Get documents about "Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program - CBFWA website
Document Sample
Mid-Columbia Coho
Restoration Program
BPA Project # 1996-040-000
Background
Formally established by the Yakama
Nation in 1995
Recommended for funding by the NPPC in
1996
Currently guided by the Mid-Columbia
Coho Technical Workgroup
Long Term Vision
Re-establish naturally spawning coho
salmon in mid-Columbia tributaries at a
habitat capacity level with a significant fall
fishery, while keeping adverse ecological
impacts within acceptable limits
Project Goals
Short term goal
Evaluate coho restoration experimentally in
terms of feasibility: ecological interactions,
project performance indicators, and
broodstock development
Long term goal
Production and restoration of naturally
reproducing populations of coho in the
Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow river basins.
Limiting Factors
Extirpation of coho in the region
Lack of useful, scientifically based species
interaction studies involving coho
Lack of fish production and
acclimation/release facilities for coho in
the region
Project Outline
Broodstock Development
Project Performance Indicators
Ecological Interactions
Broodstock Development
Broodstock Development
Acclimation
Broodstock Collection
Spawning and Incubation
Acclimation / Broodstock
Development Strategy
Icicle Creek and WNFH – serve as focal
broodstock development release sites through
the release of large numbers of acclimated coho
smolts specifically for the purpose of trapping
returning adults and establishing a local
broodstock.
Upper Wenatchee Basin Sites –including Nason
Creek, Beaver Creek, and Little Wenatchee
River function to initiate natural production in
areas of coho habitat, and to evaluate species
interactions.
Acclimation / Broodstock
Development Strategy Cont’
Initially only low #’s of coho were released
in upper basin sites, but as we develop a
local brood and study ecological
interactions between coho and listed
species, the numbers of coho smolts
released in natural spawning areas have
been increasing while the numbers
released from Icicle Creek have been
decreasing
Wenatchee Basin Release
Summary
1000000
Numbers of Smolts
800000
Released
600000 Icicle Creek
400000 Upper Basin
200000
0
99
00
01
02
03
19
20
20
20
20
Release Year
Mid-Columbia Coho Acclimation
Sites
The mid-Columbia coho reintroduction feasibly
study relies on low-cost natural ponds for
acclimation
Benefits
Fish color similar to wild fish, natural temperature
regime, natural food sources, imprinting on local
waters, low cost
Difficulties
Increased predation, variability in water
availability, accessibility, difficult to treat disease
Current Acclimation Sites (2003)
Icicle Creek (490,600)
Dam 5 (LNFH)
Nason Creek (272,700)
Butcher Ck. Pond
Coulter Ck. Pond
Mahar Ck. Pond
Little Wenatchee River (100,800)
Two Rivers
Beaver Creek (75,000)
Beaver Ck. Pond
Dam 5 – Icicle Creek
Acclimation Site
Butcher Creek Acclimation Site
Mahar Pond
Coulter Creek Acclimation Site
Beaver Creek Acclimation Site
Two Rivers Acclimation Site
Acclimation
Predation Control
Presence of people (avian and mammal)
Hazing (avian predators)
bird bangers and other noise makers
Live Trapping
some limited trapping for otters
Acclimation
Data collected
Number of dead fish recovered
number of predators observed
% of dead fish with predation marks Dissolved
oxygen
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Food fed (lbs)
Acclimation – Sampling and
Determination of Release Date
Weekly Growth Sampling
Fish per pound
Sample size 100
Fork length (mm)
Weight (g)
Condition factor
Stage of smoltification
Sampling Coho at Dam 5
Classification of Developmental
Stages
Parr
Obvious vertical markings expressed (parr
marks)
Various hues of orange coloration observed in
fins
1st three rays of anal fin had white coloration
followed by a fourth black fin ray
The dorsal body coloration varied from a light
to medium brown
Classification of Smoltification Stages
Smolt
Silvery appearance w/ a bluish green dorsal
coloration
Parr marks were very faint or absent
Anal, caudal, and dorsal fins appear
transparent
Changes occur due to smoltification
Increased gill K-ATPase activity
Classification of Smoltification Stages
Transitional
Displayed both parr and smolt characteristics
Varies per individual
Fin coloration seems to fade while parr marks
are still obvious
Juvenile Morphology and
Development: Dam 5, 2002
80%
Parr
70%
Transitional
% of coho sampled
60% Smolt
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
April 3 April 10 April 16 April 24
Date
Pre-Release Fish Health
Assessment: OSI
External and internal fish health evaluation
Assess the normality of external features
Eyes, fins, opercules etc.
