Comparative Survival Study Ten year Retrospective Summary

COMPARATIVE SURVIVAL STUDY Ten-year Retrospective Summary Report CSS Authors: ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? Howard Schaller, Paul Wilson, and Steve Haeseker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Charlie Petrosky, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Eric Tinus and Tim Dalton, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Rod Woodin, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Earl Weber, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Nick Bouwes, EcoLogic Thomas Berggren, Jerry McCann, Sergei Rassk, Henry Franzoni, and Pete McHugh, Fish Passage Center Project Leader: Michele DeHart, Fish Passage Center CSS Background ??? 1996 by states, tribes & FWS to estimate survival rates at various life stages ??? Develop a more representative control for transport evaluations ??? Compare survival rates for Chinook among regions ??? Information derived from fish PIT tagged above dams ??? Collaborative process implemented for design and analyses ??? Project reviewed (ISAB, ISRP, etc.) and refined Objectives ??? CSS evaluates two aspects of transportation ??? empirical SARs compared to those needed for survival and recovery (NPCC 2-6% objective) ??? SAR comparisons between transport and in-river migration routes ??? Evaluate effects of the hydrosystem on Snake River populations ??? evaluate environmental conditions & hydro operations on in-river survivals ??? compare Snake & downriver population performance ??? evaluate biological differences between groups ??? indirect hydrosystem effects on estuary/early ocean life stage Tasks ??? Develop long-term index of transport and in-river survival rates for Snake River wild and hatchery spring/summer Chinook and steelhead Mark at hatcheries Smolts diverted to bypass or transport SARs of in-river groups (never detected vs. detected > 1 times) Below BON SARs for Transported & In-river groups (TIR and Differential delayed mortality-D) ??? Increase PIT-tagged wild Chinook for hatchery/wild comparisons ??? Begin marking of steelhead populations in 2003 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? Develop long-term index of survival rates from release to return ??? Compare overall survival rates for upriver and downriver spring/summer Chinook hatchery and wild populations ??? Provide a time series of SARs for use in regional long-term monitoring and evaluation What does CSS project provide? ??? Long-term consistent information collaboratively designed and implemented ??? Information easily accessible and transparent ??? Long-term indices: ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? Travel times In-river survival rates In-river SARs by route of passage Transport SARs Transport to In-River By geographic location By hatchery group Hatchery vs. wild Chinook vs. steelhead ??? Comparisons of SARs Chapters 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Introduction, Overview, & Organization Travel Time, Survival, and Instantaneous Mortality Rates Annual SAR by Study Category, TIR, SR, and D Estimating Environmental Stochasticity in SARs, TIRs and Ds Evaluation and Comparison of Overall SARs Partitioning Survival Rates-Hatchery release to return Simulation Studies to Explore Impact of CJS Model Assumption Conclusions & Future Direction Comparative Survival Study Chapter 2 In-river travel time, survival, and instantaneous mortality rates of yearling Chinook and steelhead Methods: ??? Two reaches: LGR-MCN (CHW, CHH, STH&W) MCN-BON (CHH&W, STH&W) Methods: ??? Two reaches: LGR-MCN (CHW, CHH, STH&W) MCN-BON (CHH&W, STH&W) ??? Weekly release cohorts of PIT-tagged fish Methods: ??? Two reaches: LGR-MCN (CHW, CHH, STH&W) MCN-BON (CHH&W, STH&W) ??? Weekly release cohorts of PIT-tagged fish ??? Estimated median fish travel time (FTT) and survival rate Instantaneous mortality rate ??? Evaluated models using AICc and BIC Environmental and Management Factors: ??? Temperature ??? Turbidity ??? Flow (kcfs) ??? Flow -1 ??? Water travel time (WTT, days) ??? Average percent spill ??? Seasonality (Julian Day) Yearling Chinook median fish travel times LGR-MCN 40 35 20 25 MCN-BON 30 25 20 15 10 5 10 15 5 0 0 1998 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 Yearling Chinook median fish travel times LGR-MCN 40 35 20 25 MCN-BON 30 25 20 15 10 5 10 15 5 0 0 1998 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 Environmental and management factors: WTT, percent spill, Julian day Yearling Chinook median fish travel times LGR-MCN 40 35 20 MCN-BON r2 = 0.89 25 r2 = 0.95 30 25 20 15 10 5 10 15 5 0 0 1998 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 Environmental and management factors: WTT, percent spill, Julian day Steelhead median fish travel times LGR-MCN 30 18 16 MCN-BON 25 14 12 10 20 15 10 8 6 4 5 2 0 0 1998 1998 2000 2002 2004 2007 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 20062007 Steelhead median fish travel times LGR-MCN 30 18 16 25 14 12 10 15 10 8 6 4 5 2 0 0 MCN-BON 20 1998 1998 2000 2002 2004 2007 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 20062007 Environmental and management factors: WTT, percent spill, Julian day Steelhead median fish travel times LGR-MCN 30 MCN-BON r2 = 0.90 18 16 r2 = 0.91 25 14 12 10 20 15 10 8 6 4 5 2 0 0 1998 1998 2000 2002 2004 2007 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 20062007 Environmental and management factors: WTT, percent spill, Julian day Chinook 40 30 min. spill 50% spill LGR-MCN 30 steelhead min. spill 50% spill 20 10 0 Early FTT 20 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250 Flow Late Chinook 40 30 min. spill 50% spill LGR-MCN 30 steelhead min. spill 50% spill 20 10 0 Early FTT 20 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 30 20 10 10 0 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250 Flow 40 30 20 0 100 150 200 250 50 30 20 100 150 200 250 Late 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 Chinook 40 30 min. spill 50% spill observed LGR-MCN 30 steelhead 