separate Estimates for Wild and
Hatchery Fish
25 Years of Data – Wild Juvenile Chinook Salmon
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mill
ions
Year
Population Estimates
‘ROD Flows’
Extreme Years – Low Population Size
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Thou
sand
s of
Acr
e Fe
et
Month
High Flow During Critical Incubation Period
= Scour / Displacement / Decreased Initial Feeding Success (High Turbitidy)
Population vs Jan-Feb Peak Discharge
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Tota
l Pop
ulat
ion
Estim
ates
Sta
ndar
dize
d R
esid
uals
Jan-Feb Peak Daily Discharge Standardized Residuals
Record Of Decision Flows
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Thou
sand
s of
Acr
e Fe
et
Month
Increased Flows during Juvenile Rearing / Outmigration Period
Pre-ROD Flows
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Thou
sand
s of
Acr
e Fe
et
Month
Pre-Rod flows during study period, 1989-2003
ROD Flows
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Thou
sand
s of
Acr
e Fe
et
Month
Statistical Equation
Juvenile Abundance – Function of: Adult Population Size High Flow / No High Flow
Jan/Feb Peak Daily Discharge (JFPQ) >> Average Volume of Rearing Habitat
Size of the ‘Fish Tank’ Sum of April/May Discharge in Acre Feet (AMAF)
Juvenile Abundance ~ Adult + JFPQ + AMAF
Linear ModelEstimate Std. Error T-value Pr > |t| sig
Intercept 1.833 e+06 3.759 e+05 4.878 0.000078 ***JFPQ -1.753 e+06 3.837 e+05 -4.569 0.00015 ***
AMVOL 5.165 e+05 1.934 e+05 2.671 0.01396 *Adult 1.763 e+01 9.561 e+00 1.844 0.07868 .
P-Value 0.0002737 Adj R-sq 0.5124
• Coefficient of Jan February Peak is Negative
• Coefficient of April/May Volume is Positive
• Coefficient of Adult Population is Positive
Emigration Timing
Measured at Willow Creek Trap Site
Species Specific Temperature Targets at
Willow Creek – Flow Study
Goal: get 80% of Population Past Willow
Creek by the Target Dates
Run Timing 80% = RT80
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
16-A
pr
23-A
pr
30-A
pr
7-M
ay
14-M
ay
21-M
ay
28-M
ay
4-Ju
n
11-J
un
18-J
un
25-J
un
2-Ju
l
9-Ju
l
16-J
ul
23-J
ul
30-J
ul
6-A
ug
13-A
ug
20-A
ug
27-A
ug
Cumulative Abundance From 2001 to 20152001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006 (ext. wet)
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014 (crit dry)
2015
CRIT.DRYDRYNORMALWETEX. WET
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
116
-Apr
30-A
pr
14-M
ay
28-M
ay
11-Ju
n
25-Ju
n
9-Ju
l
23-Ju
l
6-Au
g
20-A
ug
Cum
ulat
ive
Emig
ratio
nDry Year Emigration
2001
2007
2009
2014 (critdry)
2015
Dry year RT80 range from June 9 to June 29
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
16-A
pr
30-A
pr
14-M
ay
28-M
ay
11-J
un
25-J
un
9-Ju
l
23-J
ul
6-Au
g
20-A
ug
Cum
ulat
ive
Emig
ratio
n
Normal Year Emigration
2002
2005
2008
2010
2012
Normal year RT80 range from June 20 to July 17
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
16-A
pr
30-A
pr
14-M
ay
28-M
ay
11-J
un
25-J
un
9-Ju
l
23-J
ul
6-A
ug
20-A
ug
Cum
ulat
ive
Emig
ratio
n
Wet Year Emigration
2003
2004
2006(ext.wet)2011
Wet year RT80 range from July 4 to July 24
RT80 vs Temperature
y = -0.1111x + 299.36R² = 0.8191
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Date of RT80 vs. ATUs at NF Helena
Day
of Y
ear (
RT8
0)
Total Accumulated Thermal Units on RT80 date
Other Uses of Outmigrant Data Salmon Production Model (SSS), a
component of the Decision Support System (DSS) Weekly Population Estimates
Pear Tree Willow Creek
Size Data (fish lengths) Pear Tree Primarily (current SSS model is for
upper 40) Willow Creek
Emigration Timing Both Pear Tree and Willow Creek
Summary
25 Years of Population Estimates Negative Effect of January February High
Flows Positive Effect of April/May Discharge
Volume Wet Years Extend Emigration Period
Timing and Magnitude of Water Management is Very Important
Questions for TAMWG
How can data delivery be improved?
What else would you like to see?
Would regular meetings with TAMWG help?