Puyallup Tribe of Indians Smolt Trap Report

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project

2007

Andrew Berger Robert Conrad

Justin Paul

Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department Puyallup, WA 98371

December 2007

Acknowledgments

Evaluation of juvenile salmonid production requires a tremendous amount of work. We would like to thank the following people for their time in the field and support in writing this document: Russ Ladley, Eric Marks, Chris Phinney, Terry Sebastian, Maria Parnel and Blake Smith. Editorial and statistical support was also 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 along the levy and the Pacific Salmon Treaty for funding the project.

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures……….…………………………..…………………………………………….....iii List of Tables……………………………………..……………………………………………….v List of Appendices…………………………………………..……………………………….......vii Introduction………………………………………………….………………………....………....1 Goals and Objectives…………………………………..………………………………….……....2 Methods…………………………………………………..……………………………………….3 Trapping Gear and Operations……………………………...………...………..……......3 Sampling Procedures…………..……..…………………..……………………..............3

Measuring Flow and Turbidity…………………………..………………………………..4 Capture Efficiency…………………………………………………...................................4 Catch Expansion………………………………………………..…………………………5 Production Estimates…………………………………………..……………………….....6 Results and Discussion………………………….………………..……………………………….8

Flow and Turbidity…………………………………..…………………………………....8 Temperature………………………………..………………………………………….…..9

CHINOOK…...………………………………………..…………………………………....10 Catch…………………………………..……………………………………………..…..10 Size…………………………………………………..…………………………………..10 Capture Efficiency.....................................................................................................…....11

Estimated Production…………………………..………………………………………...19 Migration Timing….………………………………………….……………………........21 Freshwater Survival...….…………………………………..…………………….……....22

COHO………………………………………………………..……………………………….23 Catch………………………………………………………..……………………………23 Size……………………………………………………………….………………….......24 Capture Efficiency…………………………………………..…………………………...25

Estimated Production………………………………..…………………………………...28 Migration Timing….………………………………………..………………………...…28 In-River Mortality....…………………………..…………………………………………29 CHUM………………………………………………….……………………………..............30 Catch………………………………………..……………………………………………30 Size…………………………………………..………………………………………......30 Capture Efficiency……………………………….………………………………………31 Estimated Production….…………………………………..……………………………..36 Migration Timing….………………………………….…………………………………37 STEELHEAD……………………………………………………………………………….38 Catch……………………………………………..………………………………………38 Size………………………………………………….……...…………………….….…..38 Capture Efficiency......……………………………………….…………..……………....39 Migration Timing………………………………..………………………………………39

i


ASSUMPTIONS……………………………….……………………………………………..41

Catch…………………………………………….……………………………………….41 Catch Expansion………………………………………………………………………....41 Trap Efficiency…………………………………………………………………..…….41 Chinook………………………………………………………………………………….41 Coho…………………………………………….………………………………………..42 Chum…………………………………………..………………………….……………..42 Turbidity and Flow……………………………………….………...….…….…..……....42 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………….…………………………...43 Turbidity and Flow………………….…………………………………………………...43 Catch and Migration Timing…………………………………………………………….43 Trap Efficiency and Production Estimates…………………….………………………...43 Freshwater Survival………………………………….…………………………………..45 Mortality……………………………………….………………………………………...46 Incidental Catch………………………………………….………………………………46 REFERENCES……………………………………….…………………………….…………47 Literature Citations……………………….……………………………………………...47 Personal Communications…………………………….…………………………………48

ii


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Secchi depth and mean daily flow for Puyallup River, 2007……...……………...8 Figure 2. Scatterplot of mean daily flow and secchi depth for the Puyallup River,

2007……………………………………………………………………………......9 Figure 3. Mean daily water temperature recorded on the Puyallup River smolt trap,

2007……………………………………………………………………...………9 Figure 4. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 0+ Chinook captured in

the screw trap, 2007……………………………………………………………11 Figure 5. Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for Chinook smolt releases Conducted in 2004-2007……………………………………………....…….....12 Figure 6. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases for 2007 ex-

periments (Δ) compared to 2004 – 2006 experiments…………………….……..13 Figure 7. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases 2004 –

2007………………………………………………………………………………14 Figure 8. Plot of flow versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases 2004 –

2007………………………………………………………………………………14 Figure 9. Plot of the power model of secchi depth versus capture efficiency (CE) for day-

time releases of Chinook…………………………………………………….…15 Figure 10. Plot of the power model of secchi depth versus capture efficiency (CE) for night-

time releases of Chinook........................................................................................16 Figure 11. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases grouped by

strata……………………………………………………………………………...17 Figure 12. Fork length of hatchery Chinook used in capture efficiency experiments,

2007………..………………………………………...…….…...………………...18 Figure 13. Capture efficiency and mean fork length of hatchery Chinook used for mark-

recapture tests, 2004 - 2007. Tests conducted in 2007 indicated by (Δ)………………………………………………………………………………..…..19

Figure 14. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook smolts with mean daily

flow, 2007……………………………………………….........................….........21

iii


Figure 15. Percent estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook, 2007………....22 Figure 16. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 1+ coho captured in the

screw trap, 2007……………………………………………………………….…24 Figure 17. Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for coho smolt releases conducted

from 2004 - 2007………………………………………………………….……..26 Figure 18. Plot of estimated capture efficiency of coho salmon versus secchi depth for the

Puyallup River smolt trap data from 2004 - 2007…….………………………..26 Figure 19. Plot of estimated capture efficiency of coho salmon versus flow for the Puyallup

River smolt trap data from 2004 - 2007.................................................................27 Figure 20. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 1+ coho with mean daily flows,

2007……………………………………………………………………………....29 Figure 21. Percent migration of unmarked age 1+ coho, 2007………………………...........29 Figure 22. Mean weekly fork length and size range of chum captured in the screw trap,

2007........................................................................................................................31 Figure 23. Mean capture efficiency, and 95% confidence interval, for the original three pos-

s ible s t ra ta def ined for chum experiments conducted from 2004-2007……………………………………………………………….……………...33

Figure 24. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for all chum experiments

conduc te d f rom 2004 - 2007 . 2007 da t a i nd i ca t ed by a r rows . …………………………………………………………………………………....34

Figure 25. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for all chum experiments conducted

from 2004 - 2007. 2007 data indicated by arrows………………………..……..34

Figure 26. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for wild chum experiments conducted from 2004 - 2007 on the Puyallup River screw trap…………………………………………………………………………….....35

Figure 27. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for wild chum experiments

conducted from 2004 - 2007 on the Puyallup River screw trap………………....35 Figure 28. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for hatchery chum experi-

ments on the Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 - 2007……………..………...…..36 Figure 29. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for hatchery chum experiements on

the Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 - 2007………………………..………...…..36

iv


Figure 30. Correlation of adult chum counted on South Prairie Creek and the Carbon

River with estimated number of chum migrants, brood year 2003- 2006........................................................................................................................37

Figure 31. Daily estimated migration of chum fry with mean daily flows, 2007...................37 Figure 32. Percent estimated migration of chum fry, 2007…………………………….......38 Figure 33. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked steelhead captured in the screw trap, 2007……………………………………………..……….…....39 Figure 34. D a i l y c a t c h o f s t e e l h e a d m i g r a n t s w i t h m e a n d a i l y f l o w s ,

2007........................................................................................................................40

Figure 35. Correlation between peak incubation flow on South Prairie Creek and freshwater survival estimates on the Puyallup River, brood years 2003 - 2006………………………………………………………………………...….....46

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments, by the

f o u r o r i g i n a l g l a c i a l t i m e - o f - d a y s t r a t u m , f o r 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 7 Releases………………………………………………………………………......17

Table 2. Summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments by the

three glacial time-of-day stratum, for 2004-2007 releases……………………....18 Table 3. Chinook production estimate for the 2007 screw trap season using capture effi-

ciency data from 2004-2007……………………………………………..………19 Table 4. Total unmarked Chinook production for pre-glacial and glacial melt periods,

2007…………………………………………………………………………….20 Table 5. Total unmarked Chinook catch for pre-glacial and glacial melt periods,

2007……………………………………………………………………………....20 Table 6. In-river mortality of marked Chinook from the Puyallup River, 2007

…………………………………………………………………………………....22 Table 7. Freshwater survival of unmarked Chinook from the Puyallup River,

2007………………………………………………………………………….…...23

v


Table 8. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for day-time and

night-time experiments for coho salmon releases conducted in 2004-2007.……………………………………………………………………………..….….26

Table 9. Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression of secchi depth (X) and capture efficiency (Y)…............................................….......28 Table 10. Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression of flow (X) and capture efficiency (Y)……………………………………………....28 Table 11. Summary statistics for the mean capture efficiency for all coho salmon

release experiments conducted in 2004-2007..............................................…......28 Table 12. In-river mortality of coho 1+ mark groups for the Puyallup River,

2007………………………………………………………………………..……..30 Table 13. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for hatchery day-time, hatchery night-time, and wild night-time experiments for chum salmon releases conducted in 2004-2007……………………………...…..32 Table 14. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for hatchery and wild experiments for chum salmon releases conducted in 2004- 2007……………………………………………………………………………....33 Table 15. Length data of wild and hatchery steelhead captured in the Puyallup River screw trap, 2007………………………………………………...…..………….39 Table 16. Capture Percentage of Marked Steelhead from Voights Creek Hatchery,

2004-2007…………………………..…………………………………….……...39

vi


APPENDICES

Figure A1. The Puyallup River Watershed.……………… ………………………………...A1 Figure A2. Diagram of a rotary screwtrap.…………………………………………….….A2 Figure A3. Orientation of the screw trap in the lower Puyallup River channel at R.M. 10.6………………………………………………………………………………A3 Table B1. Fork length data for unmarked age 0+ Chinook migrants, 2007………….…….B1 Table B2. Fork length data for unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2007……..…………..…B2 Table B3 Fork length data for unmarked age 0+ chum migrants, 2007……….…………..B3 Table B4. Fork length data for unmarked steelhead, 2007……………...…………….....…B4 Table C1. Hatchery Chinook mark and recapture data for the Puyallup River, 2004-2007………...………………………………………………………....…...C1 Table C2. Hatchery coho mark and recapture data for the Puyal lup River ,

2004-2007……………………………………………………….…………….....C2 Table C3. Hatchery and wild chum mark and recapture data for the Puyallup River, 2004-2007………………………………………………………………...C3

vii

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 had an average annual flow of 1,729 cfs in 2006 near the location of the 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 Watershed 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. 21.9 (Appendix A1). Currently, Voights Creek Hatchery rears fall coho, winter steelhead and fall Chinook. 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). Estimating smolt production is a necessary step towards evaluating stock productivity and the 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 production of native salmonids, with an emphasis on natural fall Chinook salmon production, and (2) survival of hatchery and acclimation pond Chinook. Beginning in 2000, an E. G. Solutions 5-ft diameter rotary screw trap has been operated annually located 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 out-migration of juvenile salmonids.