Assess the normality of internal organs and
blood components
Liver, Spleen, Kidney, Gills etc
Mesenteric fat level
Proportion of leucocytes, hemocytes, and plasma
protein
Acclimation – Smolt Release
Volitional Release
Typically between April 24 – May 5
Release date is based on water flow, fish
behavior, and stage of smoltification
Typical releases last from 3 weeks to 1 month
All release are monitored
Some sites have PIT tag detection capability
Broodstock Collection
Methow Basin
Collection goal: 497 Adults or 144 Females
Collection sites
Wells Dam
WNFH swim-in’s
Wenatchee Basin
Collection goal: 1464 Adults or 673 Females
Collection sites
Dryden Dam
Dam 5 (LNFH)
Dryden Dam Fish Trapping
Spawning
Methow Basin
WNFH
Wenatchee Basin
2000 – Chiwawa Acclimation Ponds
2001 – Chiwawa Acclimation Ponds
2002 – Entiat National Fish Hatchery
2003 – Entiat National Fish Hatchery
Spawning at Chiwawa
Acclimation Ponds
Spawning at Chiwawa
Acclimation Ponds
Spawning Coho at ENFH
Incubation and Egg
Transportation
2000
LNFH: Vertical stack incubators
2001
LNFH: Vertical stack incubators
Peshastin Facility: Deep troughs
2002 & 2003
ENFH: Deep troughs
Peshastin Facility: Deep troughs
Egg Transportation
and Incubation
Broodstock Development -
Progress Report
BY Rel. Location Brood Adult Mid-Col. Hat. Smolt
Year Source Ret. Year Production
96 98 Methow LCR 1999 143,000 MCR A
(341K)
97 99 LNFH LCR 2000 585,000 MCR B
(450K)
Swamp LCR
Ck. (50K)
98 00 Methow LCR 2001 162,800 MCR Cm
(200K)
Dam 5 LCR 738,900 MCR Cw
(890K)
Butcher LCR
Ck (77K)
Broodstock Development -
Progress Report (continued)
BY Rel. Location Brood Source Ret. Hatchery Smolt
Year Year Production
99 01 Methow LCR (260K) 2002 22,000 MCR DM
Dam 5 LCR (855K) 2002 133,000 MCR DW
Butcher MCR A (142K) 2002
Ck.
00 02 Methow LCR (186K) 2003 ?
Dam 5 MCR B (350K) 2003 ?
LCR (420K)
Butcher MCR B (146K) 2003
Ck
Early Pd MCR B (17K) 2003
Beaver Ck MCR B (73K) 2003
Broodstock Development -
Progress Report (continued)
BY Rel. Location Brood Source Ret. Hatchery Smolt
Year & No. Rel. Year Production
01 03 Methow LCR (244K) 2005 ?
Dam 5 MCR Cw (290K) 2005 ?
MCR Cm (163K)
LCR (37K)
Butcher MCR Cw (150K) 2005
Ck
Coulter Ck MCR Cw (88K) 2005
Mahar Pd MCR Cw (35K) 2005
Two Rivers MCR Cw (100K) 2005
Beaver Ck MCR Cw (75K) 2005
Program Monitoring &
Evaluation
Program Monitoring and
Evaluation
Adaptability to local conditions
Project performance indicators
Species interactions
Adaptability to Local Conditions
Adaptability to Local Conditions
Genetic Divergence
Phenotypic Traits
Life history traits
Run timing, spawn timing, emergence timing (etc)
Morphological traits
Fish size, Egg Size, Fecundity etc.
Comparative Run Timing
Bonneville Adult PIT Detections 2003
20
Frequency of Detection
18
16
14
12 Icicle LCR
10 Icicle MCR
8 Nason MCR
6
4
2
0
ug
ug
ug
ug
ep
ep
ep
-S
-S
S
-A
-A
-A
-A
7-
14
21
10
17
24
31
Detection Date
Project Performance Indicators
Downstream smolt survival rates
Smolt-to-adult survival rates
Natural production
Stray rates
Survival Rates
Downstream Smolt Survival
Rates
Release to McNary Dam
Measured by PIT tags
Survival Index =
[ # PIT coho detected at McNary
McNary detection efficiency ]
# of PIT tagged coho released
Downstream Smolt Survival
Release to McNary Dam
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Methow
30%
20% Icicle LCR
10% Icicle MCR
0% Nason MCR
1999 2000 2001 2002
Smolt-to-Adult Survival Rates
Wenatchee Basin
1) Dryden Dam counts expanded for non-
trapping days
2) Dryden Dam counts plus redd counts and
est. of fish/redd based on sex ratio
3) Mainstem Dam counts (Rock Island – Rocky
Reach)
Smolt-to-Adult Survival Rates
Methow Basin
1) Broodstock collected (Wells Dam and Swim-
ins) plus redd counts expanded by est.
fish/redd
2) Wells Dam counts
Survival Rates
Release Methow – Wenatchee Methow Wenatchee
Year McNary - McNary SAR SAR %
1999 N/A 53.9% N/A 0.21-0.38
2000 33.3% 63.0% 0.17- 0.17-0.86
0.27
2001 9.3% 19.8% 0.02- 0.03-0.13
0.05
2002 N/A 78-87% L ? ?
39% BC
2002 Wenatchee Basin SARs
0.040%
0.035%
0.030%
0.031%
0.025% 0.028%
0.020% 0.023% SAR
0.015%
0.010%
0.005%
0.000%
Butcher Ck MCR LNFH LCR (CWT) LNFH LCR (All)
Natural Production
Natural Production: Redd Counts
Weekly spawning ground surveys on Nason
Creek and Icicle Creek
Peak and final counts in Wenatchee River
Peak and final counts on Methow River
Individual redds are counted, marked and the
locations are recorded with GPS
Recovered carcasses:
FL, POH, snouts removed
Females checked for egg retention
Scales taken from each fish
Natural Production: Spawning
Ground Surveys
Icicle Creek
Dam 5 to mouth (rm 2.8 – 0.0)
Dam 5 to hatchery (I3)
Hatchery to Icicle Rd. bridge (I2)
Icicle Rd. bridge to mouth (I1)
Nason Creek
Whitepine Creek to mouth (rm 15.6 – 0.0)
Whitepine creek to Rayrock (N5)
Rayrock to wooden bridge (N4)
Wooden bridge to HiVolt lines (N3)
HiVolt lines to Kahler bridge (N2)
Kahler bridge to mouth (N1)
Natural Production: Spawning
Ground Surveys
Wenatchee River
Lake Wenatchee outlet to mouth (rm 54.2-0.0)
Lake to Tumwater Br. (W8)
Tumwater Br. to Icicle Rd. Br. (W7)
Icicle Rd. Br. to Leavenworth Br. (W6)
Leavenworth Br. to Dryden Dam (W5)
Dryden Dam to lower Cash. Br. (W4)
Lower Cash. Br. to Monitor Br. (W3)
Monitor Br. to Sleepy Hollow Br. (W2)
Sleepy Hollow Br. to mouth (W1)
Natural Production: Spawning
Ground Surveys
Methow River
Wolf Creek to mouth (rm 53.0 – 0.0)
Wolf Creek to HDD (M5)
Hatchery Diversion Dam (HDD)
HDD to Winthrop bridge (M4)
Winthrop Br. to Twisp Br. (M3)
Twisp Br. to Carlton Br. (M2)
Carlton Br. to mouth (M1)
Natural Production:
Icicle Creek Redd Counts
160 151
140
120
100 Icicle Ck
74 Nason Ck
80 65
Wenatchee R.
