Erik Suring ODFW

Comparison of Winter Comparison of Winter Steelhead Trap Estimates Steelhead Trap Estimates in Small Basins to Other in Small Basins to Other Escapement Methods and Escapement Methods and the Representativeness of the Representativeness of

ODFW Life-Cycle ODFW Life-Cycle Monitoring SitesMonitoring SitesErik SuringErik Suring

ODFWODFW

Oregon Coast SteelheadOregon Coast Steelhead

ODFW Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring ODFW Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring ProjectProject

Small basin steelhead returns do not Small basin steelhead returns do not correlate to each other or large scale correlate to each other or large scale returns as with cohoreturns as with coho

Determining age structure at multiple Determining age structure at multiple life stages allow for survival estimates life stages allow for survival estimates and local freshwater conditionsand local freshwater conditions

Life-Cycle Monitoring Life-Cycle Monitoring ProjectProject Ten years of adult and smolt dataTen years of adult and smolt data

ODFW Habitat SurveysODFW Habitat Surveys Compare distribution of habitat conditionsCompare distribution of habitat conditions

Life-Cycle Life-Cycle Monitoring Monitoring

ProjectProject Seven sites in the OC Seven sites in the OC

DPSDPS Non-random selectionNon-random selection Representative of DPS Representative of DPS

based on habitat metricsbased on habitat metrics

Coho returns highly Coho returns highly correlated with ESU correlated with ESU returnsreturns

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

UpperNehalem

LowerNehalem

Mill Cr (Siletz)

Cascade

WF Smith

Winchester

Mill Cr(Yaquina)

EF Trask

North Umpqua

Coos

Nehalem

Siuslaw

Middle Umpqua

Alsea

Tillamook

Lower Umpqua

Siletz

Nestucca

Yaquina

Tenmile

Salmon

Necanicum

Siltcoos

Beaver

Tahkenitch

Pa

ci

fi

c

O

ce

an

0 8 16 244Miles

.

Life-Cycle DataLife-Cycle Data

Trapping Year Smolts ± CI

90-119 mm

60-89 mm

2000 410 ± 55 245 ± 73 7,940 ± 826 1,863 3722001 338 ± 43 126 ± 42 8,090 ± 714 1,279 2672002 869 ± 537 1,567 ± 1,108 3,437 ± 514 1032003 427 ± 318 220 ± 70 5,380 ± 1,4702004 228 ± 115 439 ± 78 7,762 ± 1,496 6522005 359 ± 126 361 ± 91 4,613 ± 1,293 3952006 422 ± 308 602 ± 397 4,623 ± 1,091 409 182007 209 ± 50 238 ± 51 4,193 ± 941 3262008 221 ± 77 243 ± 74 3,590 ± 771 1,412 3192009 266 ± 102 166 ± 61 6,099 ± 1,174 660

Returning Adults Outmigrating Juveniles

Wild Hatchery

LCM SitesLCM Sites

LCM Basin SizeLCM Basin SizeMonitoring Monitoring

AreaAreaTrapTrap

ss

Spawning Spawning above above Traps (km)Traps (km)

All All SpawniSpawning (km)ng (km)

PercentPercentage age TrappeTrappedd

North CoastNorth Coast 22 119119 1,9001,900 6%6%

Mid CoastMid Coast 33 3333 3,2003,200 1%1%

UmpquaUmpqua 11 5555 2,9002,900 2%2%

Mid-SouthMid-South 11 1919 1,5001,500 1%1%

Oregon Oregon CoastCoast 77 226226 9,5009,500 2%2%

Winter coho parr per kilometer

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Cum

ula

tive

perc

ent

stre

am le

ngth

0

20

40

60

80

100

ORPlan Data (n=366) LCM Data (n=160)

Habitat Habitat RepresentativenessRepresentativeness

Percent Gradient

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

ent

stre

am le

ngth

0

20

40

60

80

100



Wood volume density (m3/100m)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

ent

stre

am le

ngth

0

20

40

60

80

100



ESU (Six Traps)

LCM Coho Adults

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Sp

aw

nin

g S

urv

ey

Co

ho

Ad

ults

0.0

5.0e+4

1.0e+5

1.5e+5

2.0e+5

2.5e+5

3.0e+5

R2=0.96

p>0.001

LCM RepresentativenessLCM Representativeness

LCM Steelhead Adults

500 600 700 800 900 1000

Sp

aw

nin

g S

urv

ey

Ste

elh

ea

d R

ed

d C

ou

nts

4e+4

5e+4

6e+4

7e+4

8e+4

9e+4

1e+5

DPS (Five Traps)

R2=0.22

p = 0.29

LCM RepresentativenessLCM Representativeness

WF Smith Coho Adults

Mill

Sile

tz C

oho

Adu

lts

R2=0.87p<0.001

WF Smith Coho Adults

Mill

Sile

tz C

oh

o A

du

lts

R2=0.87p<0.001

NF Nehalem Coho Adults

WF

Sm

ith C

oho

Adu

lts

R2=0.59p=0.006

NF Nehalem Coho Adults

Mill

Yaq

uina

Coh

o A

dults

R2=0.87p<0.001

CohoP Value

Siletz Yaquina SmithNehalem 0.013 <0.001 0.006Siletz 0.007 <0.001Yaquina 0.004

R2

Siletz Yaquina SmithNehalem 0.51 0.87 0.59Siletz 0.58 0.87Yaquina 0.63

Coho Trap to TrapCoho Trap to Trap

WF Smith Steelhead Adults

Mill

Sile

tz S

teel

head

Ad

ults

R2=0.14p = 0.26

NF Nehalem Steelhead Adults

Mill

Yaq

uina

Ste

elhe

ad A

dults

R2=0.09p = 0.37

NF Nehalem Steelhead Adults

WF

Sm

ith S

teel

head

Adu

lts

R2=0.37p = 0.05

WF Smith Steelhead Adults

Mill

Sile

tz S

teel

head

Adu

lts

R2=0.14p = 0.26

Steelhead Trap to TrapSteelhead Trap to TrapSteelheadP Value


R2


Trap to Trap CorrelationsTrap to Trap Correlations

CohoP Value

Siletz Yaquina SmithNehalem 0.013 <0.001 0.006Siletz 0.007 <0.001Yaquina 0.004

R2


SteelheadP Value


R2


")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

Mill Cr (Siletz)

Cascade

Winchester

Mill Cr(Yaquina)

WF Smith

Smith River Falls

North Umpqua

Coos

Siuslaw

Middle Umpqua

Alsea

Siletz

Yaquina

Tenmile

Beaver

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

Mill Cr (Siletz)

Cascade

Winchester

Mill Cr(Yaquina)

WF Smith

North Umpqua

Coos

Siuslaw

Middle Umpqua

Alsea

Siletz

Yaquina

Tenmile

Beaver

")

")

")

")

Smith River Falls Adult Steelhead

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

WF

Sm

ith A

dult

Ste

elh

ead

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

R2=0.80p = 0.04

Nested BasinsNested Basins

Coho: R2 = 0.92, p < 0.001

LCM versus the DPSLCM versus the DPS

Relationships between LCM and large Relationships between LCM and large scale abundance are not as strong for scale abundance are not as strong for steelhead as for cohosteelhead as for coho Steelhead numbers have not varied as Steelhead numbers have not varied as

much as coho over the course of monitoringmuch as coho over the course of monitoring

Weak trap to trap correlations indicate Weak trap to trap correlations indicate local freshwater conditions play a larger local freshwater conditions play a larger role in steelhead recruitmentrole in steelhead recruitment

Steelhead Survival Steelhead Survival EstimatesEstimates

Monitoring multiple life stagesMonitoring multiple life stages Use scales to track brood year for Use scales to track brood year for

smolts and adultssmolts and adults Estimate marine and freshwater Estimate marine and freshwater

survival ratessurvival rates Currently in our first or second year Currently in our first or second year

of adult scale collectionof adult scale collection Also measure size and timing of smolts Also measure size and timing of smolts

and adultsand adults

Freshwater SurvivalFreshwater Survival

Single year of smolt scale data applied to Single year of smolt scale data applied to all years:all years:

Ward and Slaney (1993) Average 0.84%Ward and Slaney (1993) Average 0.84%

Brood Year Wild Female Parents Egg Deposition Smolts (Scales) FW Survival (Scales)1999 268 1,072,000 7,712 0.72%2000 208 832,000 4,405 0.53%2001 158 632,000 5,217 0.83%2002 425 1,700,000 7,103 0.42%2003 217 868,000 5,169 0.60%2004 136 544,000 4,589 0.84%2005 191 764,000 4,223 0.55%2006 207 828,000 3,886 0.47%

Marine SurvivalMarine Survival

Smolt and Adult scales at WF SmithSmolt and Adult scales at WF Smith

Ward and Slaney (1988) Range 7-26%Ward and Slaney (1988) Range 7-26%

Freshwater Age Freshwater Age StructureStructure

Survival EstimatesSurvival Estimates

Identify factors that affect smolt and Identify factors that affect smolt and adult abundanceadult abundance Look at local variation in survivalLook at local variation in survival Reveal trap to trap relationshipsReveal trap to trap relationships

Other data we should collect?Other data we should collect?

ConclusionConclusion

Adult returns to LCM basins do not Adult returns to LCM basins do not correlate to larger areas or each correlate to larger areas or each otherother Local freshwater conditions obscure a Local freshwater conditions obscure a

common ocean signalcommon ocean signal Describing smolt and adult age Describing smolt and adult age

structure will allow for survival structure will allow for survival estimates and reveal differences estimates and reveal differences between LCM sitesbetween LCM sites

Erik Suring ODFW

Documents

Transcript of Erik Suring ODFW