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project 2007

1

As more data become available, juvenile production 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 goal of this project is to estimate the production of juvenile salmonids, characterize juvenile migration timing, describe the length distribution for all wild salmonid out-migrants, and fulfill the objectives of the Puyallup River Fall Chinook Recovery Plan. To achieve these goals, this study will produce population estimates of out-migrating smolts, estimate species specific migration timing, compare natural versus hatchery production 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 production for all salmonids in the Puyallup River and estimate freshwater survival for unmarked juvenile Chinook.

2. Estimate in-river mortality of hatchery and acclimation pond Chinook.

3. Investigate physical factors such as light (day vs. night), river flow, and river

turbidity and their importance to trap capture efficiency. In this report, all stated objectives will be met for Chinook and coho salmon for the 2007 smolt out-migration 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 study consists of a rotary cone suspended within a steel structure on top of twin, 30-foot pontoons. The opening of the rotary cone is 5 feet in diameter, and has a sampling depth of 2.5 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). 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 were secured to trees located on the banks to further stabilize the trap. Four 55-gallon containers filled with water are secured on the deck at the rear of the trap to compensate for the generation of force at the front of the trap during operation. The 5-ft diameter 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 approximately 300 meters downstream of its previous location, where it had been positioned the previous six years. A high flow event in late 2006 changed the channel morphology preventing us from installing the trap in its normal position. Trap operation began on February 24th and continued, when possible, 24 hours a day, seven days a week until August 27th. The trap was not fished during some high flow events and hatchery fish release schedules 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 twice each day: at dawn and at dusk periods. 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 to prevent the fish in the live box from overcrowding. Revolutions per minute (rpm), water temperature, secchi depth (cm), weather conditions, and stream flow (cfs) 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. Juveniles were identified as natural or hatchery-origin. All hatchery fish in the Puyallup system are marked with an adipose fin clip or adipose fin clip plus a coded wire tag. Therefore, unmarked fish are identified as natural and marked fish are identified as hatchery origin. Hatchery-origin fish were identified in three ways: (1) by visual inspection for adipose fin (Ad) clips, (2) with a Northwest Marine Technology “wand” detector used for coded wire tag (CWT) detection, and (3) with a Destron Fearing Portable Transceiver system for Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tagged fish.


3

Fork length (mm) was measured and recorded for unmarked fish. When possible, 50 chum, 50 age 1+ coho, 25 age 0+ coho, 25 age 0+ Chinook, and 25 steelhead were measured each day. Scale and DNA samples were taken from most wild steelhead smolts. Species were separated by size/age class. Coho were identified as fry, age 0+ (<70mm) or smolts, age 1+ (>70mm). In some instances coho were recorded as either 0+ or 1+ depending on morphological characteristics and time of season rather than a rigid measuring scale. Chinook smolts were recorded as age 0+ (<150mm) or age 1+ (>150mm). All chum and pinks 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, 2007), located approximately 1.5 miles above the screw trap. Mean daily flow was recorded throughout the sample season and stream flow was noted during each capture efficiency experiment. Turbidity was measured by a taking secchi 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 unfished 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. Surface water temperature was measured using an Onset Hobo U22 water temperature data logger. The logger was placed in a live-box located on the smolt trap. Temperature was recorded every hour, twenty-four hours a day for the entire migration season. Daily temperature is the average of the hourly readings for the twenty-four hour period. Capture Efficiency For the 2007 trapping season marked Chinook and coho were released at the same site 0.4 miles above the smolt trap. Marked chum were released at two locations, the first at the same location for Chinook and coho and the other just downstream but closer to the trap. The time of release varied for each species and is described below. Chinook – Chinook reared at Clarks Creek Tribal Hatchery were used for the first four capture efficiency experiments and Chinook captured in the trap were used for the last three capture efficiency experiments. The first three release groups were not given an additional clip for identification because of the absence of ad-clipped fish in the river. Fish that were given an additional clip were anesthetized with MS-222 and clipped with either an upper or lower caudal clip. Fish were then transferred to one large aerated container and immediately moved upstream and released 0.4 miles from the screw trap. The marked fish were released at either day 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


4

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 Voights Creek State 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 and released 0.4 miles upstream from the smolt trap. All experiments with marked coho occurred at night. No control groups were held for releases but all fish were vigorous at release. Chum –Wild chum captured in the screw trap and hatchery chum obtained from Diru Creek Tribal Hatchery were used to conduct capture efficiency experiments. All fish were marked with Bismarck Brown Y Biological Stain solution. Fish were placed in an aerated stain solution of 0.4 grams Bismark Brown per 5 gallons of water and held in the solution for 40-45 minutes. After marking, hatchery fish were placed back into juvenile raceways until release. Wild chum were marked and held in the newly constructed live-box on the screw trap until release. Marked fish were released at day and evening times in order to examine the effect of daylight on capture efficiency. Evening release groups were released at dusk and day groups were released with several hours of daylight until dusk. All fish were captured, marked, and released within 24 hours to reduce stress. Catch Expansion Due to high flows, hatchery releases, and screw stoppers, the trap was not fished continuously throughout the out-migration season. There were a total of 25 days out 184 days when the trap was not fishing. Nine of these days the trap was pulled due to extremely high flows in March. There were other day or night periods when the trap was not fishing either due to debris, lack of personnel or a new phenomenon this year - algae, which clogged the perforated screen on the screw and prevented the trap from spinning. On these days, the average catch per day/night period was used to estimate the number of missed fish. 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 (see assumptions). These dates were: March 11th – 13th, 18th, Night of 19th, March 20th, March 24th – 27th, Night 28th, Night May 24th and 25th, May 26th – 28th, Night of June 1st, Day June 2nd, June 3rd, Day June 4th, June 9th, Day June 10th, Night June 15th, June 16th – 18th, June 23rd and 24th, June 30th, Day July 1st, July 3rd – 8th. This year all species were treated the same with the methods described above and not all days had fish expansion because fish were or were not present on the listed days. In addition to the dates above, expansion was used during the Voights Creek hatchery Chinook release on June 5th. The trap operated for only 10 minutes at night and the catch was expanded for four hours to assume the missing catch. Sub-samples were taken during the fished interval to obtain the mark-type ratio. On the following day, June 6th the number of fish was expanded for three missing hours that were not fished.


5

When the trap was fished for a 24-hour period without being checked, catch was split using the percent day: night catch ratio for paired day and night catches. Further, day: night catch ratios were estimated separately for the two time period strata (pre-glacial and glacial). Production Estimates Because of differences in the relationship between environmental variables (flow, turbidity, etc.) and capture efficiency for the species, production estimates for each species were calculated using different methods. Although the methods used to estimate production were different for the species, capture efficiency for each capture efficiency trial was calculated similarly for each species. Capture efficiency (e) of the trap for a species and the total catch by the trap (either for the season or a defined period of time) was used as follows:

e = r / m and

N = C / e where e = estimated capture efficiency, r = number of marked fish recaptured, m = number of marked fish released, N = total estimated number of unmarked 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 calculating 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 date’s 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., a week, season, or glacial turbidity period. SPSS statistical software was used to analyze data and provide predictive modeling for capture efficiency experiments for most species (SPSS, 2003). Chinook – The capture efficiency experiment data from 2004 - 2006 indicated that there was a significant relationship between capture efficiency and secchi depth measured during the recovery period and between capture efficiency and river flow at the time of release. For the 2007 data, we wanted to further examine the differences between day and night capture efficiency and pre-glacial and glacial period capture efficiency, similar to what was done in previous years. Capture efficiency tests were completed in three of the four separate groupings in 2007. Further, we wanted to examine whether it was appropriate to combine the data from the past four years. A total of 37 capture efficiency experiments for Chinook salmon were conducted from 2004-2007. There were no recaptures from one experiment in 2004 (06/12/2004). The data from this experiment was not used in the 2007 analysis.


6

Capture efficiency trials were classified as either daytime or nighttime trials depending upon whether the majority of the first 10 hours after release of the marked smolts was in light or dark. In previous years we defined a period of pre-glacial and glacial turbidity, where after a certain date secchi depth measurements were low (<60 cm) and remained low. In this way, capture efficiency experiments were conducted in either a pre-glacial period or a glacial period. In contrast to previous years, we stratified all tests on a 50 cm threshold. If tests were conducted with secchi depth readings of 50 cm or less they belonged to the glacial strata, if 51 cm or above they belonged to the pre-glacial strata. This results in similar stratification that was used in previous years. Coho – Coho capture efficiency for 2007 was tested using all capture efficiency experiments performed during the last four years (2004-2007). Ordinary least squares linear regression was used to examine the relationship between capture efficiency and two independent variables: flow and secchi depth. Chum – To estimate capture efficiency of the trap for the 2007 season we examined the relationship between both wild and hatchery chum capture efficiency experiments and environmental variables, flow and secchi depth. Capture efficiency trials from 2004-2007 for both hatchery and wild releases were used in analysis.


7

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Flow and Turbidity During the 2007 trapping season, there were two large peaks in mean daily flow. On March 12th mean daily flow reached 8,374 cfs and on March 25th flow reached 10,798 cfs (Figure 1). These two peaks in flow were larger and earlier than any other flow during the trapping season in the past three years. With such an early, large flow event we experienced a smaller than normal flow event in late May or early June that is usually present. The average daily flow for the trapping season, February 24th to August 27th, was 1,880 cfs. For the entire trapping season, flow did not significantly explain the variation of turbidity as measured by secchi depth (Figure 2). Flow may not explain turbidity due to the presence of overlapping flow types (e.g. snow melt, overland flow and glacial runoff). If different flow types contribute varying concentrations of suspended sediments then the lack of correlation seems reasonable.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

2/24 3/24 4/24 5/24 6/24 7/24 8/24

Date

Flow

(cfs

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Sec

chi D

epth

(cm

)

Flow Secchi

Figure 1. Secchi depth and mean daily flow for the Puyallup River, 2007. Although no relationship exists between mean daily flow and secchi depth, timing of large fluctuations in turbidity and flow reflect one another (Figure 1). Since flow does not explain secchi depth, but large-scale changes in turbidity and flow coincide, then other environmental variables must contribute to daily fluctuations in turbidity (e.g. glacial melt).


8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000Flow (cfs)

Secc

hi D

epth

(cm

)

Figure 2. Scatterplot of mean daily flow and secchi depth for the Puyallup River, 2007. Temperature Mean daily water temperatures are shown for the dates February 27th to August 27th. The graph does not reflect temperatures for March 11th-14th and 18th-20th. On these dates high flows precluded us from sampling. On three dates, July 4th, 5th and 11th daily average surface water temperature exceeded 16o (F). Further, for a consecutive fourteen-day period (July 4th -17th) 7-DADMax temperature exceeded 16o (F) the limit for Washington Department of Ecology Surface Water Quality Standards for Core Summer Salmonid Habitat (WDOE, 2006). Mean hourly temperature reached a maximum of 18.03o(F) on July 11th.

0

4

8

12

16

20

2/27 3/14 3/29 4/13 4/28 5/13 5/28 6/12 6/27 7/12 7/27 8/11 8/26

Date

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

Figure 3. Mean daily water temperature recorded on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2007.


9

CHINOOK Catch Unmarked Chinook A total of 243 unmarked Chinook migrants were captured in the screw trap between February 24th and August 8th. This was the lowest number of unmarked Chinook caught during the seven years since the smolt sampling program began on the Puyallup River in 2000. An unmarked Chinook was captured on the first day of trap operation on February 24th, which leads to the possibility of some missed catch prior to the trap’s installation. More importantly, a significant flow event occurred during the incubation period of wild Chinook in early November of 2006. Flows in excess of 5,500 cfs occurred on South Prairie Creek, the major Chinook spawning ground for the Puyallup River (USGS, 2007). It is likely that redd scouring occurred which would reduce the number of migrants produced in 2007. In general, catch was sporadic from the beginning of trapping to the first small peak in catch on March 14th (five fish). Prior to March 14th, the trap was pulled on March 11th – 13th due to high flows and debris. Expansion was used to estimate for the missed catch. The peak for the season occurred on June 5th with 31 unmarked Chinook. During this time, hourly trap expansion was used to estimate the number of unmarked Chinook outmigrating due to the large volumes of hatchery Chinook released from Voight’s Creek Hatchery. As discussed previously, catch on the days when the trap was not fishing might not reflect the actual catch had the trap been operating. Marked Chinook We captured a total of 28,167 hatchery Chinook migrants between May 31st and August 27th. The hatchery catches were broken down into 22,247 Ad-clipped Chinook and 5,920 Ad/CWT Chinook. Of the 28,167 Chinook, 86% (24,240) were captured on a single night on June 5th during the peak outmigration from Voight’s Creek Hatchery. Expansion was used to estimate the number of outmigrants during this peak event. During the night of June 5th, ten minutes of trapping captured 1,010 fish. Table 7 shows the numbers of Chinook released for each mark group. Size Throughout the trapping season, the mean length of unmarked age 0+ Chinook sampled in the screw trap generally increased and began to vary during stat week 17 (late May) (Figure 4). Weekly mean fork length increased from 49mm to 73mm between the last of week of April and the first week of May, and from 71mm to 90mm between the last week in May and the first week in June. The largest range in length occurred during stat week 23 (beginning of June), the same week as hatchery Chinook were released from Voight’s Creek Hatchery (Appendix B1). The minimum


10

length of the weekly size range remained small (<50mm) and did not exceed 50mm until stat week 17 (end of April).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

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 32Statistical Week

Mea

n Fo

rk L

engt

h (m

m)

Figure 4. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 0+ Chinook captured in the screw trap, 2007.

Capture Efficiency

During the 2007 season, seven capture efficiency experiments using hatchery Chinook salmon were conducted at the new screw trap location. There were two day-time releases and five night-time releases. From 265 to 522 fish were used in each release (Appendix C1). A total of 3,184 hatchery Chinook were released during the seven experiments. Because of the change in the location of the screw trap, the 2007 capture efficiency data were compared to the previous years’ data to see if the relationships observed and conclusions concerning stratification of the data from previous years (2004 - 2006) had changed. All Chinook capture efficiency experiments conducted from 2004-2007 were included in the analyses. We examined capture efficiency as it related to several different parameters. These included:

• the relationship between capture efficiency and river flow measured in cubic feet per second (cfs),

• the relationship between capture efficiency and secchi depth (cm) measurements made at the trap at the start of each experiment,

• the difference in capture efficiency between day-time and night-time releases, and • the difference in capture efficiency between releases made during the pre-glacial

(clear water) period and glacial (turbid water) periods. A total of 37 separate releases of Chinook were made during the four years (Appendix C1). Capture efficiency estimates ranged from 0.098% to 6.4%.


11

Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates in 2007 to Previous Years’ Estimates The range of capture efficiency estimates from the experiments conducted in 2007 did not have as broad a range as previous years’ estimates (Figure 5): capture efficiency estimates in 2007 ranged from 0.75% to 3.1%. The results of the 2007 capture efficiency experiments appear to be similar to previous years’ experiments. Previous year’s analyses have demonstrated that there is a significant (P for the slope parameter < 0.05) relationship between secchi depth and capture efficiency. Although statistically significant, this relationship has explained 65% or less of the variability in the capture efficiency estimates. Figure 6 shows the relationship between capture efficiency and secchi depth for the 2007 experiments relative to the previous years.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Cap

ture

Eff

icie

ncy

Perc

enta

ge

Year

Figure 5. Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for Chinook smolt releases conducted in 2004 – 2007.

With a limited number of experiments (7 in 2007), it is not possible to conduct rigorous and meaningful statistical tests to determine if the capture efficiencies at the new trap location are comparable to previous years. Based on a visual comparison using Figures 5 and 6, there is no clear evidence for a difference between the 2007 capture efficiency results compared to previous years. Additional capture efficiency estimates at the new trap location are needed to continue these analyses. For the 2007 analyses, the capture efficiency data from 2007 are treated as being similar to the previous years and combined with that data for analysis.


12


13

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

0 50 100 150 200 250

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Secchi Depth (cm)

Figure 6. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases for 2007 experiments (∆) compared to 2004 – 2006 experiments (●). Figures 7 and 8 show the relationship for capture efficiency with secchi depth and flow, respectively (day-time and night-time experiments are indicated in each graph). For the entire data set (37 observations), there was a significant correlation between secchi depth and capture efficiency (r = -0.342, P = 0.038). Similarly, there was a marginally significant correlation between flow and capture efficiency (r = -0.320, P = 0.053). An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to examine the relationship between secchi depth and the natural logarithm of capture efficiency1 and test whether there were differences in this relationship between day-time and night-time releases. The ANCOVA indicated that there was a significant relationship between secchi depth and capture efficiency and that this relationship was different between day-time and night-time releases.

1 The natural logarithm of capture efficiency was used to linearize the relationship and equalize group variances.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

0 50 100 150 200 250

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Secchi Depth (cm)

Day Night

Figure 7. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases, 2004-2007.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Flow(cfs)

Day Night

Figure 8. Plot of flow versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases, 2004-2007. Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth Because of the stronger relationship between secchi depth and capture efficiency we focused on this relationship. The relationship between secchi depth and capture efficiency was analyzed separately for day-time and night-time releases based on the results of the ANCOVA. Four different secchi depth versus capture efficiency models were examined: linear, exponential, logarithmic, and power. Models were evaluated using the adjusted R2 for the complete model and a jackknife procedure, which provided three model evaluation statistics: mean percent error, mean squared error, and mean absolute percent error. Based on these analyses, a “best” secchi depth versus capture efficiency model was selected for each set of data.


14


15

The power model was selected as the model that “best” fit the day-time release experiments for Chinook (Figure 9). The model constant was not significant (P = 0.613) so a model without a constant was selected as the final model. The parameters for the linearized2 version of this model were:

Parameter Coefficient St. Error Rel. SE3 Significance 95% Confidence Interval

Slope -1.124104 0.039258 3.5% <0.001 -1.208 - -1.040

The power model was also selected as the model that “best” fit the night-time release experiments for Chinook (Figure 10). The parameters for the linearized version of this model, with a constant, were:

Parameter Coefficient St. Error Rel. SE Significance 95% Confidence Interval

Slope -0.435854 0.198356 45.5% 0.041 - 0.851 - - 0.021

Intercept -1.948990 0.855259 43.9% 0.034 - 3.379 - - 0.159

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

0 50 100 150 200 250

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Secchi Depth (cm)

Pre-glacial Glacial

Figure 9. Plot of the power model of secchi depth versus capture efficiency (CE) for day-time releases of Chinook.

2 The linearized power model is: Capture Efficiency = Secchi Depth (slope) 3 Relative Standard Error = Standard Error of Slope / Estimated Slope

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

0 50 100 150 200 250

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Secchi Depth (cm)

Pre-glacial Glacial

Figure 10. Plot of the power model of secchi depth versus capture efficiency (CE) for night- time releases of Chinook. The mean night-time capture efficiency was more than twice the mean day-time capture efficiency (see below). There is a significant difference between the two means (t-test equal variances assumed, P = 0.003).

Release Mean N St. Error Median 95% Confidence Interval

Day Time 1.29% 16 0.2623% 0.820% 0.734% - 1.852%

Night Time 2.85% 21 0.3798% 2.572% 2.057% - 3.641%

Both of the secchi depth versus capture efficiency relationships (day-time and night-time) are heavily influenced by a small cluster of points during glacial water periods (secchi depths ≤ 50 cm) that have relatively high capture efficiencies (> 2.0%). If the cluster of glacially-influenced points with secchi depths ≤ 50 cm are removed from Figures 9 and 10, there does not appear to be a relationship between secchi depth and capture efficiency for the remaining points. Because of this uncertainty an alternative method of estimating trap capture efficiency on a daily basis was examined similarly to what was done in 2005 and 2006. Similarly to 2006, strata were defined based on the turbidity of the water. In previous years this stratum was defined by a date after which all releases were classified as occurring during a period of glacially-influenced water. In 2007, the secchi depth measurements for the last two experiments were nearly twice that of the previous experiment on June 6th (see Appendix C1). Therefore, we defined the strata by the secchi depth measurement (≤ 50 cm and > 50 cm). This results in a similar stratification to that used in previous years, i.e., a stratum when water clarity was generally clear and secchi depths for tests ranged from 65 cm to 206 cm, and a stratum when water conditions were generally turbid and secchi depth measurements ranged from 13 to 43 cm. We also retained the day versus night stratification since the previous analyses indicated that there were differences in capture efficiency between day-time and night-time experiments.


16

The data for these strata are shown in the figure below. There is generally little mixing of the data between the stratum as plotted.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

0 50 100 150 200 250

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Secchi Depth (cm)

Pre-Glacial Day time

Glacial Day Time

Pre-Glacial Night time

Glacial Night Time

Figure 11. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases grouped by strata. Capture Efficiency Estimates for Chinook Table 1 summarizes the mean capture efficiency for each stratum and shows the mean and 95% confidence interval for the mean capture efficiency for each stratum. Analysis of variance indicated that there was a significant difference among the group means for these strata (P < 0.001). The S-N-K multiple comparison procedure indicated that the non-glacial night-time experiments and the glacial day-time experiments were not significantly different from one another (P > 0.05) but that the other two groups (non-glacial day-time and glacial night-time) were significantly different from both these groups and each other. Therefore, we combined the non-glacial night-time and glacial day-time experiments into a single stratum. Summary statistics for this new stratification are presented in Table 2. We used these estimates of capture efficiency in our production expansion analysis.

Table 1. Summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments, by the four original glacial, time-of-day stratum, for 2004-2007 releases.


Pre-glacial Day 0.627% 9 0.0953% 0.789% 0.407% - 0.847%

Pre-glacial Night 1.901% 14 0.2705% 1.993% 1.316% - 2.486%

Glacial Day 2.149% 7 0.4004% 2.492% 1.170% - 3.129%

Glacial Night 4.745% 7 0.4756% 4.878% 3.582% - 5.909%


17

Table 2. Summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments, by the three glacial, time-of-day stratum, for 2004-2007 releases.


Pre-glacial Day 0.627% 9 0.0953% 0.789% 0.407% - 0.847%

Pre-glacial Night and Glacial Day 1.984% 21 0.2201% 1.998% 1.525% - 2.443%

Glacial Night 4.745% 7 0.4756% 4.878% 3.582% - 5.909%

Hatchery Chinook Length Fork length data was collected for all mark-recapture tests conducted in 2007, except for three tests (one each in a paired day/night group and the last test on June 11th). Average fork length of the hatchery Chinook used for mark-recapture tests increased over the course of the testing period (Figure 12).

In previous years, we found a weak but positive correlation between capture efficiency and fork length at the time of release. With the addition of this years’ data the relationship became less associated (Figure 13). In contrast, Conrad and MacKay (2000) found a strong, negative correlation between mean length of Chinook used for mark-recapture tests and estimated capture efficiency. We would have expected to observe a similar trend in our data but observed no apparent relationship. It is likely that during the glacial period, when Chinook are normally larger at release, the positive affect of turbidity on capture efficiency negates any relationship between the size of Chinook and capture efficiency. There is a significant difference between the mean lengths of hatchery Chinook released during glacial and pre-glacial periods (P < .001).

0

20

40

60

80

100

2/27 3/19 4/8 4/28 5/18 6/7 6/27

Fork

Len

gth

(cm

)

Date

Figure 12. Fork length of hatchery Chinook used in capture efficiency experiments, 2007.


18

0.00%

1.50%

3.00%

4.50%

6.00%

40 60 80 100 120

Estim

ated

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy

Mean Fork Length (mm)

Pre-glacial Glacial

Figure 13. Capture efficiency and mean fork length of hatchery Chinook used for mark-recapture tests, 2004 - 2007. Tests conducted in 2007 indicated by (Δ). Estimated Production An estimated total of 12,257 unmarked Chinook passed the screw trap between February 24th and August 8th. With 95% confidence intervals this estimate has a range of 10,379 to 14,135 Chinook migrants (Table 3). NOTE: Catch used to estimate production for each stratum does not necessarily correspond directly to the number of fish captured in each stratum. Some days within each stratum have secchi depths (used to determine capture efficiency) that are more similar to other strata, therefore there may be more than one capture efficiency used within each strata. Actual catch and production for each time period strata is provided in Tables 4 and 5. Table 3. Chinook production estimate for the 2007 screw trap season using capture efficiency data from 2004 – 2007. Delta method used to approximate variance.

Stratum

Mean Capture

Efficiency

Total Number of Chinook Smolts

Captured Production

Estimate Approximate

Variance

95% Confidence

Interval Pre-glacial day 0.627% 31 4,944 958,049.20 3,471 - 6,417 Pre-glacial night and Glacial day 1.984% 97 4,889 307,076.80 3,826 - 5,952

Glacial night 4.745% 115 2,424 61,071.10 1,948 - 2,900 Total 12,257 1,326,197.10 10,379 - 14,135

Glacial and Non-Glacial Catch/Production Glacial melting and its relevance to migration timing and capture efficiency are an important aspect of catch and production estimates in the Puyallup River. Tables 4 and 5 show the total catch and production of Chinook for the pre-glacial melt period (< June 29th) and the glacial melt


19

period (≥ June 29th). The glacial period here is defined as the date at which secchi depth measurements were less than 51 cm for the remainder of the trapping season. A majority of unmarked Chinook, 92% of total catch and 96% of total outmigration, migrated past the trap during the pre-glacial melt period. Although a majority of Chinook migrated before the glacial period there were days when glacial like conditions occurred during the pre-glacial period, signifying the importance of monitoring turbidity and its relevance to capture efficiency. Day and Night Catch/Production Day and night migration is an important aspect of juvenile migration patterns and has been an important component of smolt trap operation in the Puget Sound region. On the Skagit River, daytime migration rates of age 0+ Chinook were found to be affected by turbidity (Seiler et al., 2004). This year, and in previous years, we were able to establish a significant relationship between turbidity and its effects on capture efficiency in day-time and night-time conditions, where the trap is less efficient at capturing migrants during the day in pre-glacial conditions and the most efficient at catching fish during the night in glacial conditions. This year, similar to last year, results indicated that pre-glacial night and glacial day conditions were not significantly different enough to be considered separate strata. As in the two previous years, summation of production and catch for day and night periods indicated that even though total day catch accounted for less than half of catch, 30% in 2007, it made up more than half of production, 52% in 2007 (Tables 4 and 5). This is opposite of what was found in 2004. These findings may be a result of the difference between the number of migrants passing the trap during day-time and night-time hours. In 2004, the difference between total night and day catch was 463 fish, while in 2005, 2006 and 2007 it was 181, 353 and 97, respectively. We will continue to monitor this aspect of migration timing and evaluate its relevance to capture efficiency and therefore production estimates. On the Green River, Seiler et al. (2004) found a wide range of day/night catch ratios for similar months as our pre-glacial period (February to June). They reported a day/night catch ratio range of 25% (January to March-fry period) to 46% (May to June-smolt period). Our catch ratio in 2007 indicated a high day/night catch for the pre-glacial period, 47%, and a low day/night catch ratio for the glacial period, 5%. Table 4. Total unmarked Chinook production for pre-glacial and glacial melt period, 2007.

Date Day Night Total Pre-Glacial 7,011 4,795 11,806 (96%)

Glacial 50 401 451 (4%) Total 7,061 (52%) 5,196 (48%) 12,257 (100%)

Table 5. Total unmarked Chinook catch for pre-glacial and glacial melt period, 2007.

Date Day Night Total

Pre-Glacial 72 151 223 (92%) Glacial 1 19 20 (8%) Total 73 (30%) 170 (70%) 243 (100%)


20

Migration Timing Unmarked 0+ Chinook In contrast to previous years, there were two distinct peaks in daily estimated migration, the first during the second week of March and the more significant peak during the first week of June (Figure 14). The largest peak occurred on June 5th with 1,181 migrants passing the trap. Twenty-five percent of total migration occurred in the two days around the peak (June 4th –6th). The migration pattern this year was different than the previous two years. In 2005, there were three peaks of relatively equal amounts of migrating Chinook a couple weeks apart, in 2006 there was one large peak; however, for all three years, the largest peaks always occurred during late May/early June and around peaks in flow.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

24-Feb

8-Mar

20-Mar

1-Apr

13-Apr

25-Apr

7-May

19-May

31-May

12-Jun

24-Jun

6-Jul

18-Jul

30-Jul

Mea

n Fl

ow (c

fs)

DateEs

timat

ed N

umbe

r of M

igra

nts

Unmarked Chinook (n=12,257)Mean Flow (cfs)

Figure 14. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook smolts with mean daily flow, 2007. Based upon our production estimates, the first 25% of unmarked Chinook migrated by April 8th, 50% by June 3rd, and 75% by June 6th, just after the peak. The last fish was captured on August 8th. This year 25% of the estimated number of Chinook migrated two weeks earlier than any of the previous three years, but reached 50% migration about one week later than the previous three years (Figure 15).


21

June 2nd

March 26th

June 6th

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

24-Feb 13-Mar 30-Mar 16-Apr 3-May 20-May 6-Jun 23-Jun 10-Jul 27-Jul

Perc

ent M

igra

tion

Date Figure 15. Percent estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook, 2007.

Freshwater Survival In-River Mortality of Hatchery Releases All hatchery-origin Chinook were marked with either an Ad-clip or Ad/CWT, which enabled us to estimate in-river mortality between Voights Creek Hatchery and the screw trap. Relating overall production estimates of hatchery Chinook to the known number of hatchery fish released into the system gives us in-river mortality. A total of 1,868,477 marked fall Chinook were released into the Puyallup River in 2007, 1,797,777 Chinook were released from Voights Creek Hatchery (R.M. 21.9), and a total of 70,700 Chinook were released from Cowskull acclimation pond (R.M. 44.75). A total of 674,473 marked Chinook were estimated to have passed the smolt trap. Production estimates and in-river mortality are provided for each release group (Table 6). In 2007, total in-river mortality for all hatchery Chinook combined was 62%. The Ad-marked group belonging only to Voight’s Creek Hatchery had greater mortality than did the group belonging to both Voight’s Creek Hatchery and the acclimation pond in the upper Puyallup River. On the Skagit River, Vokhardt et. al. (2006) reported the average mortality over the past several years at around 50%. Over the past four years, mortality rates in the Puyallup River have been similar, around 60%, except for 2005 where mortality was low, 20%.


22

Table 6. In-river mortality of marked Chinook from the Puyallup River, 2007.

Mark Type Date

Number Released

Number Captured

Capture Percentage for Each Release

Group

Estimated Production for Each Release

Group

In-River Mortality for Each Release

Group Start End

AD/CWT (Cowskull) 29-May 29-May 70,700

5,920 2.1% 141,635 47.8% AD/CWT (Voights)* 5-June 5-June 200,889

AD (Voights)* 5-June 5-June 1,596,888 22,247 1.3% 532,838 66.6%

* = Personal communication, WDFW

Freshwater Survival of Wild Smolts Relating our total unmarked Chinook outmigration estimate to our potential egg deposition gives us freshwater survival estimate to the screw trap (Table 7). 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 a redd count based methodology (Scharpf, Pers. Comm.). The number of females was calculated from the male-to-female ratio from South Prairie Creek and fecundity from Voights Creek hatchery fall Chinook was used to estimate total egg production. A fecundity of 4,738 eggs/female was used for the 2006 brood (Davis, Pers. Comm.). Maximum and minimum flows are from South Prairie Creek.

Table 7. Freshwater survival of unmarked Chinook from the Puyallup River, 2007.

Run Year Total

Outmigration Estimate

Total Number of

Females

Potential Egg

Deposition

Smolt / Female

Maximum and Minimum Flows

Aug.-Feb.*

Percent Freshwater Survival

(#smolts / #eggs) 2006-2007 12,257 679 3,217,102 18 6,540 23 0.38%

* = Data gathered from USGS Water Resource Division

Survival rate for this year’s brood was the lowest in the past four years. It is likely that the major high flow event that occurred on November 11th scoured redds reducing the number of migrants captured in the screw trap. Peak spawning on South Prairie Creek occurred during the last week of October, just weeks before the flooding event (Marks et al., 2007).

COHO Catch Unmarked 1+ Coho We captured a total of 370 unmarked coho in the 2007 trapping season. The first coho migrant was caught on March 2nd and the last on July 25th. Although catch rates varied from day to day,


23

overall catch followed a fairly regular progression and peaked on June 4th, when we captured 34 migrants in the trap. This year peak catch occurred with an increase in flow, similar to previous years, but occurred much later (early June rather than middle May). Mclemore et al. (1989) states that downstream migration of coho occurs during high streamflow between March and June so a shift in downstream migration may depend on flows during these months. Marked 1+ Coho A total of 847 hatchery coho were captured in the screw trap in 2007. Catch by mark type is provided in Table 13. The first marked coho was captured on March 24th and the last on August 19th. Peak catch, 87 coho on April 30th, occurred after the volitional release of marked coho from Voights Creek hatchery on April 26th. Compared to previous years, it took a longer period of time to catch a smaller percentage of hatchery coho. However, since peak catch occurred just after volitional release, the data still indicate that a majority of hatchery coho from Voights Creek move quickly past the smolt trap, although some hatchery coho are captured nearly a month later than their wild counterpart. Size Unmarked, age 1+ coho averaged 81mm to 161mm throughout the 2007 sampling season. We did not observe any positive trend in mean weekly fork length as the season progressed but rather a peak and then a slow decline (Figure 16). Similar to previous years, the majority of coho migrants between 100mm and 120mm moved past the trap between stat week 15 and 23. Migrant’s measuring 90mm or less were captured at the beginning of the season as well as near the end. The maximum size of migrants measured increased from the beginning of the season to the end of June and dropped significantly thereafter (Appendix B2).

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

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 33Statistical Week

Mea

n Fo

rk L

engt

h (m

m)

Figure 16. Mean Weekly fork length and size range of unmarked, age 1+ coho captured in the screw trap, 2007.


24

Capture Efficiency During the 2007 season, two capture efficiency experiments using hatchery coho from Voights Creek were conducted at the new screw trap location (Appendix C2). The number of coho released per test this year was larger than previous years. Both releases occurred at night. Because of the change in the location of the screw trap, the 2007 capture efficiency data were compared to the previous years’ data to see if the relationships observed and conclusions concerning stratification of the data from previous years (2004 - 2006) had changed due to the new location. All coho capture efficiency experiments conducted from 2004 - 2007 were included in the analyses. The relationships between capture efficiency and several different parameters were examined as follows:

• capture efficiency for day-time and night-time releases, • capture efficiency and secchi depth measurements (cm) made at the trap at the start of

each experiment, and • capture efficiency and river flow measured in cubic feet per second.

A total of 13 separate releases of coho were made during the four years. Capture efficiency estimates ranged from 0.8% to 2.1%; the average for the 2007 season was 1.06%.

Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates in 2007 to Previous Years’ Estimates With a limited number of experiments (2 in 2007), it is not possible to conduct rigorous and meaningful statistical tests to determine if the capture efficiencies at the new trap location are comparable to previous years. The capture efficiency estimates from the experiments conducted in 2007 were the two lowest estimates observed for the night-time stratum (Figure 17). Figure 18 shows the relationship between capture efficiency and secchi depth, while figure 19 shows the relationship between capture efficiency and flow for the 2007 experiments relative to the previous years. Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates for Day-Time versus Night Time Releases There was less than a 0.2% difference between the mean day-time and night-time capture efficiency estimates (Table 8). The difference between the two means is not significant (t-test equal variances assumed, P = 0.502). There is no apparent influence of daytime or night time on the results.


25

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

0 1 2 3

Day (1) or Night (2) experiment

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

2004200520062007

Figure 17. Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for coho smolt releases conducted from

2004 - 2007. Table 8. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for day-time and night-time experiments for coho salmon releases conducted in 2004-2007.


Day Time 1.56% 6 0.2155% 1.66% 1.008% - 2.116%

Night Time 1.39% 7 0.1262% 1.35% 1.086% - 1.703%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

0 50 100 150 200 250

Secchi Depth (cm)

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

2004 to 2006 Day2004 to 2006 Night2007 Night

Figure 18. Plot of estimated capture efficiency of coho salmon versus secchi depth for Puyallup River smolt trap data from 2004-2007. OLS line shown.


26

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Flow (cfs)

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy

2004 to 2006 Day2004-2006 Night2007 Night

Figure 19. Plot of estimated capture efficiency of coho salmon versus flow for Puyallup River smolt trap data from 2004-2007. OLS line shown.

Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth and Flow Figures 18 and 19 plot estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth, and capture efficiency and flow, respectively, for all experiments conducted from 2004 – 2007. Similar to previous years the ordinary least squares (OLS) was used to determine significance of the relationship between variables. Results of the OLS linear regressions are summarized in Tables 9 and 10. The estimated slope for the relationships was not significant: P = 0.559 and P = 0.592 for secchi depth and flow, respectively. The linear regression models explained only 3% of the variation in capture efficiency (R2 = 0.032 for secchi depth and R2 = 0.027 for flow). There is no evident relationship between capture efficiency and either secchi depth or flow. The relationship between flow and capture efficiency has been more evident in previous years as compared to this year. In 2006, for all combined data (2004 – 2006), there was a marginally significant relationship between capture efficiency and flow (P = 0.096), and in 2005 the combined 2004 and 2005 data was determined to be significant (P = 0.056). With the addition of this years data the relationship became far less significant (P = 0.559). In addition, the season average capture efficiency has been slowly declining since 2004: 2004 – 1.67%, 2005 – 1.62%, 2006 – 1.31% and 2007 – 1.06%. Further, 2007 had both the lowest capture efficiency results for night time experiments over the past four years and the screw trap location was different than any other year. It is evident that there is a trend from significance to non-significance over the past several years, although the difference in capture efficiency between years is marginal. For these reasons, we conclude that this year’s experiments were different from previous years and therefore the season average capture efficiency should be used to determine production estimates for all unmarked and marked 1+ coho. Table 11 shows the difference between combined capture efficiency experiments for all years and results from 2007.


27

Table 9. Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression of secchi depth (X) and capture efficiency (Y).

Model Parameter

Estimated Coefficients t statistic

Signifi- cance

95% Confidence Interval for B

B Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Constant 0.017195 0.004645 3.702 0.003 0.006971 0.027418 Secchi Depth -0.0000166 0.0000301 -0.553 0.592 -0.0000828 0.0000496

Table 10. Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression of flow (X) and capture efficiency (Y).

Model Parameter

Estimated Coefficients t statistic

Signifi- cance

95% Confidence Interval for B

B Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Constant 0.012824 0.003362 3.814 0.003 0.005424 0.020225 Flow 0.00000129 0.00000213 0.603 0.559 -0.00000341 0.0000598

Table 11. Summary statistics for the mean capture efficiency for all coho salmon release experiments conducted in 2004-2007.

Release Mean Number released

Number recaptured N

All 1.47% 6425 92 13 2007 1.06% 1415 15 2

Estimated Production Using the season average capture efficiency we estimate that 34,906 unmarked 1+ coho passed the trap from March 2nd to July 25th. This estimate is higher than last year (31,367) but lower than 2005 (55,972). Migration Timing Coho migration followed a regular, unimodal progression, with a peak migration day on June 4th (Figure 20). This is a later peak than seen in previous years, where the peak was in the middle of May. Based on these production estimates, 25% of migration occurred between February 26th and May 15th, 50% by May 29th, 75% by June 3rd and the remaining migrants moved out between June 4th and July 25th (Figure 21).


28

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

25-Feb

12-Mar

27-Mar

11-Apr

26-Apr

11-May

26-May

10-Jun

25-Jun

10-Jul

Date

Mea

n Fl

ow (c

fs)

0

600

1,200

1,800

2,400

3,000

3,600

Estim

ated

Num

ber o

f Coh

o M

igra

nts

Unmarked Coho 1+(n=34,906)M ean Flow (cfs)

Figure 20. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 1+ coho with mean daily flows, 2007.

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

26-Feb 13-Mar 28-Mar 12-Apr 27-Apr 12-May 27-May 11-Jun 26-Jun 11-Jul

Date

Perc

ent M

igra

tion

May 15th

May 29th

June 3rd

Figure 21. Percent migration of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2007.

In-River Mortality Table 12 shows the estimated production and in-river mortality for each mark group in 2007. Comparing the total estimated production for all mark groups combined with the total number of marked coho released, we estimate a total in-river mortality of 90%. This is the highest mortality estimate in the past three years (see discussion). In-river mortality of marked coho was relatively equal among all release groups, with the Ad/CWT group from Voights and the acclimation ponds showing slightly less mortality.


29

Table 12. In-river mortality of coho 1+ mark groups for the Puyallup River, 2007.

Mark Type

Date Number Released

Number Captured

Estimated Production

for Each Release Group

In River Mortality for Each Release Group

Total Number

Captured

Total Estimated Production Start End

CWT (Voights)*

26-Apr

30-Apr 41,600 40 3,774 90.93%

847 79,906

AD (Voights)* 26-Apr

30-Apr 672,300 668 63,019 90.63%

AD + CWT (Cowskull/

Rushingwater)

8-May

8-May 80,200

139 13,113 89.91% AD + CWT (Voights)*

26-Apr

30-Apr 49,700

CHUM Catch A total of 2,339 juvenile chum migrants were captured in the screw trap in 2007. The first chum migrant was caught on February 28th and the last was caught on June 12th. Catch was unimodal with increasing and decreasing catch after the peak of 196 chum on April 26th. Size We found little difference in mean fork length of chum between sample weeks (Figure 22). However, the size range of chum sampled became progressively larger throughout the season. The maximum length of the chum sampled increased steadily throughout the migration season from 41mm to 82mm between the first week of sampling and week 22. The minimum length did not increase throughout the sample season (Appendix B3).


30

20

25

30

35

40

45

5055

60

65

70

75

80

85

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Statistical Week

Fork

l Len

gth

(mm

)

Figure 22. Mean weekly fork length and size range of chum captured in the screw trap, 2007.

Capture Efficiency During the 2007 season, three capture efficiency experiments using chum salmon fry were conducted at the new screw trap site. All three releases occurred during the night time, two of the releases used hatchery fish and one used wild out-migrating chum (Appendix C3). Because of the change in the location of the smolt trap, the 2007 capture efficiency data were compared to the previous years’ data to see if the relationships observed and conclusions concerning stratification of the data from previous years (2004 - 2006) had changed due to the new location. All chum capture efficiency experiments conducted from 2004 - 2007 were considered for the analyses. A total of 35 separate releases of chum were made during the four years of which seven released less than 100 chum (Appendix C3). Capture efficiency estimates ranged from 0.0% to 5.2%. The seven experiments that released less than 100 outmigrating chum were removed from the data set analyzed. Three of these experiments were conducted in 2006 and four were conducted in 2007. Five of these seven experiments resulted in only a single recapture and for the remaining two experiments no chum released were recaptured. It was felt that the capture efficiency estimates provided by these experiments were too imprecise to be useful due to the relatively small numbers of chum released.


31

The relationships between capture efficiency and several different parameters were examined, these include:

• capture efficiency for releases of hatchery chum compared to releases of wild chum,

• capture efficiency for day-time and night-time releases, • capture efficiency and secchi depth measurements (in cm) made at the trap at

the start of each experiment, and • capture efficiency and river flow measured in cubic feet per second.

Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates in 2007 to Previous Years’ Estimates With a limited number of experiments (7 in 2007 of which only three released more than 100 fish), it is not possible to conduct rigorous and meaningful statistical tests to determine if the capture efficiencies at the new trap location are comparable to previous years. The capture efficiency estimate for the experiment conducted on April 16th, 2007 had the highest capture efficiency estimate observed during the four years of experiments. Previous years’ analyses had indicated that the capture efficiency for wild chum might be less than for hatchery chum. Therefore, we separated the wild chum releases from the hatchery chum releases for analysis. All wild chum releases occurred during night time hours. Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates for Day-Time versus Night Time Releases There was about a 0.5% difference between the mean day-time and night-time capture efficiency estimates for the hatchery releases (Table 13) while the wild release experiments had the lowest mean capture efficiency (Figure 23). The differences between the three means are not significant (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.308), however, because of small sample sizes definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. There is no apparent influence of daytime or night time on the results.