60
Methow R.
40
21
20 3 3 1 5 7
0
2000 2001 2002
Natural Production: Smolt
Emigration
Spring 2002 marked the first year that naturally
produced coho smolts emigrating from the
Wenatchee River.
YN has worked cooperatively with WDFW on the
WDFW operated smolt trap to collect information
during the smolt migration.
The monitor smolt trap has an extremely low
trap efficiency, making data analysis
complicated.
Natural Production: Smolt
Emigration
Trap efficiency tests are conducted with
hatchery coho smolts
Due to low trap efficiency data from
multiple years is pooled to provide a better
estimate trap efficiency and subsequent
natural migration numbers
Natural Production: Smolt
Emigration
40,000 36,678
35,000
30,000
25,000
17,054 Naturally Produced
20,000
Coho
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2002 2003
Migratory Year
Data Provided by T. Miller, WDFW
Confidence intervals not yet available
Stray and Drop-out Rates
Stray Rates
CWTs
100% mark beginning with 2002 release
Allows for recovery of CWT as natal
hatcheries
Radio-Telemetry
Tagging Locations
Priest Rapids Dam, Wells Dam, Tumwater Dam,
Bonneville Dam
Stray Rates – Radio-telemetry
High stray rates or failure to home back to
acclimation streams may be a potential factor
that could limit project success.
Observations made during spawning in 2001&
2002 indicate that coho are spawning in the
Lower Wenatchee and lower Methow as well as
other tributaries on the migratory route (Entiat
River, Chelan Falls).
The numbers of coho spawning in lower
mainstem tributaries of release and other
tributaries is unknown: results in errors in
smolt/adult survival estimates
Stray Rates – Radio-telemetry
2002
Initiated a mid-Columbia mainstem telemetry
evaluation to study stray and drop-out rates
for coho returning to the Wenatchee and
Methow Rivers
2003
Continuation of the telemetry evaluation
Stray Rates – Radio-telemetry
Are stray rates high enough to limit project
success?
If yes, will the problem correct itself with the
development of a local broodstock?
Which fish are dropping out?
What is the spawning distribution of returning
mid-Col. coho?
Radio-Telemetry : Sample Size
and Dates
Desired sample size
2002: 200 tagged coho
2003: 300 tagged coho
3 equal size tag groups
Early Run: Aug 28 to Sept 18
Middle Run: Sept 19 to Oct 16
Late Run: Oct 16 to Nov 13
Radio-Telemetry: Tagging
Locations
Priest Rapids Dam
Focal tagging location
Allows for evaluation of stray rates for coho returning to the
Wenatchee and Methow Rivers
Bonneville Dam
Trial in 2003-15 tags only to evaluate the feasibility of
tagging mid-Columbia coho at Bonneville Dam
Wells Dam
To meet objective 4 in the Methow
20 tags
Tumwater Dam
To meet objective 4 in the Wenatchee
30 tags
Locations of Fixed
Monitoring Stations
Radio-Telemetry: Mobile Tracking
Truck mounted antenna
Boat mounted antenna (Columbia River)
Foot/Raft during spawning ground surveys
Aerial Surveys (2003)*
* Indicates cost share with USFWS & CPUD
Gastrically Inserting
Radio Transmitter
Radio-Telemetry Results
2002
Only 15 adult coho were trapped at Priest Rapids
Dam between August 25th and November 17th
Tagged 14 adult coho at Priest Rapids Dam
All coho were tagged during the month of October
One coho ascended the Wenatchee River
One coho ascended the Methow River
Insufficient sample size to draw any valid conclusions
Radio-Telemetry Results
2003
As of 9/18 we have tagged and released 86
coho
We are optimistic that we will reach our
desired sample size of 300 fish
In 2003 we should be able to meet the
objectives of this telemetry evaluation
Species Interactions
Species Interactions
Hatchery Released Coho
Residualism
Direct predation
Naturally Produced Coho
Direct predation
Competition for space and food
Residualism
Snorkel surveys following a systematic
sampling design to evaluate residualism in
acclimated hatchery coho smolts in 2000
& 2001
20% sample rate
Icicle Creek
Nason Creek (25% sample rate in 2001)
Methow River
Residualism: Nason Creek
2000
Two surveys from RM 9.5 to Mouth
No residual coho found
2001
One survey from RM 9.5 to Mouth
No residual coho found
Residualism: Icicle Creek
2000
Three complete surveys (Hatchery to Mouth)
July 5: Four residual coho found (expands to 20)
July 24: No residual coho found
Aug 3: One residual coho found (expands to 5)
2001
One complete survey (Hatchery to Mouth)
July: Two residual coho observed (expands to 10)
Residual Surveys: Methow River
2000
Two surveys (Foghorn Dam to Twisp River)
July 16 &17: No residual coho found
August 7 & 8: Four residual coho found (expands
to 25 for reach)
2001
One survey (Foghorn Dam to Twisp River)
July: One residual coho found (expands to 5 for
reach)
Residual Surveys: Conclusions
Low rates of residualism in acclimated coho
released in Nason Creek, Icicle Creek, and the
Methow River in 1999 and 2000, and 2001.
WDFW surveys confirm low rates of residualism
in the Wenatchee River ( 1 residual coho caught
in 2001)
Potential for predation or competition is low
Predation Studies
Predation Studies
2001 Nason Creek
Hatchery coho and spring chinook fry
2003 Nason Creek
Hatchery coho and spring chinook fry
Naturally reared coho and spring chinook fry
2003 Lake Wenatchee
Hatchery coho and sockeye fry
Predation Study Methods
Smolt trapping downstream from acclimation site
is the primary method to recapture hatchery
smolts
Nason Creek
5’ rotary smolt trap located at Nason Ck campground (rm0.8)
Lake Wenatchee
WDFW's Lake Wenatchee outlet smolt trap
Live boxes are emptied hourly to prevent
predation within the live box
Predation Study Methods Cont’
Mean daily river temperature was recorded
A random sample of up to 100 coho were
retained nightly for stomach content analysis
Retained coho were given a lethal dose of MS-
222
a small amount of 10% formalin solution was
injected into the stomach of each fish
Predation Study Methods Cont’
Up to 5 fish were preserved together in
whirl pack bags with a liberal amount of
10% formalin solution
Dissected in the laboratory
Stomach contents were analyzed
Any fish remains were digested with
enzymes, stained and identified by
diagnostic bones
Predation Study Methods Cont’
2001 coho residence time was estimated based
on catch at the trap (release date to capture)
2003 coho residence time was estimated
through PIT tag recovery at the trap
Estimated the incidence of predation using the
following formula:
I = n/N
I = the incidence of predation
n = number of coho samples containing chinook (sockeye)
remains
N = the total number of coho samples collected
Predation Study Methods Cont’
Gastric evacuation rates were estimated using a
exponential model developed by He and
Wurtsbaugh 1993
Empirically derived from data from 22 fish
species, species generic model.
Predator size did not significantly affect the
model.
Predation Study Methods Cont’
Estimated the total number of chinook (sockeye) consumed using
the following formula: NP=(I*COHO*R)/(E)
NP = total number of prey consumed
I = incidence of predation
COHO = number of coho present in the river during the study
R = the coho weighted mean residence time
E= the mean gastric evacuation
Results: 2001 Spring Chinook
Predation Study
70% 63.57%
60% n=1142
50%
40%
29.60%
30%
20% 14.48%
10.33%
10%
0.18%
0%
Fish Insect Plant Unknown Empty
Results: 2001 Spring Chinook
Predation Study
Incidence of predation: 0.0018
Mean residence time: 15.8 days
Gastric evacuation rate: 40.5 hours
Mean river temp. during the study: 5.5°C
Estimated total number of spring chinook
consumed:
2436
Estimated % of spring chinook fry population:
0.96% (100 redds, 4200 eggs/female, 60% egg-fry)
Conclusions: 2001 Spring
Chinook Predation Study
Inability to measure actual residence time was a
limitation.
Spring chinook fry were found throughout the
duration of the study.
Given limitations of the study, predation rates
are still below 1% of the fry population
The trap did not appear to select for non-feeding
migrants (86% had food in stomach).
2003 Predation Studies:
Incidence of predation*
Lake Wenatchee
Hatchery coho: 91 samples
0 contained sockeye fry
Incidence of predation = 0
Nason Creek
Hatchery coho: 1105 samples
3 contained chinook fry (4 additional suspect)
Incidence of predation = .0029 to .0069
Naturally reared coho: 100 samples
1 contain chinook fry
Incidence of predation = .010
* Preliminary results: samples not yet digested and identified
Microhabitat Use: Competition
For Space and Food
Purpose
To evaluate the potential for naturally
produced coho salmon to negatively
impact spring chinook and steelhead
through competition for space and food
Methods
Nason Creek was divided into 4 study reaches
Treatment Reaches
Reach 1: Mouth to Kahler Ck Bdg (rkm 0.0-6.3)
Reach 2: Kahler Ck Bdg to Butcher Creek Acclimation Site
(rkm 6.3-13.3)
Control Reaches
Reach 3: Butcher Creek Acclimation Site to Rayrock (rkm
13.3-17.9)
Reach 4: Rayrock to Whitepine Creek (rkm 17.9-24.8
Note: due to small sample sizes of steelhead, control and
treatment reaches were pooled for analysis purposes.
Methods
Scatter planted coho fry as a surrogate for
naturally produced coho
Approx. 33,000 coho fry were scatter
planted into treatment reaches
Scatter planting was conducted in such a
manner as to provide and even distribution
within the treatment reaches
Methods: Coho Scatter Planting
Densities
Est. spring chinook carrying capacity (Memo
from T.Tynan, NMFS-SFD, and L. Weitkamp,
NMFS-NWSFC, June 29, 2001): 917 Spawners
NMFS recommended temp. coho escapement
limit in 2001 & 2002 (same memo): No greater
than ½ the estimated spring chinook carrying
capacity, or no greater than the total number of
spring chinook adults to have escaped Nason
Creek – whichever the smaller figure.
Max. 459 adult coho spawners
Methods: Coho Scatter Planting
Densities
Max. 459 coho spawners
Est. 2.2 fish/redd = 209 coho redds
Max. coho egg seeding = 564,300 (fecundity =
2700)
Est. egg to late summer parr survival = 10.6%
No data available for coho; figure is taken from the
mean egg to late summer parr survival average
between ’91 and ‘99 for spring chinook in the
Chiwawa River (Hillman and Miller 2000)
Egg seeding level of 564,300 = approx 59,816
late summer coho parr.
Methods: Coho Planting
Densities
Available Habitat : 336,102 m3
RK 0.0 – 24.8, mean depth = 0.975m, mean
width = 13.9m. Data provided by USFS
59,816 coho parr results in a mean density
of 0.178 fish/m3
Applying the above density to treatment
reaches (RK 0.0 to 13.3) requires scatter
planting 32,084 coho parr
Methods: Species Distribution
Stratified random sample
Each reach was divided into 500 m
sections
Randomly selected a 100 m unit from
each 500 m section (20% sample rate)
Three underwater observers snorkeled
downstream within each selected unit
All salmonids observed were enumerated
by species and size class
Methods: Macrohabitat
Availability and Selection
Each unit was classified as either pool (p), riffle
(r), or glide (g).
The available macrohabitat (proportion of p, r, &
g) in the treatment and control reaches was
compared with a Chi-Square Goodness of Fit
test
Macrohabitat used by chinook, coho, and
steelhead (proportion of p, r, & g) was compared
to available macrohabitat (proportion of p, r, & g)
with Chi-Square Goodness of Fit test to evaluate
macrohabitat selection
Methods: Microhabitat Use
Followed the same sampling design as the
distribution analysis
Every other randomly selected unit was
used for microhabitat measurements (10%
sample rate)
For each observed sub-yearling chinook,
sub-yearling coho, or yearling steelhead, a
large colored washer was placed in the
location the fish was first observed
Methods: Microhabitat Use
Microhabitat measurements taken
Water velocity (ft/s)
Depth (ft)
Dominant and subdominant substrate
(estimated)
Presence of cover or no cover
Cover type
Underwater Observation: Species
Distribution and Habitat Use
Methods: Growth and Condition
Factor
Growth and condition factors were used to
indirectly assess competition for food resources
and/or habitat displacement
Kfactor = (w/fl3)*105
If competition for food exists, and food resources
are limited, than we expect the condition factors
and/or growth be depressed in areas where all
three species occur (treatment) vs. areas where
coho are not present (control)
Condition factors may also decline if a species is
using less suitable habitat where all three
species coexist as compared to areas where
coho are not present (i.e. habitat displacement
in treatment reaches)
Methods: Growth and Condition
Factor
A temperature probe was placed in the
treatment reach and the control reach.
Allowed us to evaluate if growth or K factor
differences are due to temperature
Fish were collected with a backpack electro-
fisher
Attempted to collect 25 fish of each species in
each reach during each sample period
3 sample periods
Baseline prior to coho scatter planting
2 after coho scatter planting ( 1 month apart)
Electrofishing for Growth
And Condition Factor Samples
Results: Wenatchee River
Flows
8000
7000
6000
5000
CFS
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
19 g
26 g
ug
23 p
30 p
ep
12 g
p
16 p
ul
ul
ul
l
15 l
Ju
Ju
e
e
Se
Se
u
u
Au
-J
-J
-J
-S
-S
-S
-A
-A
-A
1-
8-
22
29
2-
9-
5-
Growth Surveys
Scatter Planting
Wenatchee River Flow measured at Plain, WA.
Habitat Use Surveys Data provided by USGS
Fish Distribution: Nason Creek
0.18
2002
0.16
0.14
2
Fish per meter
0.12 Reach 1
Reach 2
0.1
Reach 3
0.08 Reach 4
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Coho Chinook Steelhead
Results: Available Macrohabitat
HO: the proportion of pools, riffles, and glides were
the same in the treatment and control reaches.
Ha: the proportion of pools, riffles, and glides was
not the same in treatment and control reaches
Statistic Critical Value p Ho Ha
2=4680 2>5.991 P=0.000 Reject Do not
Reject
Conclude: That the proportion of pools, riffles, and
glides in the treatment reach was not the same as
the control reach. There were more riffles and less
glides and pools in the treatment reach than in the
control reach.
Results: Macrohabitat Selection
HO: the frequency of chinook,coho, and steelhead found in
pools, riffles, and glides was the same as the frequency in
which pools, riffles, and glides were sampled.
Ha: the frequency of chinook and steelhead found in pools,
riffles, and glides was not the same in which pools, riffles,
and glides were sampled
Statistic Critical Value p Ho Ha
2=293.6 2>5.991 P<0.001 Reject Do not
Reject
Conclude: That chinook, coho and steelhead were not
found in habitat types in the proportions in which they were
sampled. Chinook and coho were found less frequently in
riffles and were selecting pools and glides. Steelhead were
found less frequently in pools and glides were selecting for
riffles.
