U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Evaluation of Alternative Commercial Fishing Gear in the Lower Columbia River, 2013: Behavior and Movement Patterns of Chinook Salmon and

Coho Salmon

Tobias Kock and Theresa Liedtke

February 24, 2014

Objectives Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

1. Describe movement patterns of radio-tagged tule Chinook salmon, bright Chinook salmon, and coho salmon after capture in a beach seine or purse seine.

2. Describe and quantify intended locations of tagged fish.

3. If possible, assess survival of tagged fish after capture.

Radiotelemetry Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Sample size target = 100 fish/group

SpeciesBeach seine Purse seine

Fisher 1 Fisher 2 Fisher 3 Fisher 4

Tule Chinook salmon 100 100 100 100

Bright Chinook salmon 100 100 100 100

Coho salmon 100 100 100 100

0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400

Hal

f 95

per

cen

t co

nfi

den

ce in

terv

al

Number of fish

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.1898% survival95% survival 90% survival75% survival

Hal

f 95

per

cen

t co

nfi

den

ce in

terv

al

Number of fish

0 100 200 300 400 5000.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

Number of Fish

Hal

f 95

% c

.i.

Radiotelemetry Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Sample size target = 100 fish/group

Each fish tagged with:(a) radio transmitter

(i) detected with telemetry receiver(ii) tag recovery report

(b) PIT-tag

3-volt model: coho salmon

7-volt model: Chinook salmon

Radiotelemetry Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Sample size target = 100 fish/group

Each fish tagged with:(a) radio transmitter

(i) detected with telemetry receiver(ii) tag recovery report

(b) PIT-tag

Monitoring techniques:(a) fixed sites(b) mobile tracking(c) PIT-tag array(d) tag recovery reports

Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

BonnevilleDam

AB

CDEG

Washougal,WA

Cascade Locks,OR

WillametteRiver

SandyRiver

WashougalRiver

F

= fixed sites

= fish collection/tagging reachF

Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Fish ladders

Forebay

Tailrace/Tanner Cr.

Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

McCord Cr./Moffett Cr.

Hamilton Cr.

Dodson/Skamania Landing

Woodward Cr.

Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Washougal

Lady Island

Mobile Tracking Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

3 reaches(1)Bonneville to Cape Horn(2) Cape Horn to Washougal(3) Washougal to mouth of Willamette River

BonnevilleDam

Cape HornWashougal

I-205 Bridge

I-5 Bridge

ScheduleAugust – September: dailyOctober: 5 d/week; none during 10/1-10/16November: 5 total events

Tagging Numbers Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

SpeciesBeach seine Purse seine

Fisher 1 Fisher 2 Fisher 3 Fisher 4

Tule Chinook salmon 100/92 100/84 100/66 100/91

Bright Chinook salmon 100/120 100/118 100/150 100/118

Coho salmon 100/153 100/57 100/106 100/59

Species Beach seine Purse seine Total

Tule Chinook salmon 176 157 333

Bright Chinook salmon 238 268 506

Coho salmon 210 165 375

Total = 624 590 1,214

Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Telemetry detections: 99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected 98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected 92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected

n = 1

n = 9

n = 30

Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Telemetry detections: 99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected 98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected 92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected

PIT-tag detections: 46% TCHK detected 63% BCHK detected 59% COHO detected

Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Telemetry detections: 99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected 98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected 92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected

PIT-tag detections: 46% TCHK detected 63% BCHK detected 59% COHO detected

Tag recoveries: 27% TCHK 19% BCHK 16% COHO

Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Telemetry detections: 99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected 98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected 92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected

PIT-tag detections: 46% TCHK detected 63% BCHK detected 59% COHO detected

Tag recoveries: 27% TCHK 19% BCHK 16% COHO

Spit tags 0 TCHK 0 BCHK 13 COHO

Detection Probabilities and Spit Tags

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Upstream telemetry detections 99.3% TCHK 99.3% BCHK 94.4% COHO

Washougal

Release

Bonneville

Detection Probabilities and Spit Tags

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Upstream telemetry detections 99.3% TCHK 99.3% BCHK 94.4% COHO

Washougal

Release

Bonneville

Downstream telemetry detections 97.7% TCHK 99.1% BCHK 90.2% COHO

Detection Probabilities and Spit Tags

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Upstream telemetry detections 99.3% TCHK 99.3% BCHK 94.4% COHO

Downstream telemetry detections 97.7% TCHK 99.1% BCHK 90.2% COHO

Bonneville PIT-tag detections 95.2% TCHK 97.1% BCHK 95.9% COHO

Washougal

Release

Bonneville

Travel Times Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Tule Chinook salmonBright Chinook salmonCoho salmon

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 300

10

20

30

40

50

60

Per

cen

t o

f fi

sh

Elapsed time (d)

Release to Bonneville Dam

Release to Cascade Locks

Release to Washougal

Behavior and Movement Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

BonnevilleDam

Washougal

Releasesite

12

3

5

4

6

Passeddam

Remained in study area

Downstreamof

Washougal

Behavior and Movement by Origin Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

BonnevilleDam

Washougal

TCHK29%

44%26%

BCHK15%

62%21%

COHO26%

53%14%

Behavior and Movement by Origin Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

BonnevilleDam

Washougal

TCHK29%

44%26%

BCHK15%

62%21%

COHO26%

53%14%

Total = 88Wild = 43Hatchery = 45

Total = 105Wild = 68Hatchery = 37

Total = 51Wild = 30Hatchery = 21

Total = 97Wild = 38Hatchery = 59 Total = 147

Wild = 55Hatchery = 92

Total = 77Wild = 49Hatchery = 28

Total = 97Wild = 34Hatchery = 63

Total = 312Wild = 195Hatchery = 117

Total = 197Wild = 151Hatchery = 46

Treatment vs Control Groups Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Treatment vs Control Groups Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

All Fish

TCHK: 333

BCHK: 506

COHO: 375

WA Ladder

TCHK: 89

BCHK: 114

COHO: 114

WA Ladder

TCHK: 87%

BCHK: 89%

COHO: 79%

All Fish

TCHK: 44%

BCHK: 62%

COHO: 53%

Fate above the dam

Intended Migratory Locations Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Tributary Mainstem Columbia River HatcheryWells Dam: 1 (<1 percent)

Rocky Reach Dam: 2 (<1 percent)Priest Rapids Dam: 3 (<1 percent) Priest Rapids Hatchery: 3 (<1 percent)

Yakima River: 1 (<1 percent) Hanford Reach: 1 (<1 percent) Ringold Hatchery: 1 (<1 percent)Snake River: 3 (1 percent)

McNary Dam: 10 (3 percent)Deschutes River: 4 (1 percent) Zone 6: 11 (3 percent)

The Dalles Dam: 2 (<1 percent)Klickitat River: 3 (<1 percent)

Spring Creek Hatchery: 17 (5 percent)Little White Salmon River: 4 (1 percent) Cascade Locks: 51 (15 percent)

Wind River: 1 (<1 percent) Bonneville Dam Forebay: 15 (4 percent)Herman Creek: 2 (<1 percent) Bonneville Dam: 4 (1 percent)

Bonneville Hatchery: 30 (9 percent)Tanner Creek: 5 (1 percent)

Oneonta Creek: 1 (<1 percent) Zone 5: 53 (16 percent)Multnomah Creek: 3 (<1 percent)

Number of fish released = 333Not detected = 1 (<1 percent)

Zone 4: 56 (17 percent)Washougal River: 9 (3 percent)

Sandy River: 10 (3 percent)Willamette River: 2 (<1 percent)

Lewis River: 5 (1 percent) Zone 3: 6 (2 percent)Cowlitz River: 7 (2 percent) Zone 2: 6 (2 percent)

TCHK

Tributaries Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

TCHK BCHK COHO

Yakima R. (1) Methow R. (1) Wenatchee R. (1)

Snake R. (3) Snake R. (10) Yakima R. (1)

Deschutes R. (4) Umatilla R. (3) Snake R. (1)

Klickitat R. (3) Deschutes R. (4) Umatilla R. (2)

Little White Salmon R. (4) Klickitat R. (4) Deschutes R. (2)

Wind R. (1) White Salmon R. (1) Klickitat R. (13)

Herman Cr. (2) Little White Salmon R. (14) Hood R. (1)

Tanner Cr. (5) Herman Cr. (1) Little White Salmon R. (1)

Oneonta Cr. (1) Moffett Cr. (2) Herman Cr. (1)

Multnomah Cr. (3) Multnomah Cr. (3) Tanner Cr. (4)