Table 13. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for hatchery day-time, hatchery night-time, and wild night-time experiments for chum salmon releases conducted in 2004- 2007.


Hatchery Day Time 3.48% 7 0.5505% 4.08% 2.137% - 4.831%

Hatchery Night Time 2.97% 13 0.4474% 3.46% 1.996% - 3.945%

Wild Night Time 2.29% 8 0.4527% 2.29% 1.215% - 3.356%


32

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

0 1 2 3 4 Group

95%

CI f

or M

ean

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy

Day Time Hatchery Night Time Hatchery Night Time Wild

Figure 23. Mean capture efficiency, and 95% confidence interval, for the original three possible strata defined for chum experiments conducted from 2004-2007. There was less then a 1% difference between the mean hatchery (day-time and night-time releases combined) and wild capture efficiency estimates (Table 14). The differences between the means is not significant (t-test, P = 0.173), however, because of small sample sizes definitive conclusions cannot be drawn.

Table 14. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for hatchery and wild experiments for chum salmon releases conducted in 2004-2007.


All Hatchery 3.15% 20 0.3447% 3.63% 2.429% - 3.872%

Wild Night Time 2.29% 8 0.4527% 2.29% 1.215% - 3.356%

Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth and Flow Figures 24 and 25 show the relationship between capture efficiency and secchi depth and flow, respectively, for the 2007 experiments relative to the previous years. For the 2007 analyses, the capture efficiency data from 2007 are treated as being similar to the previous years and combined with that data for analysis. For wild chum experiments, there is no relationship evident between capture efficiency and secchi depth (Figure 26) or flow (Figure 27). For hatchery chum releases, there is no relationship apparent between capture efficiency and secchi depth (Figure 28). There is a very broad range of capture efficiencies (from 0.77% to 5.16%) for secchi disk depths ≥ than 150 cm.


33

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

0 50 100 150 200 250Secchi Depth (cm)

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Day-time HatcheryNight-time HatcheryNight-time Wild

Figure 24. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for all chum experiments conducted from 2004 – 2007. 2007 data indicated by arrows.

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000Flow(cfs)

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Day-time HatcheryNight-time HatcheryNight-time Wild

Figure 25. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for all chum experiments conducted from 2004 – 2007. 2007 data indicated by arrows.


34

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

0 50 100 150 200 250Secchi Depth (cm)

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Figure 26. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for wild chum experiments

conducted from 2004 – 2007 on the Puyallup River screw trap.

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500Flow (cfs)

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Figure 27. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for wild chum experiments conducted

from 2004 – 2007 on the Puyallup River screw trap.

As in previous years, there appears to be a weak negative relationship between capture efficiency and flow (R2 = .3545 for power model) for hatchery chum releases (Figure 29). However, the relationship does not exist for wild chum capture efficiency experiments and flow. If a relationship between flow and capture efficiency is somewhat evident for hatchery chum, but not for wild chum, then there must be at least some differentiation between downsteream migration characteristics between these two groups. Because our interest is mainly in estimating the outmigration of wild chum we used only the result from the one 2007 capture efficiency experiment for wild chum to estimate production.


35

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

0 50 100 150 200 250Secchi Depth (cm)

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Day Night

Figure 28. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for hatchery chum experiments on the

Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 – 2007.

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000Flow (cfs)

Cap

ture

Effi

cien

cy P

erce

ntag

e

Day Night

Figure 29. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for hatchery chum experiements on the

Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 – 2007.

Estimated Production Since there was no relationship between wild chum releases and flow, and the trap was in a different location this year the one capture efficiency experiment (3.51%) from 2007 was used to produce a total chum production estimate. We estimate that 66,638 chum passed the trap in 2007. The estimated production this year was higher than 2005 but lower than 2004 and 2006. The estimated number of chum migrants is heavily influenced by the escapement of adult chum salmon counted in South Prairie Creek and the Carbon River (Figure 30).


36

R2 = 0.959

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Total Live/Dead Chum Count on Carbon River and South Prairie Creek

Estim

ated

Num

ber o

f Chu

m M

igra

nts

Figure 30. Correlation between adult chum counted on South Prairie Creek and the Carbon River

with estimated number of chum migrants, brood year 2003 – 2006. Migration Timing The first chum was caught on February 28th and the last on June 12th. Using production estimates, the peak of the migration occurred on April 26th when 5,584, or 8% of the total run passed the trap (Figure 31). This is a similar trend compared to previous years. Throughout the season, migration increased and decreased progressively. Fifty percent of the migration occurred by April 27th (Figure 32).

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

26-Feb 13-Mar 28-Mar 12-Apr 27-Apr 12-May 27-May 11-Jun Date

Mea

n Fl

ow (c

fs)

0

900

1800

2700

3600

4500

5400

6300Es

timat

ed N

umbe

r of C

hum

M

igra

nts

M ean Flow (cfs) Chum M igrants (n=66,638)

Figure 31. Daily estimated migration of chum fry with mean daily flows, 2007.


37

April 27th

April 19th

May 13th

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

26-Feb 13-Mar 28-Mar 12-Apr 27-Apr 12-May 27-May 11-Jun

Date

Perc

ent M

igra

tion

Figure 32. Percent estimated migration of chum fry, 2007.

STEELHEAD Catch Twenty-five unmarked and 105 marked steelhead were captured in the smolt trap during the 2007 trapping season, the lowest catch of both unmarked and marked steelhead in the past seven years. Less than 100 unmarked steelhead have been captured in the smolt trap for the past five consecutive years. Size There is no trend of positive growth during the 14 weeks that unmarked steelhead were captured in the screw trap (Figure 32). Maximum and minimum fork lengths varied for each statistical week, with a wide range for weeks 19, 20, and 21 (Appendix B4). On average, marked steelhead were larger than unmarked steelhead, but unmarked steelhead had higher standard deviation (Table 15).


38

0

50

100

150

200

250

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Statistical Week

Mea

n Le

ngth

(mm

)

Figure 33. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked steelhead captured in the screw trap, 2007.

Table 15. Length data of unmarked and marked steelhead captured in the Puyallup River

screw trap, 2007. Steelhead

Type Attribute Count Mean Min. Max St. dev.

Unmarked Length 17 178 155 235 24.34 Marked Length 44 203 120 237 19.48

Capture Efficiency No capture efficiency tests were completed for steelhead due to the difficulty of obtaining and marking steelhead and error associated with tests of large mobile fish. However capture percentage from Voights Creek Hatchery is supplied for 2004-2007 (Table 16). Capture efficiency was highest in 2005 and lowest in 2007, 0.23% and 0.08% respectively. Table 16. Capture Percentage of Marked Steelhead from Voights Creek Hatchery, 2006.

Mark Type Date Number Released Number Captured Capture Percentage Start End

AD (Voights)* (2007) 13-Apr 16-Apr 128,100 105 0.08% AD (Voights)* (2006) 29-Apr 29-Apr 201,900 270 0.13% AD (Voights)* (2005) 1-Apr 15-Apr 207,400 470 0.23% AD (Voights)**(2004) 4-Apr 30-Apr 231,859 191 0.08%

* = Data gathered from Voights Creek Hatchery ** = Data gathered from Pacific Stares Marine Fisheries Commission

Migration Timing The first steelhead was caught on March 10th and the last on June 6th. There was no defined peak as in previous years; however the trap was pulled during a major high flow event on March 11th – 13th where flows exceeded 8,000 cfs on March 12th. It is possible


39

fish migrated past the trap when the trap was not fishing. To account for this un-fished interval, six steelhead were assumed to have been captured had the trap been running. However, it is possible that greater numbers of steelhead may have left during this event. In previous years the majority of the migrants were caught on periods of high flows between mid April and late May, 77% in 2005 (April 18th - May 30th) and 84% in 2006 (April 21st - May 30th). In 2007, only 44% of the catch occurred between April 21st and May 30th (Figure 33). During this time period, flow remained relatively low and could have contributed to the low numbers of steelhead captured in the trap. It is also possible that steelhead moved out earlier during the large flow event that occurred in early March.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

24-Feb 11-Mar 26-Mar 10-Apr 25-Apr 10-May 25-May 9-Jun

Date

Mea

n Fl

ow (c

fs)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Stee

lehe

ad M

igra

nts

Cap

ture

d

Unmarked STHD (n=25)Mean Flow (cfs)

Figure 34. Daily catch of steelhead migrants with mean daily flows, 2007.


40


41

ASSUMPTIONS Catch Catch recorded during morning and evening trap checks is the actual number of fish outmigrating during night and day periods, respectively. Catch Expansion Our data represents actual and observed samples, except during certain instances. Trap expansion was used on June 5th and 6th for 3.75 hours and 4 hours, respectively, to assume missed catch during the Voights Creek hatchery release. Sub-sampling was used to interpolate for un-fished hours. Data for this period is used as actual catch data and is assumed to be what would have been captured had the trap been operating. Additional expansion measures were taken on several days (see methods) when the trap was not fishing do to any number of circumstances: high flows, high volumes of hatchery fish, trap maintenance, screw stoppers or lack of personnel. During these periods the average capture rate was applied to the dates where fish were missed. We assume these rates would have been the actual catch that was missed, although the “actual” catch rate may or may not be similar to the average.

• The entire outmigration season for all species was sampled (February 24th to August 27th). 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 several periods noted above. During these periods catch numbers were extrapolated to adequately reflect the periods of migration 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 week’s 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 is a function of daylight and water clarity. • There was no difference in capture efficiency between years for the three stratum

used to estimate capture efficiency for the 2004 - 2007 trapping seasons. • Daily production estimates were based upon three capture efficiency groups: 1. Pre-glacial day = 0.627% Capture Efficiency 2. Pre-glacial night and glacial day = 1.984% Capture Efficiency 3. Glacial Night = 4.745% Capture Efficiency


42

Coho • Marked hatchery coho are captured at the same rate as wild coho. • Coho capture rate is not a function of mean daily flow or water clarity. • There was no statistical difference between night and day capture efficiency tests for

the 2004 - 2006 trapping seasons. Chum

• Marked hatchery chum and marked wild chum are not captured at the same rate. Only wild chum mark-recapture tests were used to estimate trap efficiency.

• Environmental conditions (i.e., flow and turbidity) were not significant factors influencing trap efficiency during the chum migration period.

• There was no significant difference between individual wild chum mark-recapture trials conducted from 2004 – 2006.

• The one capture efficiency experiment conducted in 2007 reflects the actual capture efficiency for the entire migration period.

Turbidity, Flow and Temperature

• Ambient light at each secchi measurement remained similar throughout the sampling period, regardless of the time of day.

• 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 USGS website are actual and true flows that are represented at the trap site.

• Water temperature recorded in the livebox at the screw trap site is the true river water temperature.


43

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Turbidity and Flow Although there is no strong evidence that flow effects turbidity, a large-scale shift in turbidity and flow exists during the juvenile migration period of some salmonids. Since we know glacial melting is a seasonal phenomenon in the Puyallup River system, the large-scale shift in turbidity is a result of glacial melt and was reported as so in our report. Turbidity should continue to be measured by secchi depth at each trap check and each capture efficiency test. The importance of other environmental factors such as, air temperature 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. Catch and 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 the increase of capture efficiency of the screw trap in turbid environments and at night for Chinook, we believe the best way to quantify migration is to use daily estimated production because it attempts to normalize all catch days. Evaluation of timing and numbers of outmigrating fish using estimated daily production should continue in future years. Trap Efficiency and Production Estimates Chinook Due to the availability of four years worth of capture efficiency data, we were able to generate a strong relationship between the capture efficiency of the screw trap and three strata (four separate time/river turbidity periods). Therefore, screw trap catches can be separated into pre-glacial, glacial and night, and day periods to more accurately estimate production and migration timing. There is a discrepancy between the data collected from 2004 – 2007 regarding Chinook production results that call into question the importance of diel migration. The 2004 production estimates indicated that more Chinook migrants utilize the cover of darkness for migration under both pre-glacial and glacial conditions of turbidity. The 2005 - 2007 production estimates indicate that more Chinook migrants actually move during the daylight hours. Diel migration should be monitored through both catch and production estimates in future years to better examine this relationship, or lack thereof.


44

Coho Coho mark-recapture tests completed in 2004 - 2006 revealed a relationship between capture efficiency and flow, where capture efficiency increases with increased flow. With the inclusion of the 2007 data the relationship between flow and capture efficiency became less evident. The screw trap was fished at a different site this year due to changes in bathymetry at the old site. Because capture efficiency was lower for coho this year compared to previous years there is likely some effect of trap positioning on capture efficiency, so only capture efficiency tests completed in 2007 were used to estimate migration this year. Capture efficiency tests should continue to further clarify the relationship between capture efficiency of the trap and flow as a predictor of overall production. No mark-recapture tests were completed for subyearling coho captured in the screw trap. Although there were only 44 0+ age coho captured this year, there is evidence this age component 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 numbers of 0+ age coho will continue to be monitored on the Puyallup River. Chum We were able to find a significant relationship between capture efficiency of hatchery chum and flow using all mark-recapture tests from 2004 – 2007; however we were unable to find a relationship between capture efficiency and flow using only wild chum mark-recapture results from 2004 - 2007. This data indicates some discrepancy in the relationship between wild and hatchery capture efficiency experiments, although some data indicates they are not significantly different. Volkhardt et. al. (2006) reported similar data between wild and hatchery Chinook, where there was no detectable difference (α = .05) between groups and a lower capture efficiency for wild fish than for hatchery fish. We found about a 1% difference between the average trap capture efficiency for wild and hatchery chum during the 2004 - 2007 season. Further, hatchery fish were captured at higher efficiencies than their wild counter parts. 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 Over the past several years, the numbers of unmarked steelhead captured in the screw trap have dramatically declined. During this same time period capture efficiency of hatchery steelhead has also declined, indicating perhaps some association between capture efficiency of the trap and catches of unmarked naturally produced steelhead. Fluctuations in catch of natural steelhead in the screw trap may be an artifact of this phenomenon. Trends in the abundance of natural steelhead smolt are continually being monitored.


45

Freshwater Survival Hatchery In-River Mortality Chinook The total estimated mortality rate for 2007 (62%) is lower than 2006 (67%), but higher than 2004 (56%) and 2005 (20%). However, like 2004 and 2006, the mortality rate was greater than 50% of the migrating fall Chinook. Further, in 2004, 2005 and 2007, acclimation pond Chinook were released in the upper watershed. In 2004 and 2005, the mark group belonging to the upper Puyallup River exhibited a higher mortality rate than the mark group belonging exclusively to the Voight’s Creek hatchery, this was not evident in 2007. No distinct external mark group exists for acclimation pond Chinook, however a distinct CWT number does exist, but a thorough evaluation of mortality associated with releases from the upper watershed is difficult without CWT sacrifice at the screw trap. Increased mortality of hatchery mark groups including acclimation pond Chinook could be a reflection of the longer migration route, including the passage through Puget Sound Energy’s Electron facility, but without a unique identification mark on acclimation pond fish we cannot accurately compare mortality between stock groups. In recent years, assessing this issue has been addressed. Coho This year there was an increase in mortality (90%) of hatchery released coho compared to 2005 (65%) and 2006 (75%) and a decrease in the number of hatchery migrants captured, 8,010 (2005), 4,182 (2006) and 847 (2007). Whether or not this is an accurate reflection in survival remains to be seen. The location of the screw trap was different this year compared to previous years, and this year was the first year we did not use a capture efficiency-flow model to estimate production. Because of these factors, it is likely that there is some bias in the production estimate when compared to previous years. Future work will focus on re-establishing a significant relationship between flow and capture efficiency. Unlike 2005 and 2006, there seemed to be no difference in mortality of coho mark groups comprised mostly of acclimation pond fish. Like Chinook, evaluation of smolt survival from the upper watershed through the Electron diversion dam to the screw trap should be evaluated more thoroughly to understand the effects of this migration route. Freshwater Survival of Wild 0+ Age Chinook The 2007 estimate of freshwater survival for 0+ Chinook is far lower than any of the previous three years and is probably the result of the scour event that occurred during the incubation period for Chinook. Low survival rates are explained by high flows on the Skagit River (Volkhardt et. al. 2006), and appear to be the case with the Puyallup River and its major spawning tributary, South Prairie Creek (Figure 35).

R² = 0.7344

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Perc

ent F

resh

wat

er S

urvi

val

Peak incubation flow (cfs) on South Prairie Creek

2003

2004 2005

2006

Figure 35. Correlation between peak incubation flow on South Prairie Creek and freshwater

survival estimates on the Puyallup River, brood years 2003 – 2006. If we ignore this year’s event, estimates of freshwater survival on the Puyallup River are still on the lower end when compared to other watersheds. Studies completed in several watersheds by the WDFW show a wide range of freshwater survival rates for Chinook salmon: 1.7% to 5.0% on Bear Creek, a tributary to Lake Washington (Volkhardt et. al., 2006), 5.3% to 7.3% on the Green River (Seiler et. al., 2004), and 1.2% to 16.7% on the Skagit River (Volkhardt et. al., 2006). 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 Chinook freshwater survival. Mortality No mortalities were recorded on wild or hatchery steelhead, cutthroat trout, wild Chinook or wild coho during screw trap operation. However, screw trap mortalities did include: 33 wild chum, 3 1+ hatchery (Ad) coho, 17 0+ hatchery (Ad) Chinook and 1 lamprey. Measures were taken to reduce predation on chum fry by steelhead smolts through the inclusion of artificial, protective habitat, structures in the live box. Last year we found the inclusion of black, plastic Bio-Rings® strung together and spread over the top of the water column in the live box was most effective in reducing chum mortality and predation. Incidental Catch In addition to the focus species, we also caught 2 cutthroat trout, 44 coho (0+) Ad fry, and 95 wild coho (0+) fry. Non-salmonid species caught in the screw trap included brook lamprey, pacific lamprey, sculpin, long-nose dace, sticklebacks, sunfish, and pumpkinseeds.


46


47

REFERENCES Literature Citations 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.

Marks, E.L., Ladley, R.C., Smith B.E. and Sebastian, T.G. 2007. 2006 – 2007 Annual

Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout Report: Puyallup/White River Watershed—Water Resource Inventory Area 10. Puyallup Tribal Fisheries, Puyallup, 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.

McLemore C. E., F. Everest, W. Humphreys, M. Solazzi. A Floating Trap for Sampling

Downstream Migrant Fishes. United States Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Corvallis, Oregon 1989.

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.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2007 Regional Mark Information System. www.rmis.org 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

SPSS. 2003. SPSS version 12.0 for windows. SPSS Inc. United States Geological Survey. USGS Surface-Water Annual Statistics for Washington,

USGS 12096500 Puyallup River at Alderton, WA. December 2006. <http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/annual/?referred_module=sw&site_no=12096500&por_12096500_1=1179423,00060,1,1992,2006&start_dt=1992&end_dt=2006&year_type=W&format=html_table&date_format=YYYY-MM- DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection_list>

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.

http://www.rmis.org/

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/annual/?referred_module=sw&site_no=12096500&por_12096500_1=1179423,00060,1,1992,2006&start_dt=1992&end_dt=2006&year_type=W&format=html_table&date_format=YYYY-MM-%20DD&rdb_compression=file




Volkhardt G., D. Seiler, S. Neuhauser, L. Kishimoto and C. Kinsel. 2006. 2005 Skagit River 0+ Chinook Production Evaluation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, WA

Volkhardt G., D. Seiler, L. Fleischer, and K. Kiyohara.. 2006. Evaluation of Downstream Migrant Salmon Production in 2005 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, WA

Personal Communications Davis, S. WDFW Voights Creek Hatchery. August 2007 Sharpf, M. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. WDFW Region 6. August 2007. Clemens, John. United States Geological Survey. Media Contact USGS. USGS

Washington Water Science Center. August 2007.


48

Appendix A

Puyallup River Screw Trap Location, Design and Position


Figure A1. The Puyallup River Watershed. Red dot depicts screw trap location at R.M. 10.6, blue dot depicts Voights Creek State Salmon Hatchery at RM 21.9.

Voights Creek Hatchery

A1

Figure A2. Diagram of a rotary screwtrap.


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 2007

Table B1. Fork length data of unmarked age 0+ Chinook migrants, 2007.

Dates Stat Week Average Fork Length (mm) Max Min Standard

Deviation N

2/19/07 - 2/25/07 8 41 - - - 1

2/26/07 - 3/4/07 9 39 41 36 1.83 6 3/5/07 - 3/11/07 10 41 45 38 2.99 4

3/12/07 - 3/18/07 11 41 45 39 2.55 9 3/19/07 - 3/25/07 12 49 49 49 - 1 3/26/07 - 4/1/07 13 45 45 45 - 1 4/2/07 - 4/8/07 14 41 41 41 0.50 2 4/9/07 - 4/15/07 15 - - - - -

4/16/07 - 4/22/07 16 47 47 47 - 1 4/23/07 - 4/29/07 17 49 51 46 3.54 2 4/30/07 - 5/6/07 18 73 73 72 0.71 2 5/7/07 - 5/13/07 19 65 76 53 16.26 2

5/14/07 - 5/20/07 20 74 82 67 5.61 5 5/21/07 - 5/27/07 21 71 85 55 9.77 7

5/28/07 - 6/3/07 22 90 102 80 5.72 23

6/4/07 - 6/10/07 23 88 110 72 7.49 40

6/11/07 - 6/17/07 24 88 94 81 4.95 7

6/18/07 - 6/24/07 25 95 102 91 4.66 5

6/25/07 - 7/1/07 26 95 100 87 5.68 5

7/2/07 - 7/8/07 27 - - - - -

7/9/07 - 7/15/07 28 94 102 86 7.33 4

7/16/07 - 7/22/07 29 78 80 75 2.89 3

7/23/07 - 7/29/07 30 88 90 85 3.54 2

7/30/07 - 8/5/07 31 90 - - - 1


B1

Table B2. Fork length data of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2007

Dates Stat WeekAverage

Fork Length

Max Min Standard Deviation N

2/26/07 - 3/4/07 9 103 103 103 - 1 3/5/07 - 3/11/07 10 103 103 103 - 1

3/12/07 - 3/18/07 11 89 89 89 - 1 3/19/07 - 3/25/07 12 - - - - -

3/26/07 - 4/1/07 13 93 101 85 7.33 4 4/2/07 - 4/8/07 14 108 130 91 16.64 4 4/9/07 - 4/15/07 15 119 130 100 13.49 4

4/16/07 - 4/22/07 16 112 128 87 21.73 3 4/23/07 - 4/29/07 17 114 139 98 16.63 5 4/30/07 - 5/6/07 18 111 130 92 10.26 16 5/7/07 - 5/13/07 19 110 140 74 11.95 43

5/14/07 - 5/20/07 20 108 140 88 8.10 46 5/21/07 - 5/27/07 21 107 120 92 6.41 30

5/28/07 - 6/3/07 22 111 161 81 13.34 38

6/4/07 - 6/10/07 23 105 127 85 9.11 39

6/11/07 - 6/17/07 24 95 102 85 7.80 4

6/18/07 - 6/24/07 25 99 107 90 8.10 4

6/25/07 - 7/1/07 26 100 107 92 10.61 2

7/2/07 - 7/8/07 27 - - - - -

7/9/07 - 7/15/07 28 101 109 96 4.04 7

7/16/07 - 7/22/07 29 110 120 101 9.50 3


B2

Table B3. Fork length data for wild chum migrants, 2007

Dates Stat Week Average

Fork Length (mm)

Max Min Standard Deviation N

2/19/07 - 2/25/07 8 - - - - - 2/26/07 - 3/4/07 9 38 41 34 4.95 2 3/5/07 - 3/11/07 10 37 39 35 2.00 3

3/12/07 - 3/18/07 11 37 39 35 1.41 15 3/19/07 - 3/25/07 12 36 39 34 2.07 5 3/26/07 - 4/1/07 13 38 41 36 1.92 19 4/2/07 - 4/8/07 14 38 47 32 2.18 138 4/9/07 - 4/15/07 15 37 40 33 1.78 51

4/16/07 - 4/22/07 16 38 49 30 2.15 150 4/23/07 - 4/29/07 17 37 52 31 2.46 208 4/30/07 - 5/6/07 18 39 52 31 4.37 59 5/7/07 - 5/13/07 19 39 56 33 3.96 186

5/14/07 - 5/20/07 20 44 60 33 6.69 161 5/21/07 - 5/27/07 21 46 82 38 9.90 21 5/28/07 - 6/3/07 22 55 82 41 8.94 43 6/4/07 - 6/10/07 23 55 72 36 11.41 14

6/11/07 - 6/17/07 24 45 49 41 3.05 5


B3

Table B4. Fork length data of unmarked steelhead migrants, 2007

Dates Stat Week Average Fork Length (mm) Max Min Standard

Deviation N

3/5/07 - 3/11/07 10 156 - - - 1 3/12/07 - 3/18/07 11 230 235 225 7.07 2 3/19/07 - 3/25/07 12 - - - - - 3/26/07 - 4/1/07 13 - - - - - 4/2/07 - 4/8/07 14 - - - - -

4/9/07 - 4/15/07 15 - - - - - 4/16/07 - 4/22/07 16 164 - - - 1 4/23/07 - 4/29/07 17 - - - - - 4/30/07 - 5/6/07 18 161 - - - 1 5/7/07 - 5/13/07 19 176 191 156 13.44 5 5/14/07 - 5/20/07 20 180 205 155 35.36 2 5/21/07 - 5/27/07 21 170 177 162 10.61 2 5/28/07 - 6/3/07 22 190 - - - 1 6/4/07 - 6/10/07 23 160 161 159 1.41 2


B4

Appendix C

Mark Recapture Data for Chinook, Coho and Chum,

Puyallup River Screw Trap, 2004 - 2007

Table C1. Capture efficiency results for hatchery Chinook, 2004 - 2007.

Release Date Year Release

Time Day or Night

Glacial Period*

Number Released

Number Recaptured

Capture Efficiency

Secchi Depth (cm)

Flow (cfs)

5/19/2004 4 1500 D 1 800 5 0.00625 104 1,480 5/25/2004 4 1530 D 1 601 5 0.008319 150 1,110 6/1/2004 4 1600 D 1 628 5 0.007962 65 2,740 6/4/2004 4 1550 D 1 609 5 0.00821 82 1,980 6/7/2004 4 1615 D 1 610 5 0.008197 66 2,370

6/10/2004 4 2015 N 1 613 2 0.003263 94 2,050 6/15/2004 4 2200 N 1 610 9 0.014754 113 1,750 6/17/2004 4 2230 N 1 595 3 0.005042 130 1,610 6/22/2004 4 1630 D 2 604 5 0.008278 34 1,640 6/23/2004 4 2200 N 2 610 20 0.032787 13 1,880 7/1/2004 4 2115 N 2 608 36 0.059211 28 1,390 7/6/2004 4 1730 D 2 602 15 0.024917 32 1,370 7/7/2004 4 2200 N 2 615 30 0.04878 30 1,310

7/12/2004 4 1745 D 2 609 18 0.029557 30 1,070 7/13/2004 4 2145 N 2 419 23 0.054893 18 1,270 5/2/2005 5 2107 N 1 1,011 26 0.025717 139 1,700 5/3/2005 5 1115 D 1 1,017 1 0.000983 163 1,810

5/17/2005 5 2130 N 1 855 17 0.019883 72 2,440 5/18/2005 5 1145 D 1 1,025 7 0.006829 84 2,310 6/7/2005 5 2115 N 1 806 19 0.023573 144 1,380

6/22/2005 5 2045 N 2 804 27 0.033582 33 1,750 6/23/2005 5 1115 D 2 804 5 0.006219 29 1,740 7/12/2005 5 1145 D 2 812 27 0.033251 29 1,340 7/12/2005 5 2045 N 2 828 53 0.06401 28 1,210 4/18/2006 6 2052 N 1 512 17 0.03320 206 1,630 4/28/2006 6 1000 D 1 556 1 0.00180 175 1,530 5/15/2006 6 2145 N 1 801 16 0.01998 100 1,476 5/25/2006 6 2105 N 1 810 28 0.03457 79 1,879 6/13/2006 6 2130 N 2 591 23 0.03892 40 2,172 6/14/2006 6 945 D 2 605 12 0.01983 43 2,333 3/8/2007 7 1830 N 1 503 11 0.02187 200 2,420

4/10/2007 7 2004 N 1 522 16 0.03065 180 1,890 5/8/2007 7 2130 N 1 511 8 0.01566 135 1,480

5/11/2007 7 1400 D 1 493 14 0.02840 200 1,430 6/6/2007 7 1120 D 2 502 14 0.02789 34 1,850 6/7/2007 7 2130 N 1 265 2 0.00755 61 1,290

6/11/2007 7 2145 N 1 385 4 0.01039 63 1,610 * 1 = non-glacial period, 2 = glacial period


C1

Table C2. Capture efficiency results for hatchery coho, 2004 - 2007.

Date Year Time of Release

Number Released

Number Recaptured

Secchi Depth (cm)

Flow (cfs)

Capture Efficiency

4/14/2004 04 1930 208 3 150 1,010 0.01440 5/3/2004 04 2030 211 4 92 1,230 0.01900 3/21/2005 05 1715 502 4 138 759 0.00800 3/23/2005 05 1145 513 6 138 704 0.01170 3/29/2005 05 1330 516 10 79 2,470 0.01940 3/31/2005 05 1711 513 11 155 1,590 0.02140 4/13/2005 05 1915 511 9 162 1,240 0.01760 4/14/2005 05 1215 516 10 195 1,260 0.01940 4/17/2006 06 1700 506 7 206 1,790 0.01380 4/27/2006 06 2045 520 7 188 1,400 0.01350 5/15/2006 06 2145 494 6 100 1,476 0.01210 3/21/2007 07 1945 804 9 133 2,730 0.01119 4/12/07 07 2030 611 6 203 1,480 0.00982


C2

Table C3. Capture efficiency results for hatchery and wild chum, 2004 - 2007.

Date Year Time of Release

Day or Night

Hatchery or Wild

Number Released

Number Recaptured

Secchi Depth (cm)

Flow (cfs)

Capture Efficiency

3/31/2004 04 800 D H 534 20 150 1340 0.03745 4/1/2004 04 1900 N H 539 26 150 1230 0.04824 4/6/2004 04 2010 N H 518 24 150 832 0.04633 4/7/2004 04 900 D H 461 20 150 832 0.04338 4/9/2004 04 1900 N W 156 2 150 817 0.01282 4/15/2004 04 850 D H 519 23 150 964 0.04432 4/16/2004 04 2000 N H 514 15 150 840 0.02918 4/19/2004 04 1945 N W 233 6 150 683 0.02575 4/28/2004 04 2010 N W 200 4 150 940 0.02000 5/10/2004 04 2000 N W 157 7 150 1000 0.04459 5/18/2004 04 1945 N W 564 15 150 940 0.02660 5/25/2004 04 1745 N W 151 1 150 1100 0.00662 6/1/2004 04 1945 N H 518 7 65 2570 0.01351 3/16/2005 05 1733 N H 540 19 138 704 0.03519 3/19/2005 05 1030 D H 525 26 138 677 0.04952 3/27/2005 05 1710 N H 531 3 23 4480 0.00565 3/28/2005 05 915 D H 515 21 40 3750 0.04102 4/19/2005 05 1115 D H 525 7 192 1810 0.01333 4/20/2005 05 1830 N H 525 20 192 1550 0.03810 5/11/2005 05 2040 N W 526 6 132 2080 0.01154 5/13/2005 05 917 D H 530 8 165 1810 0.01518 5/19/2005 05 2050 N H 535 5 124 2400 0.00943 4/12/2006 06 2030 N H 119 3 201 1410 0.02521 4/19/2006 06 2035 N H 492 17 198 1378 0.03455 4/24/2006 06 2130 N H 518 4 195 1450 0.00772 5/1/2006 06 2130 N W 58 0 198 1537 0.00000 5/10/2006 06 2100 N W 51 1 190 1378 0.01961 5/24/2006 06 2030 N W 51 1 79 2136 0.01961 4/2/2007 07 1945 N H 506 21 154 1940 0.04150 4/4/2007 07 1945 N W 27 0 180 1650 0.00000 4/8/2007 07 2030 N W 53 0 130 1960 0.00000 4/13/2007 07 2100 N W 48 0 200 1430 0.00000 4/16/2007 07 2000 N H 523 27 210 1350 0.05163 4/25/2007 07 2300 N W 114 4 192 1180 0.03509 5/18/2007 07 2100 N W 60 0 200 1270 0.00000


C3

Puyallup Tribe of Indians Smolt Trap Report

Documents

Transcript of Puyallup Tribe of Indians Smolt Trap Report