20 10 0 min. spill 50% spill Observed Early FTT 20 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 30 20 10 10 0 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 100 150 200 250 30 20 0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250 Flow 40 30 20 Late 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 Instantaneous mortality Exponential law of population decline: Nt = S = e ??? Z ???t N0 Instantaneous mortality Exponential law of population decline: Nt = S = e ??? Z ???t N0 Rearranging: ??? log e ( S ) Z = t ?? ?? = ??? log e ( S ) ML estimate of Z: Z t Instantaneous mortality Exponential law of population decline: Nt = S = e ??? Z ???t N0 Rearranging: ??? log e ( S ) Z = t ?? ?? = ??? log e ( S ) ML estimate of Z: Z t In this application: ?? Z LGR ??? MCN ?? ??? log e ( S LGR ??? MCN ) = ?? FTTLGR ??? MCN Yearling Chinook instantaneous mortality rates (Z) 0.20 LGR-MCN 0.20 MCN-BON 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 1998.0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2007.0 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 Yearling Chinook instantaneous mortality rates (Z) 0.20 LGR-MCN 0.20 MCN-BON 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 1998.0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2007.0 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 Factors: WTT, Julian Day Factors: Julian Day Yearling Chinook instantaneous mortality rates (Z) LGR-MCN 0.20 0.15 r2 = 0.48 0.20 MCN-BON r2 = 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 1998.0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2007.0 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 Factors: WTT, Julian day Factors: Julian day Steelhead instantaneous mortality rates (Z) LGR-MCN 0.40 0.40 MCN-BON 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 1998.00 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 Steelhead instantaneous mortality rates (Z) LGR-MCN 0.40 0.40 MCN-BON 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 1998.00 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 Factors: flow -1, Julian day, spill Factors: temperature Steelhead instantaneous mortality rates (Z) LGR-MCN 0.40 MCN-BON r2 = 0.54 0.40 r2 = 0.51 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 1998.00 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 Factors: flow -1, Julian day, spill Factors: temperature Daily percent mortality by species and reach: Daily percent mortality (mean Z) LGR-MCN CHW STH&W 3.0% 6.7% MCN-BON CHH&W STH&W 6.4% 10.6% Predicted relationship for instantaneous mortality 0.12 0.10 5d 10 d 15 d 20 d wild Chinook Predicted LGR-MCN Z 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 90 100 110 120 Julian day 130 140 150 April May Predicted relationship for instantaneous mortality 0.16 0.14 0.12 H&W steelhead 75 kcfs / 0% spill 75 kcfs / 40% spill 150 kcfs / 45% spill 200 kcfs / 40% spill Predicted 0.10 LGR-MCN Z 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 105 115 125 135 145 Julian day April May Environmental and management factors consistent across survival approaches CHW, LGR-MCN Variable Z WTT Spill Julian day Standard WTT Spill Julian day STH&W, LGR-MCN Variable Z WTT Flow -1 Spill Julian day Flow -1 Spill Julian day Standard Yearling Chinook survival LGR-MCN 1.2 1.2 MCN-BON 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 1998.0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2007.0 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 Yearling Chinook survival LGR-MCN 1.2 MCN-BON r2 = 0.63 1.2 r2 = 0.51 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 1998.0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2007.0 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 steelhead survival LGR-MCN 1.2 MCN-BON 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1998 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 steelhead survival LGR-MCN 1.2 MCN-BON 1.2 r2 = 0.80 r2 = 0.71 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1998 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 1.0 0.8 Chinook LGR-MCN Early S min. spill 50% spill 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 steelhead S 0.6 0.4 0.2 50 100 150 200 250 min. spill 50% spill 50 100 150 200 250 Flow Flow Late 1.0 0.8 Chinook LGR-MCN Early S min. spill 50% spill 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 steelhead S 0.6 0.4 0.2 50 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 50 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 50 100 150 200 250 100 150 200 250 100 150 200 250 min. spill 50% spill 50 100 150 200 250 Flow 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 50 100 Flow 150 200 250 1.0 0.8 0.6 Late 0.4 0.2 0.0 50 100 150 200 250 1.0 0.8 Chinook LGR-MCN Early S min. spill 50% spill observed 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 steelhead S 0.6 0.4 0.2 50 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 50 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 50 100 150 200 250 100 150 200 250 100 150 200 250 min. spill 50% spill Observed 50 100 150 200 250 Flow 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 50 100 Flow 150 200 250 1.0 0.8 0.6 Late 0.4 0.2 0.0 50 100 150 200 250 Hatchery vs. Wild CHN 35 30 0.08 FTT 0.10 Z 25 20 15 10 0.02 0.06 0.04 5 0 0.00 1998 1.0 1998 Survival 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 1998.0 Conclusions Juvenile travel times, instantaneous mortality rates, and survival rates through the hydrosystem are strongly influenced by managed river conditions including flow, water travel time, and spill levels. Statistical relationships were developed that can be used to predict the effects of environmental factors and management strategies on migration and survival rates of juvenile yearling Chinook and steelhead. Analyses indicate that improvements in in-river survival and travel times can be achieved through management actions that reduce water travel time or increase the average percent spilled. The effectiveness of these actions varies over the migration season.