WRIA 8 Fish in/Fish out Monitoring Summary Hans B. Berge King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Presentation.

WRIA 8 Fish in/Fish out Monitoring WRIA 8 Fish in/Fish out Monitoring SummarySummary

Hans B. Berge

King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks

Water and Land Resources Division

Presentation to the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council

17 November 2011

BackgroundBackground

Chinook listed as Chinook listed as threatenedthreatened under under ESA in 1999 in Puget Sound ESUESA in 1999 in Puget Sound ESU

Science-based conservation plan for Science-based conservation plan for WRIA 8 adopted by NOAA in 2005 WRIA 8 adopted by NOAA in 2005

Conservation Plan strongly endorses Conservation Plan strongly endorses monitoring using VSP parameters to monitoring using VSP parameters to identify goals and objectives, and to identify goals and objectives, and to measure effectiveness of plan measure effectiveness of plan implementation (this project)implementation (this project)

InterdependentInterdependent parameters for evaluating viability: parameters for evaluating viability:

Viable Salmonid PopulationViable Salmonid Population(VSP)(VSP)

AbundanceAbundance How many fish are there at various life stages?How many fish are there at various life stages?

ProductivityProductivity Is the population growing?Is the population growing?

Distribution (spatial structure)Distribution (spatial structure) Don't put all your fish in one streamDon't put all your fish in one stream

DiversityDiversity How many life history strategies are present? How many life history strategies are present?

Measures of genetic diversityMeasures of genetic diversity

MonitoringProgram

VSP Parameters

Abundance Productivity Distribution Diversity

SpawnerSurveys

Escapement,Redd counts

Estimates of total eggs,

Prespawning mortality

Relative use of streams and rivers in core, satellite and

episodic areas

Age structure, Hatchery or

Natural origin

Fry/SmoltTrapping

Juvenile abundance

Egg to smolt survival (%)

Relative comparison of Bear vs. Cedar

Fry vs. smolt numbers,

migration timing

PIT-TagMonitoring

Migration survival estimates

Relative use and importance of

migration areas

Migration timing to ocean

•1.4 M people •Ocean-type, Fall Chinook threatened in 1999•2 Chinook hatcheries (~2.5 M per year)•Mass marking began in 1999 (>95%)•Land use includes urban, ag, rural res, forest

MethodsMethods

Timing and AbundanceTiming and Abundance Biological characteristicsBiological characteristics ProductivityProductivity DiversityDiversity

Timing and AbundanceTiming and Abundance

Live counts 1x per week in all streams with ChinookLive counts 1x per week in all streams with Chinook Live and Dead countsLive and Dead counts

Carcass samplingCarcass sampling Redd Identification and location Redd Identification and location

(2-3x per week)(2-3x per week) AnalysisAnalysis

Area-under-the-curve (AUC)Area-under-the-curve (AUC) Redd counts (2.5 fish/redd) to Redd counts (2.5 fish/redd) to

reduce errorreduce error Redd density (GPS location)Redd density (GPS location)

Live Counts

Redds

Sockeye

Chinook

Presence of Hatchery Fish on Presence of Hatchery Fish on Spawning GroundsSpawning Grounds

Adipose FinAdipose Fin

Photos from NMT website: http://www.nmt-inc.com

Length, Age, and Pre-Spawn Length, Age, and Pre-Spawn Mortality (egg retention)Mortality (egg retention)

ProductivityProductivity

Potential egg deposition (#redds x fecundity) Potential egg deposition (#redds x fecundity) based on age informationbased on age information

Migrants (scoop and rotary screw traps at Migrants (scoop and rotary screw traps at mouth of Cedar River and Bear Creek)mouth of Cedar River and Bear Creek)

PIT Tagging at screw trap and interrogated PIT Tagging at screw trap and interrogated at Locksat Locks

Returning adults (unmarked component of Returning adults (unmarked component of appropriate age)appropriate age)

ResultsResults

TimingTiming

0

50

100

150

200

2501

5-A

ug

22

-Au

g

29

-Au

g

5-S

ep

12

-Sep

19

-Sep

26

-Sep

3-O

ct

10

-Oct

17

-Oct

24

-Oct

31

-Oct

7-N

ov

14

-No

v

Cedar River Bear/Cottage

AbundanceAbundanceCedar River and Bear Creek AUC Escapement Estimate

1964-2010

Broodyear

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

AU

C E

stim

ate

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Bear CreekCedar River

CompositionCompositionPercentage of marked female Chinook on the natural

spawning grounds in WRIA 8 Basins

Broodyear

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Per

cen

t

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Bear CreekCedar RiverIssaquah Creek

Pre-Spawning MortalityPre-Spawning Mortality

Marked females have a higher incidence of Marked females have a higher incidence of PSM in each basin (chi sq; P<.001)PSM in each basin (chi sq; P<.001)

7.7% vs. 22.2% of marked females 7.7% vs. 22.2% of marked females

CWT ResultsCWT Results

Hatchery strays from:Hatchery strays from: Kitsap Peninsula (Gorst Ck, Grovers Ck)Kitsap Peninsula (Gorst Ck, Grovers Ck) Cowlitz River HatcheryCowlitz River Hatchery Tulalip BayTulalip Bay University of WashingtonUniversity of Washington Issaquah Creek (majority)Issaquah Creek (majority) Elliott Bay Net pen releasesElliott Bay Net pen releases Soos CreekSoos Creek

ProductivityProductivity

What does it mean?What does it mean? Survival from life stage to life stageSurvival from life stage to life stage Full life cycle survival (redd to redd)Full life cycle survival (redd to redd) Population replacement (redd to redd Population replacement (redd to redd

ratio >1.0)ratio >1.0)

Juvenile Survival Cedar RiverJuvenile Survival Cedar River

Jan-April small fry (45mm) migration with later (May-June) larger parr (60-100mm) migration

Cedar River fry and parr survival percentages bybroodyear

Broodyear

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Per

cen

t S

urv

ival

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

FryParr

Juvenile Survival Bear CreekJuvenile Survival Bear CreekBear Creek fry and parr survival percentages by

broodyear

Broodyear

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Per

cen

t S

urv

ival

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

FryParr

Cedar River Redd to ReddCedar River Redd to ReddRedd to redd productivity for

Cedar River Chinook

Broodyear

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Pro

du

ctiv

ity

0

2

4

6

Recovery plan goal

Replacement

BenefitsBenefits Improved knowledge of speciesImproved knowledge of species Monitoring data used to focus actions in the planMonitoring data used to focus actions in the plan Auditing of restoration projectsAuditing of restoration projects

Rearing capacity limiting in the Cedar River for smolt productionRearing capacity limiting in the Cedar River for smolt production Pooling resources across jurisdictions for shared benefitsPooling resources across jurisdictions for shared benefits

In-kind contributions increasing each year for projectsIn-kind contributions increasing each year for projects Collaboration and training with the Cedar River Naturalists, Collaboration and training with the Cedar River Naturalists,

SalmonWatchers, Water Tenders, and Salmon SeesonSalmonWatchers, Water Tenders, and Salmon Seeson Raising awareness in the public by providing accurate informationRaising awareness in the public by providing accurate information

Observation of in season problems for salmonObservation of in season problems for salmon Blockages/beaver dams, fish kills, etc.Blockages/beaver dams, fish kills, etc.

Interaction and educational opportunities with private property Interaction and educational opportunities with private property ownersowners

Removing pumps from streams, landscaping, agency contact Removing pumps from streams, landscaping, agency contact informationinformation

Importance for StakeholdersImportance for Stakeholders

Chinook life history requires consistent Chinook life history requires consistent long-term annual monitoring to understand long-term annual monitoring to understand status and trends in population dynamics status and trends in population dynamics in order to compare to goals for recoveryin order to compare to goals for recovery

Predictive relationships between fish in Predictive relationships between fish in and fish out data will help devise possible and fish out data will help devise possible future management actionsfuture management actions

Understanding how projects relate to Understanding how projects relate to productivity is essential for de-listing productivity is essential for de-listing speciesspecies

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments

WRIA 8 Technical Committee and Salmon Recovery CouncilWRIA 8 Technical Committee and Salmon Recovery Council Spawning ground surveyors: mix of State, County, and Tribal staffSpawning ground surveyors: mix of State, County, and Tribal staff Karl Burton, SPU, redd surveys in the Cedar RiverKarl Burton, SPU, redd surveys in the Cedar River John Sneva et. al, WDFW, for aging scalesJohn Sneva et. al, WDFW, for aging scales City of Redmond, Boeing, Blockbuster Video for help withCity of Redmond, Boeing, Blockbuster Video for help with

Screw trap access and powerScrew trap access and power

Funding provided by the Funding provided by the

King Conservation DistrictKing Conservation District