Washougal R. (9) Washougal R. (4) Hamilton Cr. (2)

Sandy R. (10) Sandy R. (3) Moffett Cr. (1)

Willamette R. (2) Willamette R. (3) Oneonta Cr. (3)

Lewis R. (5) Lewis R. (1) Multnomah Cr. (1)

Cowlitz R. (7) Cowlitz R. (3) Washougal R. (3)

Sandy R. (5)

Clackamas R. (1)

Lewis R. (6)

Mainstem Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

TCHK BCHK COHO

Wells Dam (1) Wells Dam (6)

Rocky Reach Dam (2) Rocky Reach Dam (5)

Priest Rapids Dam (3) Rock Island Dam (3)

Hanford Reach (1) Priest Rapids Dam (16)

McNary Dam (10) Hanford Reach (3)

Zone 6 (11) McNary Dam (50) McNary Dam (5)

The Dalles Dam (2) Zone 6 (12) Zone 6 (8)

Cascade Locks (51) The Dalles Dam (22) The Dalles Dam (7)

Bonneville Dam Forebay (15) Cascade Locks (86) Cascade Locks (105)

Bonneville Dam (4) Bonneville Dam Forebay (9) Bonneville Dam Forebay (33)

Zone 5 (53) Bonneville Dam (3) Bonneville Dam (40)

Zone 4 (56) Zone 5 (56) Zone 5 (29)

Zone 3 (6) Zone 4 (106) Zone 4 (38)

Zone 2 (6) Zone 3 (5) Zone 3 (1)

Zone 2 (1)

Hatcheries Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

TCHK BCHK COHO

Priest Rapids Hatchery (3) Priest Rapids Hatchery (34) Dworshak Hatchery (1)

Ringold Hatchery (1) Ringold Hatchery (7)

Spring Creek Hatchery (17) Spring Creek Hatchery (1)

Bonneville Hatchery (30) Bonneville Hatchery (18) Bonneville Hatchery (29)

Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Slide 20Slide 22 Slide 9

Fast travel times

Substantial#’s

downstream

Limited downstreammonitoring

Don’t Use Survival Model

Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Detection history AliveAlive or

dead

Fish moved upstream and arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam x

Fish was harvested in a fishery xFish returned to a hatchery xFish entered a spawning tributary xFish was observed moving > 4 d after release xFish was recovered dead < 4 d of release xFish was not observed moving > 4 d after release xFish was never detected x

Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

TCHK

Description

Beach seine Purse seine

Overall

Elapsed time from release Overall

Elapsed time from release

< 4 d > 4 d < 4 d > 4 d

Arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam 49% (87) 15 72 45% (71) 24 47

Harvested in fishery 7% (13) 3 10 5% (8) 3 5

Returned to hatchery 10% (17) 3 14 8% (13) 1 12

Entered a tributary 13% (22) 1 21 11% (17) 1 16

Observed moving > 4 d after release 14% (25) 0 25 19% (30) 0 30

Total fish that survived capture 93% (164) 22 142 89% (139) 29 110

Not moving > 4 d after release 6% (11) 11 0 11% (18) 18 0

Confirmed mortality 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not detected 1% (1) 1 0 0 0 0

Total fish that may not have survived 7% (12) 12 0 11% (18) 18 0

Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

BCHK

Description

Beach seine Purse seine

Overall

Elapsed time from release Overall

Elapsed time from release

< 4 d > 4 d < 4 d > 4 d

Arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam 60% (142) 32 110 70% (188) 40 148

Harvested in fishery 3% (8) 2 6 3% (8) 1 7

Returned to hatchery 3% (8) 0 8 2% (6) 0 6

Entered a tributary 3% (7) 1 6 2% (6) 0 6

Observed moving > 4 d after release 17% (41) 0 41 12% (32 0 32

Total fish that survived capture 87% (206) 35 171 90% (240) 41 199

Not moving > 4 d after release 11% (27) 27 0 9% (23) 23 0

Confirmed mortality <1% (1) 1 0 0 0 0

Not detected 2% (4) 4 0 2% (5) 5 0

Total fish that may not have survived 13% (32) 32 0 10% (28) 28 0

Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

COHO

Description

Beach seine Purse seine

Overall

Elapsed time from release Overall

Elapsed time from release

< 4 d > 4 d < 4 d > 4 d

Arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam 62% (130) 78 52 58% (96) 49 47

Harvested in fishery 2% (5) 3 2 1% (2) 2 0

Returned to hatchery 9% (18) 2 16 7% (12) 2 10

Entered a tributary 8% (16) 4 12 5% (9) 0 9

Observed moving > 4 d after release 4% (8) 0 8 8% (13) 0 13

Total fish that survived capture 84% (177) 87 90 80% (132) 53 79

Not moving > 4 d after release 8% (17) 17 0 12% (19) 19 0

Confirmed mortality 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not detected 8% (16) 16 0 8% (12) 14 0

Total fish that may not have survived 16% (33) 33 0 20% (33) 33 0

Fisher Differences Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Description

Beach seine Purse seine

Fisher 1 Fisher 2 Fisher 3 Fisher 4

Tule Chinook salmon

Probable survivors 85 (92%) 79 (94%) 59 (89%) 80 (88%)

Unknown fate 7 (8%) 5 (6%) 7 (11%) 11 (12%)

Fisher’s exact test result = p = 0.769 p = 0.806

Bright Chinook salmon

Probable survivors 105 (88%) 101 (85%) 131 (87%) 109 (92%)

Unknown fate 14 (12%) 18 (15%) 19 (13%) 9 (8%)

Fisher’s exact test result = p = 0.569 p = 0.228

Tule Chinook salmon

Probable survivors 135 (88%) 42 (74%) 91 (86%) 41 (70%)

Unknown fate 18 (12%) 15 (26%) 15 (14%) 18 (30%)

Fisher’s exact test result = p = 0.018 p = 0.015

Behavior of Questionable Fish Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Behavior of Questionable Fish Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Species Behavior group Beach seine Purse seineTule Chinook salmon 11 18

Upstream only (2) 1 2Upstream, then downstream (3) 0 0Downstream (4) 1 0Upstream, then downstream, passed Washougal (5) 0 2Downstream, then passed Washougal (6) 9 14

Bright Chinook salmon 27 23Upstream only (2) 2 0Upstream, then downstream (3) 0 0Downstream (4) 0 2Upstream, then downstream, passed Washougal (5) 0 1Downstream, then passed Washougal (6) 25 20

Coho salmon 17 19Upstream only (2) 3 4Upstream, then downstream (3) 0 0Downstream (4) 1 3Upstream, then downstream, passed Washougal (5) 0 1Downstream, then passed Washougal (6) 13 11

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Many fish didn’t pass Bonneville Dam 55% TCHK 36% BCHK 37% COHO

Overview of Study

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Many fish didn’t pass Bonneville Dam 55% TCHK 36% BCHK 37% COHO

TRT and CON differences

Overview of Study

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Many fish didn’t pass Bonneville Dam 55% TCHK 36% BCHK 37% COHO

TRT and CON differences

Some PIT-tagged fish are missed at Bonneville 95.2% TCHK 97.1% BCHK 95.9% COHO

Overview of Study

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Effects of Government shutdown Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking However, no apparent data gaps

Coho Salmon Uncertainties

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Effects of Government shutdown Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking However, no apparent data gaps

Weaker transmitters Lower detection % More undetected fish

Coho Salmon Uncertainties

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Effects of Government shutdown Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking However, no apparent data gaps

Weaker transmitters Lower detection % More undetected fish

Higher spit rate

Coho Salmon Uncertainties

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Effects of Government shutdown Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking However, no apparent data gaps

Weaker transmitters Lower detection % More undetected fish

Higher spit rate

Fisher differences Variable catch Differences in probable survival

Coho Salmon Uncertainties

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Effects of Government shutdown Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking However, no apparent data gaps

Weaker transmitters Lower detection % More undetected fish

Higher spit rate

Fisher differences Variable catch Differences in probable survival

Biology

Coho Salmon Uncertainties

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Survival Probable survival underestimates true survival

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Survival Probable survival underestimates true survival

Estimates are encouraging 89 – 93% TCHK 87 – 90% BCHK 80 – 84% COHO

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Survival Probable survival underestimates true survival

Estimates are encouraging 89 – 93% TCHK 87 – 90% BCHK 80 – 84% COHO

2013 data useful for designing future survival studies Fewer sites: Skamania Landing to Bridge of the Gods More sites: Mainstem Columbia R. and tributaries downstream of Washougal High detection probabilities = precise estimates, fewer fish

Questions Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions