U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Evaluation of Alternative Commercial Fishing...
-
Upload
arleen-cobb -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Evaluation of Alternative Commercial Fishing...
U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey
Evaluation of Alternative Commercial Fishing Gear in the Lower Columbia River, 2013: Behavior and Movement Patterns of Chinook Salmon and
Coho Salmon
Tobias Kock and Theresa Liedtke
February 24, 2014
Objectives Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
1. Describe movement patterns of radio-tagged tule Chinook salmon, bright Chinook salmon, and coho salmon after capture in a beach seine or purse seine.
2. Describe and quantify intended locations of tagged fish.
3. If possible, assess survival of tagged fish after capture.
Radiotelemetry Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Sample size target = 100 fish/group
SpeciesBeach seine Purse seine
Fisher 1 Fisher 2 Fisher 3 Fisher 4
Tule Chinook salmon 100 100 100 100
Bright Chinook salmon 100 100 100 100
Coho salmon 100 100 100 100
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Hal
f 95
per
cen
t co
nfi
den
ce in
terv
al
Number of fish
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.1898% survival95% survival 90% survival75% survival
Hal
f 95
per
cen
t co
nfi
den
ce in
terv
al
Number of fish
0 100 200 300 400 5000.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
Number of Fish
Hal
f 95
% c
.i.
Radiotelemetry Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Sample size target = 100 fish/group
Each fish tagged with:(a) radio transmitter
(i) detected with telemetry receiver(ii) tag recovery report
(b) PIT-tag
3-volt model: coho salmon
7-volt model: Chinook salmon
Radiotelemetry Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Sample size target = 100 fish/group
Each fish tagged with:(a) radio transmitter
(i) detected with telemetry receiver(ii) tag recovery report
(b) PIT-tag
Monitoring techniques:(a) fixed sites(b) mobile tracking(c) PIT-tag array(d) tag recovery reports
Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
BonnevilleDam
AB
CDEG
Washougal,WA
Cascade Locks,OR
WillametteRiver
SandyRiver
WashougalRiver
F
= fixed sites
= fish collection/tagging reachF
Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Fish ladders
Forebay
Tailrace/Tanner Cr.
Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
McCord Cr./Moffett Cr.
Hamilton Cr.
Dodson/Skamania Landing
Woodward Cr.
Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Washougal
Lady Island
Mobile Tracking Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
3 reaches(1)Bonneville to Cape Horn(2) Cape Horn to Washougal(3) Washougal to mouth of Willamette River
BonnevilleDam
Cape HornWashougal
I-205 Bridge
I-5 Bridge
ScheduleAugust – September: dailyOctober: 5 d/week; none during 10/1-10/16November: 5 total events
Tagging Numbers Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
SpeciesBeach seine Purse seine
Fisher 1 Fisher 2 Fisher 3 Fisher 4
Tule Chinook salmon 100/92 100/84 100/66 100/91
Bright Chinook salmon 100/120 100/118 100/150 100/118
Coho salmon 100/153 100/57 100/106 100/59
Species Beach seine Purse seine Total
Tule Chinook salmon 176 157 333
Bright Chinook salmon 238 268 506
Coho salmon 210 165 375
Total = 624 590 1,214
Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Telemetry detections: 99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected 98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected 92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected
n = 1
n = 9
n = 30
Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Telemetry detections: 99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected 98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected 92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected
PIT-tag detections: 46% TCHK detected 63% BCHK detected 59% COHO detected
Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Telemetry detections: 99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected 98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected 92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected
PIT-tag detections: 46% TCHK detected 63% BCHK detected 59% COHO detected