Results: Microhabitat Use
and Overlap
MANOVA to examine microhabitat use
where chinook, steelhead and coho were
sympatric
Treatment reaches, surveys 2 & 3 only
Dependant variables: flow velocity (ft/sec),
depth (ft), dominant substrate type, cover use
Independent variables: species & survey
•Sample sizes of steelhead too small to
make steelhead analysis valid
Results of MANOVA
Ho: Spring chinook and coho use the same micro-habitat when all
three species occur together
Ha: Spring chinook and coho do not use the same micro-habitat
when all three species occur together
Effect test value F df p
effect/error
Intercept Wilks 0.0008 306294 4 / 1065 0.000
Survey Wilks 0.9572 11.9 4 / 1065 0.000
Species Wilks 0.8744 18.5 8 / 2130 0.000
Survey*Species Wilks 0.9632 5.0 8 / 2130 0.0003
Ho: Reject Ha: Do not reject
Conclude: Spring chinook and coho do not use the same micro
habitat when they occur together
Fisher’s LSD test for significant
differences
Coho used significantly slower velocities
than chinook (all surveys)
No significant difference in depths used by
chinook and coho (survey 2)
Coho used significantly shallower depths
than chinook (survey 3)
Coho were found under cover statistically
more often than chinook
Flow Velocities used by Chinook
and Coho
Wilks lambda=.96318, F(8, 2130)=5.0411, p=.00000
Vertical bars denote 0.95 conf idence interv als
1.6
1.4
Velocity (ft/sec)
1.2
0.89
1.0
0.8
0.59
0.6 0.57
0.4
0.2 0.26
Species
0.0 Coho
2 3 Species
Chinook
Survey
Depths used by chinook and
coho
Wilks lambda=.96318, F(8, 2130)=5.0411, p=.00000
Vertical bars denote 0.95 conf idence interv als
3.0
2.8
2.38
2.6
Depth (Ft)
2.48
2.4
2.35
2.2
2.0
1.8 1.94
1.6
1.4
1.2
2 3 Species
Coho
Species
Survey Chinook
Cover use by chinook and coho
100% 100%
80% 80%
60% 60%
40% 80.0 No Cover
40%
Cover
52.1
20% 34.2 20%
31.1
0% 0%
Coho Chinook Coho Chinook
Survey 2 Survey 3
Results: Microhabitat
Displacement
MANOVA to compare microhabitat use by
chinook in the control and treatment
reaches
Survey 1 – before coho introduction
Survey 2 – 1 week after coho introduction
Survey 3 – 3-4 weeks after coho introduction
Variables considered in the model
Flow velocity, depth, cover use, dominant
substrate (Dependant)
Survey and Treatment (Independent)
Results of MANOVA
Ho: Spring chinook used the same microhabitat in treatment
and control reaches
Ha: Spring chinook did not use the same microhabitat in
treatment and control reaches.
Effect test value F df p
effect/error
Intercept Wilks 0.00254 126133 4 / 1282 0.0000
Reach (T,C) Wilks 0.99253 2.4 4 / 1282 0.0474
Surveys Wilks 0.80675 36.3 8 / 2564 0.0000
Reach*Survey Wilks 0.87593 21.9 8 2564 0.0000
Ho: Reject Ha: Do not reject
Conclude: Spring chinook did not use the same microhabitat
in the control and treatment reaches.
Fisher’s LSD Test for significant
differences
Chinook used significantly faster flows in the
treatment reach both before and after the
introduction of coho
There was no statistical difference in flow
velocities used by chinook in the treatment
reach before and after introducing coho
Before the introduction of coho, depths where
chinook were found were significantly shallower
in the treatment than control reach
Fisher’s LSD Test for Significant
Differences Cont’
After coho were introduced the depths in
which chinook were found were not
statistically different in the treatment and
control reaches
Within surveys, cover use by chinook was
the same in treatment and control reaches
Flow velocities used by chinook
in control and treatment reaches
Wilks lambda=.87593, F(8, 2564)=21.947, p=0.0000
Vertical bars denote 0.95 conf idence interv als
1.8
1.6
1.4
Velocity (Ft/Sec)
1.2
1.0
0.89
0.95 0.88
0.8
0.6 0.59
0.4
0.56
0.31 Survey
0.2
1
Survey
0.0 2
Treatment Control Survey
3
Treatm ent
Depths used by chinook in
treatment and control reaches
Wilks lambda=.87593, F(8, 2564)=21.947, p=0.0000
Vertical bars denote 0.95 conf idence interv als
4.5
4.0 3.47
3.5
3.0
2.48
Depth (Ft)
2.5 2.62
2.38
2.0 2.08
1.5 1.71
1.0 Survey
1
0.5 Survey
2
0.0
Treatment Control Survey
3
T reatment
Cover Use By Chinook in
Treatment and Control Reaches
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
80.9
20% 67.7
34.2 20%
31.1 33.3
0% 32.3
0%
Suvey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3
Suvey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3
Treatment Control
Results: Growth and Condition
Factor
Low numbers of steelhead yearlings collected in
the both the control and treatment reaches
made comparisons difficult
MANOVA
Compare fork length and Kfactors of chinook and
coho where they co-existed
MANOVA
Compare fork length and Kfactors of chinook in
control and treatment reaches, before and after
planting coho
Results of MANOVA
Ho: Spring chinook and coho were the same size and condition in July,
August, and September
Ha: Spring chinook and coho were not the same size and condition during
July, August, and September
Effect test value F df p
effect/error
Intercept Wilks 0.01128 16874.4 2 / 385 0.000
Species Wilks 0.19712 160.7 6 / 770 0.000
Survey Wilks 0.96565 6.85 2 / 385 0.001
Species*survey Wilks 0.85606 10.37 6 / 770 0.000
Ho: Reject Ha: Do not reject
Conclude: Spring chinook and coho were not the same size
or condition during July, August, and September
Results: Fisher’s LSD test for significant
differences in Fork length
Within surveys, the mean fork length of chinook
was smaller than the mean fork length of coho
Chinook and coho grew significantly longer
between surveys
Within surveys, there was no significant
difference in Kfactors for chinook and coho
Between surveys, chinook Kfactor increased
significantly
There was no significant increase in coho
Kfactors between surveys
Fork Length of Chinook and
Coho in the Treatment Reach
Wilks lambda=.85606, F(6, 770)=10.371, p=.00000
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
120
ForkLength (mm)
110
100 80.7
75.6
90
80
70 76.1
71.4
60
50
40
30
2 (August) 3 (September)
Chinook
Survey Coho
Kfactor of Chinook and Coho in the
Treatment Reach
Wilks lambda=.82320, F(6, 438)=7.4582, p=.00000
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
1.3
1.16
1.2
1.05
Kfactor
1.1
1.13
1.0
1.06
0.9
0.8 Chinook
2 3
Coho
Survey
Results of MANOVA
Ho: Spring chinook were the same size and kfactor in control and
treatment reaches during each survey
Ha: Spring chinook were not the same size and kfactor in control and
treatment reaches during each survey
Effect test value F df p
effect/error
Intercept Wilks 0.00939 17301.5 2 / 327 0.000
Reach (T,C) Wilks 0.98530 2.44 2 / 327 0.089
Survey Wilks 0.26197 155.9 4 / 654 0.000
Reach*survey Wilks 0.99104 0.74 4 / 654 0.566
Conclude: Length and Kfactor of spring chinook were the
same in the treatment and control reaches. Length and
kfactor of spring chinook were not the same between surveys
Fisher’s LSD Test for Differences
in Chinook Length and Kfactor
Within each survey, there was no statistical
difference in fork length of chinook in the
treatment and control reaches
Chinook grew significantly longer between
surveys in both reaches
Within each survey, there was no statistical
difference in chinook Kfactor in the treatment
and control reaches
Within the treatment reach, chinook Kfactor
increased significantly during the last survey
Within the control reach there was no significant
difference in Kfactor between surveys
Spring Chinook Fork Length
Wilks lambda=.99104, F(4, 654)=.73758, p=.56653
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
85
80 76.3
75 71.6
ForkLength
70 74.3
71.1
65
60
55 50.5
50
45 48.5
40
1 July 2 August 3 Sept
Treatment
Survey Control
Spring Chinook Kfactor
Wilks lambda=.99104, F(4, 654)=.73758, p=.56653
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
1.25
1.20
1.16
1.15
Kfactor
1.10
1.06 1.05 1.08
1.05 1.05
1.04
1.00
0.95
1 2 3 Treatment
Control
Survey
Conclusions: Microhabitat Use
and Growth
At the sub-yearling coho parr densities
that may result from the temporary
maximum recommended coho spawning
escapement numbers (memo from NMFS,
6/29/01)
Coho, chinook, and steelhead yearlings select
different macro & microhabitats when they
coexist
Coho did not appear to displace chinook from
preferred microhabitats
Growth and Kfactor of spring chinook in
Nason Creek was unaffected by the presence
Conclusions: Microhabitat Use
and Growth Cont’
Chinook present in Nason Creek were the
progeny of a record number of spawners. It is
likely that interactions would be further
reduced if the number of spawners, chinook
and coho were lower than during the study
Due to the more aggressive behaviors and
larger sizes of hatchery fish, any competitive
interactions with coho and spring chinook
would likely decrease with naturally produced
coho rather than hatchery scatter plants.
Microhabitat Use and Growth:
2003
Evaluation for competition for space and food
continued in 2003
Changes to study design
Habitat based approach
Microhabitat measurements from 20% of available
habitat
Habitat evaluation in reaches one (treatment) and
three (control) only
Results pending analysis
Lake Wenatchee
Sockeye/Coho Interaction
Evaluation
Lake Wenatchee Sockeye/Coho
Interaction Evaluation: Objectives
2001& 2002
To evaluate the distribution of sockeye fry in
Lake Wenatchee at the time hatchery coho
smolts would be migrating through the lake
To evaluate the migratory patterns of hatchery
coho smolts through Lake Wenatchee
To determine if the opportunity for direct
predation by hatchery coho smolts on sockeye
fry exists
To determine the best way to evaluate the risks
of potential coho smolt predation on sockeye fry
in Lake Wenatchee in 2003
Lake Wenatchee Sockeye/Coho
Interaction Evaluation: Methods
Hatchery coho smolt migratory patterns
Radio-telemetry
Sockeye fry distribution
Tow netting in pelagic areas
Snorkeling in littoral areas
Hydroacoustic surveys of Lake Wenatchee
2002
2003
Radio-tag surgical implantation
Live boxes for recovery at the tagging site
Lake Wenatchee Fixed Monitoring Stations
Westvista
Fixed Station
Little Wenatchee
University Beach
Fixed Station Camp Zanika Fixed Station
Fixed Station
Larco
Fixed Station Wenatchee River
0 2000 (Outlet) Fixed
meters Station
Fixed Station: Larco
Coho Telemetry Results
Migratory Patterns
Presumed Dead (never entered)
Entered and Disappeared
Migrate Center of Lake
Migrate South Shore
Migrate North Shore
West End of Lake
Ping-Pong Entire Lake
Stayed at Little Wenatchee
W
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
es
tE
nd
Pi
ng
Ne Po
ve n g
De r
te
En St ct
te ed
ay
re ed
d
an at
d LW
Ne
ve
rS
ee
So n
ut
h
Sh
or
No e
rth
Sh
or
e
Ce
nt
er
Migratory Behavior Patterns
Number
% of Exiting Fish
Sockeye Fry Distribution
Methods
Emergence timing
Tow nets – pelagic areas
Snorkeling – littoral areas
Hydroacoustics – pelagic and offshore
areas (2002 & 2003)
Pelagic and Littoral Zones Sampled
Upper
Middle
Lower
Cod end bucket was added
but not shown in diagram.
Diagram of tow net used in 2002
Steel pipe spreader bar
.33 cm.
sq.mesh
Photo of tow net
Tow Netting Data Analysis
Each transect took approximately 10-15
minutes
CPUE was calculated by the number of fry
captured per minute on each transect
CPUE was compared between pelagic
zones and survey week with ANOVA
Littoral Zone Sampling
Sockeye Fry Distribution
Littoral Zone Sampling Methods
Densities of sockeye fry (m2) were
calculated from observational data
Sockeye fry densities between the
identified lake zones (upper, middle, lower)
and shores (north and south) were
compared using a two-way ANOVA
All species observed were recorded
Sockeye Fry Distribution:
Hydroacoustic Survey
Sockeye Fry Distribution
Hydroacoustic Methods
Hydroacoustic sampling along 10 pre-
determined transects
Sampled between 9PM and 1AM
Some data was collected during daylight
hours (2-3PM) for comparison with night
time sampling (2002)
During 2003 three night and three dawn
and dusk surveys were completed
T10
T9 Transects for population estimate
T8 Dusk & nearshore transects
Dusk T7
T7.5 T6
Dusk T8.5 T5
T5.5
T4
T6.5 T3
T3.5
T2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 T1
T4.5
meters T1.5
T2.5
Hydroacoustic Transects
Results
Emergence Timing
Peak emergence occurred in mid-May
Emergence likely occurred from mid-April
through mid-June
Sockeye Distribution: Tow-
Netting and Littoral Zone
Snorkeling
Sockeye fry were captured on all transects
Total of 144 sockeye fry were captured while
tow-netting
No significant difference in CPUE in each
pelagic zone sampled
Sockeye fry were observed in 7 of 18 littoral
zone snorkel transects
No significant difference in observed densities
between littoral areas
Sockeye Fry Distribution:
Hydroacoustics
Two size modes
25mm
75mm
Largest proportion of fish were in the small
size group (likely sockeye fry)
Sockeye Fry Distribution:
Hydroacoustics
Daylight:
Most fish observed off shore and below 45 m
Night
Fish were abundant both nearshore and
offshore throughout the lake
Most fish occurred in the upper 40 m of the
water column
Highest densities in the upper 15 m of the
water column
Fish per
Fry (TS<-50 dB) square meter
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000
meters
Densities of Sockeye Fry in Lake
Wenatchee along acoustic transects,
May 16 & 17, 21:00-01:00
Sockeye/Coho Interaction
Evaluation Conclusions
Based on hydroacoustics, tow netting, and
snorkeling
Sockeye fry are primarily pelagic during May
(limited numbers can be found in the littoral
areas)
Fry can be found distributed throughout the
lake during May
Sockeye fry are higher in the water column at
night
Sockeye/Coho Interaction
Evaluation Conclusions
Most radio-tagged coho did not migrate quickly
through Lake Wenatchee (mean travel time: 9.9
days)
Radio-tagged coho smolts will use the entire
lake while migrating through Lake Wenatchee
Radio-tagged coho were more commonly
detected at the west end of the lake, than the
east end
Radio-tagged coho smolts were more common
along the south shore than the north shore
Sockeye/Coho Interaction
Evaluation Conclusions
While we do not know how deep the radio-
tagged coho travel, due to the commonly
observed ‘ping pong ball’ behavior of migrating
coho smolts, and the distribution of sockeye fry
throughout the lake, it is probable that coho
smolts migrating through Lake Wenatchee will
have the opportunity to encounter and prey
upon sockeye fry. However, the diel migration
patters of the sockeye fry which likely evolved as
a mechanism to reduce predation, may
significantly reduce the number of sockeye fry
coho will encounter.
M&E Timeline
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Smolt to smolt survival to McNary Dam
Smolt to adult performance - hatchery releases using differential tags
Smolt production - natural and hatchery origin
Smolt to adult survival - hatchery and natural recruits
Smolt to adult survival - hatchery releases, relative
Rearing/release strategies to improve adult survival
Spaw ning and rearing distribution
Reproductive success of natural spaw ners*
Out of basin harvest rates
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS EVALUATION
Rates of residualism
Natural coho predation on CHS fry
Hatchery coho predation
SPECIES INTERACTIONS
Hatchery coho predation (L. Wen.) on SOC
Natural coho interaction w / Sthd, CHS, space and food
Coho and CHS spaw ning habitat and redd superimposition
Divergence of hatchery and natural coho
Stray rates to low er river rearing sites ADAPTABILITY TO LOCAL CONDITIONS
Construction Timeline
FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Improvements to existing facilities (Dam 5, Entiat, Butcher, new sites)
Wenatchee temporary rearing
Beaver
Entiat
FEASABILITY PHASE PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Leavenw orth NFH SFL Acclimation Ponds
Tw o Rivers Channel
Coulter Acc.
Mahar Acc.
Whitepine Acc.
Other Wenatchee Acc. Sites.
Methow 1 (WNFH)
Methow 2
Methow 3
Entiat 1
Entiat 2
Pre. design and cost est. Final design
Hatchery
REINTRODUCTION PROGRAM FACILITIES
Acclimation Sites
CRP - DRAFT PROJECT SCHEDULE
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Long-term M&E
Program feasibility studies (species interaction and performance indicators M&E)
POLICY DECISION
Site data collection and conceptual design
NEPA/EIS
Site environmental studies
BA and BO/HGMP
PROGRAM LEVEL PROCESS
Pre. design and cost est.
S2
S 3 & final design
FUNDING DECISION
Water rights
SITE SPECIFIC PERMITTING PROCESS NPDES
JARPA
Local Permits
Feasibility phase, facility construction and operation permits
Feasibility phase, facility construction
Land options Land
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION Construction
OPERATION
Notes:
S 2 is Step 2 of the NW Power Planning Council Three Step Review Process
S 3 is Step 3 of the NWPPC Three Step Review Process
