downstream survival of juvenile stream type chinook salmon and steelhead through the snake/columbia...
TRANSCRIPT
Downstream Survival of Juvenile Stream Type Chinook
Salmon and Steelhead Through the Snake/Columbia
River Hydropower System and Adult Return Rates
AFEPNovember 13, 2006Bill Muir, Steve Smith, John Williams, and Doug Marsh
Outline• Stream type Chinook survival from
Snake River Basin hatcheries to LGR
Outline• Stream type Chinook survival from
Snake River Basin hatcheries to LGR
• Chinook and steelhead survival through individual reaches
Outline• Stream type Chinook survival from
Snake River Basin hatcheries to LGR
• Chinook and steelhead survival through individual reaches
• Their survival through the entire hydropower system
Outline• Stream type Chinook survival from
Snake River Basin hatcheries to LGR
• Chinook and steelhead survival through individual reaches
• Their survival through the entire hydropower system
• Smolt-to-adult returns
Bonnevill
e
The D
alle
s
John D
ay
Hells Canyon
OxbowBrownlee
Priest Rapids
Wanapum
Rock Island
Rocky Reach
Wells
Chief Joseph
Grand Coulee
McN
ary
Ice H
arb
or
Litt
le G
oose
Low
er
Gra
nit
e
Low
er
Monum
enta
l
Estuaryrecoveries
Juvenile detectors
0
50
100
150
200
Apr 9
Apr 16
Apr 23
Apr 30
May 7
May 14
May 21
May 28
1997
2001
Weekly Mean Flow (kcfs)Lower Granite Dam
2005
2006
Date at Lower Granite Dam
Mea
n F
low
(k
cfs)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Apr 9
Apr 16
Apr 23
Apr 30
May 7
May 14
May 21
May 28
1997
2001
Mean Percentage Spilled LGR, LGS, LMN
2005
2006
Date
Per
cen
tag
e S
pil
l
Transportation
• 62% of non-tagged stream type Chinook
• 76% of non-tagged steelhead
Hatchery stream type Chinook (1993-2006)
0 200 400 600 800
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00KooskiaImnaha R. weir
Rapid RiverMcCallPahsimeroiSawtooth
Dworshak
R2=0.955, p<0.0001
Distance to Lower Granite Dam (km)
Surv
ival
Rele
ase
to L
GR
Stream type ChinookAll Snake River Basinhatcheries combined
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 20060.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
X = 60.7%
64.4%
Sur
viva
lRel
ease
to
LGR
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Est
imat
ed s
urvi
val
Lower Granite to Little Goose
X = 92.3%
SteelheadStream type Chinook
92.8%
X = 90.3%
95.8%
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Est
imat
ed s
urvi
val
Stream type Chinook Steelhead
Little Goose to Lower Monumental
X = 89.6% X = 88.2%
93.3% 90.9%
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Est
imat
ed s
urvi
val
Lower Monumental to McNary
SteelheadStream type Chinook
X = 85.0% (92.2)
X = 71.4% (84.5)
88.7%
77.6%
Lower Monumental-McNarySurvival Partitioned in 2006
• Chinook Salmon– LMN-MCN 0.887 (0.004)
• Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor: 0.914 (0.003)• Ice Harbor to McNary Dam: 0.964 (0.005)
• Steelhead– LMN-MCN: 0.776 (0.016)
• Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor: 0.913 (0.010)• Ice Harbor to McNary Dam: 0.863 (0.018)
Bonnevill
e
The D
alle
s
John D
ay
Hells Canyon
OxbowBrownlee
Priest Rapids
Wanapum
Rock Island
Rocky Reach
Wells
McN
ary
Ice H
arb
or
Litt
le G
oose
Low
er
Gra
nit
e
Low
er M
onum
enta
lCrescent Island
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Est
imat
ed
surv
ival
Stream type Chinook Steelhead
McNary to John Day
X = 83.9% X = 71.5%
86.8%
84.0%
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1998 2000 2002 2004 20060.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
Est
imat
ed s
urvi
val
Stream type Chinook Steelhead
John Day to Bonneville
X = 79.5% (89.2%)
??
X = 71.5% (84.6%)
89.1%(94.3)
69.1%(83.1)
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1998 2000 2002 2004 20060.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Est
imat
ed s
urvi
val
Snake River Trap to Bonneville
??
SteelheadStream type Chinook
X = 45.8%
58.1%
X = 32.2%
37.3%
0
10
20
30
40
50
Apr 9
Apr 16
Apr 23
Apr 30
May 7
May 14
May 21
May 28
1997-2004
2001
Median travel time Stream type ChinookLower Granite to Bonneville (461 km)
2005
2006
Date at Lower Granite Dam
Tra
vel
tim
e (d
ays)
LGR-BON Travel Timeby number of detections
0
3
6
9
12
15
18 2005 2006
Number of times detected
Mea
n D
ays
LG
R t
o B
ON
Snake River Trap to Bonneville Dam TailracePer-project expansion in some years
1965 1970 1975 19800.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1995 2000 2005
Nodata
Chinook
Steelhead58.1%
37.3%
Outmigration year
Hyd
rosy
stem
sur
viva
l
How big of part does hydropower system survival
play in adult returns?
Stream type Chinookbased on PIT tags
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 20060.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
In-river survival
Hyd
ropow
er sy
stem
surv
ival
SAR (%
)
Stream type Chinookbased on PIT tags
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 20060.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
**
* Incomplete adult returns
In-river survial
SAR
*
Hyd
ropow
er sy
stem
surv
ival
SAR (%
)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
R2 = 0.250P = 0.117
Stream type Chinook based on PIT tags
Hydropower system survival
SAR (%
)
Steelheadbased on PIT tags
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 20070.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
In-river survival
Migration year
Hyd
ropow
er sy
stem
surv
ival
SAR (%
)
Steelheadbased on PIT tags
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 20070.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
*
* Adult returns incomplete
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
*
SARIn-river survival
Migration year
Hyd
ropow
er sy
stem
surv
ival
SAR (%
)
Steelheadbased on PIT tags
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.90.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
R2 = 0. 011P = 0.759
Hydropower system survival
SAR (%
)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020
1
2
3
4PIT-taggedunmarked
Snake River wild Chinook salmon (LGR to LGR + catch)
Year of outmigration
Sm
olt-
to-a
dult
retu
rn -
% (
SA
R)
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000
1
2
3
4
5
PIT-tagged wildunmarked wild
PIT-tagged hatchery
Snake River steelhead
Year of outmigration
Sm
olt-
to-a
dult
retu
rn -
% (
SA
R)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Dworshak Hatchery Chinook salmon *
PIT
unmarked
Year of outmigration
Sm
olt-
to-a
dult
retu
rn -
% (
SA
R)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Rapid River Hatchery Chinook salmon *
PIT
unmarked
Year of outmigration
Sm
olt-
to-a
dult
retu
rn -
% (
SA
R)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
McCall Hatchery Chinook salmon*
* Includes adjustment for harvest upstream of LGR
PITunmarked
Year of outmigration
Sm
olt-
to-a
dult
retu
rn -
% (
SA
R)
Hatchery to hatchery SARs - no adjustment for smolt survival toLGR or adult harvest downstream of LGR- Data after 2005 CSS report
Potential causes
• Shed or expelled PIT tag• Tag not read in adult• Decreased fitness• Different passage history than
untagged• Combination of the above
Conclusions
• Stream type Chinook survival averaged 64% from hatchery release to the first dam in 2006
Conclusions
• Stream type Chinook survival averaged 64% from hatchery release to the first dam in 2006
• Reach survival averaged 93% per project for Chinook and 88% for steelhead in 2006
Conclusions
• Stream type Chinook survival averaged 64% from hatchery release to the first dam in 2006
• Reach survival averaged 93% per project for Chinook and 88% for steelhead in 2006
• Hydropower system survival was 58% for Chinook and 37% for steelhead in 2006
Conclusions
• Stream type Chinook survival averaged 64% from hatchery release to the first dam in 2006
• Reach survival averaged 93% per project for Chinook and 88% for steelhead in 2006
• Hydropower system survival was 58% for Chinook and 37% for steelhead in 2006
• Chinook and steelhead direct hydropower system survival has little influence on SAR
Questions