Tag recoveries: 27% TCHK 19% BCHK 16% COHO
Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Telemetry detections: 99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected 98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected 92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected
PIT-tag detections: 46% TCHK detected 63% BCHK detected 59% COHO detected
Tag recoveries: 27% TCHK 19% BCHK 16% COHO
Spit tags 0 TCHK 0 BCHK 13 COHO
Detection Probabilities and Spit Tags
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Upstream telemetry detections 99.3% TCHK 99.3% BCHK 94.4% COHO
Washougal
Release
Bonneville
Detection Probabilities and Spit Tags
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Upstream telemetry detections 99.3% TCHK 99.3% BCHK 94.4% COHO
Washougal
Release
Bonneville
Downstream telemetry detections 97.7% TCHK 99.1% BCHK 90.2% COHO
Detection Probabilities and Spit Tags
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Upstream telemetry detections 99.3% TCHK 99.3% BCHK 94.4% COHO
Downstream telemetry detections 97.7% TCHK 99.1% BCHK 90.2% COHO
Bonneville PIT-tag detections 95.2% TCHK 97.1% BCHK 95.9% COHO
Washougal
Release
Bonneville
Travel Times Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60Tule Chinook salmonBright Chinook salmonCoho salmon
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 300
10
20
30
40
50
60
Per
cen
t o
f fi
sh
Elapsed time (d)
Release to Bonneville Dam
Release to Cascade Locks
Release to Washougal
Behavior and Movement Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
BonnevilleDam
Washougal
Releasesite
12
3
5
4
6
Passeddam
Remained in study area
Downstreamof
Washougal
Behavior and Movement by Origin Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
BonnevilleDam
Washougal
TCHK29%
44%26%
BCHK15%
62%21%
COHO26%
53%14%
Behavior and Movement by Origin Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
BonnevilleDam
Washougal
TCHK29%
44%26%
BCHK15%
62%21%
COHO26%
53%14%
Total = 88Wild = 43Hatchery = 45
Total = 105Wild = 68Hatchery = 37
Total = 51Wild = 30Hatchery = 21
Total = 97Wild = 38Hatchery = 59 Total = 147
Wild = 55Hatchery = 92
Total = 77Wild = 49Hatchery = 28
Total = 97Wild = 34Hatchery = 63
Total = 312Wild = 195Hatchery = 117
Total = 197Wild = 151Hatchery = 46
Treatment vs Control Groups Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Treatment vs Control Groups Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
All Fish
TCHK: 333
BCHK: 506
COHO: 375
WA Ladder
TCHK: 89
BCHK: 114
COHO: 114
WA Ladder
TCHK: 87%
BCHK: 89%
COHO: 79%
All Fish
TCHK: 44%
BCHK: 62%
COHO: 53%
Fate above the dam
Intended Migratory Locations Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Tributary Mainstem Columbia River HatcheryWells Dam: 1 (<1 percent)
Rocky Reach Dam: 2 (<1 percent)Priest Rapids Dam: 3 (<1 percent) Priest Rapids Hatchery: 3 (<1 percent)
Yakima River: 1 (<1 percent) Hanford Reach: 1 (<1 percent) Ringold Hatchery: 1 (<1 percent)Snake River: 3 (1 percent)
McNary Dam: 10 (3 percent)Deschutes River: 4 (1 percent) Zone 6: 11 (3 percent)
The Dalles Dam: 2 (<1 percent)Klickitat River: 3 (<1 percent)
Spring Creek Hatchery: 17 (5 percent)Little White Salmon River: 4 (1 percent) Cascade Locks: 51 (15 percent)
Wind River: 1 (<1 percent) Bonneville Dam Forebay: 15 (4 percent)Herman Creek: 2 (<1 percent) Bonneville Dam: 4 (1 percent)
Bonneville Hatchery: 30 (9 percent)Tanner Creek: 5 (1 percent)
Oneonta Creek: 1 (<1 percent) Zone 5: 53 (16 percent)Multnomah Creek: 3 (<1 percent)
Number of fish released = 333Not detected = 1 (<1 percent)
Zone 4: 56 (17 percent)Washougal River: 9 (3 percent)
Sandy River: 10 (3 percent)Willamette River: 2 (<1 percent)
Lewis River: 5 (1 percent) Zone 3: 6 (2 percent)Cowlitz River: 7 (2 percent) Zone 2: 6 (2 percent)
TCHK
Tributaries Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
TCHK BCHK COHO
Yakima R. (1) Methow R. (1) Wenatchee R. (1)
Snake R. (3) Snake R. (10) Yakima R. (1)
Deschutes R. (4) Umatilla R. (3) Snake R. (1)
Klickitat R. (3) Deschutes R. (4) Umatilla R. (2)
Little White Salmon R. (4) Klickitat R. (4) Deschutes R. (2)
Wind R. (1) White Salmon R. (1) Klickitat R. (13)
Herman Cr. (2) Little White Salmon R. (14) Hood R. (1)
Tanner Cr. (5) Herman Cr. (1) Little White Salmon R. (1)
Oneonta Cr. (1) Moffett Cr. (2) Herman Cr. (1)
Multnomah Cr. (3) Multnomah Cr. (3) Tanner Cr. (4)
Washougal R. (9) Washougal R. (4) Hamilton Cr. (2)
Sandy R. (10) Sandy R. (3) Moffett Cr. (1)
Willamette R. (2) Willamette R. (3) Oneonta Cr. (3)
Lewis R. (5) Lewis R. (1) Multnomah Cr. (1)
Cowlitz R. (7) Cowlitz R. (3) Washougal R. (3)
Sandy R. (5)
Clackamas R. (1)
Lewis R. (6)
Mainstem Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
TCHK BCHK COHO
Wells Dam (1) Wells Dam (6)
Rocky Reach Dam (2) Rocky Reach Dam (5)
Priest Rapids Dam (3) Rock Island Dam (3)
Hanford Reach (1) Priest Rapids Dam (16)
McNary Dam (10) Hanford Reach (3)
Zone 6 (11) McNary Dam (50) McNary Dam (5)
The Dalles Dam (2) Zone 6 (12) Zone 6 (8)
Cascade Locks (51) The Dalles Dam (22) The Dalles Dam (7)
Bonneville Dam Forebay (15) Cascade Locks (86) Cascade Locks (105)
Bonneville Dam (4) Bonneville Dam Forebay (9) Bonneville Dam Forebay (33)
Zone 5 (53) Bonneville Dam (3) Bonneville Dam (40)
Zone 4 (56) Zone 5 (56) Zone 5 (29)
Zone 3 (6) Zone 4 (106) Zone 4 (38)
Zone 2 (6) Zone 3 (5) Zone 3 (1)
Zone 2 (1)
Hatcheries Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
TCHK BCHK COHO
Priest Rapids Hatchery (3) Priest Rapids Hatchery (34) Dworshak Hatchery (1)
Ringold Hatchery (1) Ringold Hatchery (7)
Spring Creek Hatchery (17) Spring Creek Hatchery (1)
Bonneville Hatchery (30) Bonneville Hatchery (18) Bonneville Hatchery (29)
Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Slide 20Slide 22 Slide 9
Fast travel times
Substantial#’s
downstream
Limited downstreammonitoring
Don’t Use Survival Model
Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Detection history AliveAlive or
dead
Fish moved upstream and arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam x
Fish was harvested in a fishery xFish returned to a hatchery xFish entered a spawning tributary xFish was observed moving > 4 d after release xFish was recovered dead < 4 d of release xFish was not observed moving > 4 d after release xFish was never detected x
Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
TCHK
Description
Beach seine Purse seine
Overall
Elapsed time from release Overall
Elapsed time from release
< 4 d > 4 d < 4 d > 4 d
Arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam 49% (87) 15 72 45% (71) 24 47
Harvested in fishery 7% (13) 3 10 5% (8) 3 5
Returned to hatchery 10% (17) 3 14 8% (13) 1 12
Entered a tributary 13% (22) 1 21 11% (17) 1 16
Observed moving > 4 d after release 14% (25) 0 25 19% (30) 0 30
Total fish that survived capture 93% (164) 22 142 89% (139) 29 110
Not moving > 4 d after release 6% (11) 11 0 11% (18) 18 0
Confirmed mortality 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not detected 1% (1) 1 0 0 0 0
Total fish that may not have survived 7% (12) 12 0 11% (18) 18 0
Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
BCHK
Description
Beach seine Purse seine
Overall
Elapsed time from release Overall
Elapsed time from release
< 4 d > 4 d < 4 d > 4 d
Arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam 60% (142) 32 110 70% (188) 40 148
Harvested in fishery 3% (8) 2 6 3% (8) 1 7
Returned to hatchery 3% (8) 0 8 2% (6) 0 6
Entered a tributary 3% (7) 1 6 2% (6) 0 6
Observed moving > 4 d after release 17% (41) 0 41 12% (32 0 32
Total fish that survived capture 87% (206) 35 171 90% (240) 41 199
Not moving > 4 d after release 11% (27) 27 0 9% (23) 23 0
Confirmed mortality <1% (1) 1 0 0 0 0
Not detected 2% (4) 4 0 2% (5) 5 0
Total fish that may not have survived 13% (32) 32 0 10% (28) 28 0
Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
COHO
Description
Beach seine Purse seine
Overall
Elapsed time from release Overall
Elapsed time from release
< 4 d > 4 d < 4 d > 4 d
Arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam 62% (130) 78 52 58% (96) 49 47
Harvested in fishery 2% (5) 3 2 1% (2) 2 0
Returned to hatchery 9% (18) 2 16 7% (12) 2 10
Entered a tributary 8% (16) 4 12 5% (9) 0 9
Observed moving > 4 d after release 4% (8) 0 8 8% (13) 0 13
Total fish that survived capture 84% (177) 87 90 80% (132) 53 79
Not moving > 4 d after release 8% (17) 17 0 12% (19) 19 0
Confirmed mortality 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not detected 8% (16) 16 0 8% (12) 14 0
Total fish that may not have survived 16% (33) 33 0 20% (33) 33 0
Fisher Differences Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Description
Beach seine Purse seine
Fisher 1 Fisher 2 Fisher 3 Fisher 4
Tule Chinook salmon
Probable survivors 85 (92%) 79 (94%) 59 (89%) 80 (88%)
Unknown fate 7 (8%) 5 (6%) 7 (11%) 11 (12%)
Fisher’s exact test result = p = 0.769 p = 0.806
Bright Chinook salmon
Probable survivors 105 (88%) 101 (85%) 131 (87%) 109 (92%)
Unknown fate 14 (12%) 18 (15%) 19 (13%) 9 (8%)
Fisher’s exact test result = p = 0.569 p = 0.228
Tule Chinook salmon
Probable survivors 135 (88%) 42 (74%) 91 (86%) 41 (70%)
Unknown fate 18 (12%) 15 (26%) 15 (14%) 18 (30%)
Fisher’s exact test result = p = 0.018 p = 0.015
Behavior of Questionable Fish Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Behavior of Questionable Fish Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Species Behavior group Beach seine Purse seineTule Chinook salmon 11 18
Upstream only (2) 1 2Upstream, then downstream (3) 0 0Downstream (4) 1 0Upstream, then downstream, passed Washougal (5) 0 2Downstream, then passed Washougal (6) 9 14
Bright Chinook salmon 27 23Upstream only (2) 2 0Upstream, then downstream (3) 0 0Downstream (4) 0 2Upstream, then downstream, passed Washougal (5) 0 1Downstream, then passed Washougal (6) 25 20
Coho salmon 17 19Upstream only (2) 3 4Upstream, then downstream (3) 0 0Downstream (4) 1 3Upstream, then downstream, passed Washougal (5) 0 1Downstream, then passed Washougal (6) 13 11
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Many fish didn’t pass Bonneville Dam 55% TCHK 36% BCHK 37% COHO
Overview of Study
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Many fish didn’t pass Bonneville Dam 55% TCHK 36% BCHK 37% COHO
TRT and CON differences
Overview of Study
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Many fish didn’t pass Bonneville Dam 55% TCHK 36% BCHK 37% COHO
TRT and CON differences
Some PIT-tagged fish are missed at Bonneville 95.2% TCHK 97.1% BCHK 95.9% COHO
Overview of Study
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Effects of Government shutdown Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking However, no apparent data gaps
Coho Salmon Uncertainties
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Effects of Government shutdown Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking However, no apparent data gaps
Weaker transmitters Lower detection % More undetected fish
Coho Salmon Uncertainties
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Effects of Government shutdown Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking However, no apparent data gaps
Weaker transmitters Lower detection % More undetected fish
Higher spit rate
Coho Salmon Uncertainties
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Effects of Government shutdown Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking However, no apparent data gaps
Weaker transmitters Lower detection % More undetected fish
Higher spit rate
Fisher differences Variable catch Differences in probable survival
Coho Salmon Uncertainties
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Effects of Government shutdown Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking However, no apparent data gaps
Weaker transmitters Lower detection % More undetected fish
Higher spit rate
Fisher differences Variable catch Differences in probable survival
Biology
Coho Salmon Uncertainties
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Survival Probable survival underestimates true survival
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Survival Probable survival underestimates true survival
Estimates are encouraging 89 – 93% TCHK 87 – 90% BCHK 80 – 84% COHO
Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions
Survival Probable survival underestimates true survival
Estimates are encouraging 89 – 93% TCHK 87 – 90% BCHK 80 – 84% COHO
2013 data useful for designing future survival studies Fewer sites: Skamania Landing to Bridge of the Gods More sites: Mainstem Columbia R. and tributaries downstream of Washougal High detection probabilities = precise estimates, fewer fish
Questions Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions