Biological Monitoring in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish
Watershed (WRIA 8):
Results of “fish in/fish out” monitoring
Sarah McCarthy, WRIA 8
Hans Berge, King County
Frank Leonetti, Snohomish County
Lake Washington/ Cedar/Sammamish
Watershed
Watershed Evaluation Tier
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Cedar River
Rock
Issaq
ua
h C
ree
k
North Ck
Swamp
LIttle Bear
Bear
Evans
Sa
mm
am
ish
Riv
er
Co
ttag
e L
ake
Kelsey
Coal
Cedar River
• Tiered approach to prioritization of habitat actions.
• Subbasins were placed into 3 tiers based on watershed condition and level of use by Chinook salmon:
• Core/migratory• Satellite• Episodic/None
“Fish In/Fish Out” MonitoringObjectives:• Document the Status and Trends in VSP parameters• Compare to Plan “targets” and Adaptive Management goals for
populations• Improve understanding of those habitat factors affecting Chinook• Estimate Chinook response to restoration actions
– Are multiple actions cumulatively affecting habitat conditions and fish populations?
Monitoring of multiple Chinook life stages is essential!Primary life stages to monitor:
– Adult spawners– Juvenile migrants from streams– Juvenile migrants through the lakes & migratory corridors– Smolt use of nearshore marine areas
Interdependent parameters for evaluating viability:
Viable Salmonid Population(VSP)
Abundance– How many fish are there at various life stages?
Productivity– Is the population growing?
Distribution– Don't put all your fish in one stream
Diversity – How many life history strategies are present?
MonitoringProgram
VSP Parameters
Abundance Productivity Distribution Diversity
SpawnerSurveys
Adult counts,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
MonitoringProgram
VSP Parameters
Abundance Productivity Distribution Diversity
SpawnerSurveys
Adult counts,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
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
Abundance
Live Counts
Redds
Sockeye
Chinook
Presence of Hatchery Fish on Spawning Grounds
Adipose FinAdipose Fin
Photos from NMT website: http://www.nmt-inc.com
Length, Age, and Pre-Spawn Mortality
Juvenile Trapping
Photo: WDFW
Map from WDFW
Photo: WDFW
PIT-tag Detectors at Locks
Photo: WDFW
Area Under the Curve Escapement
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Year
Es
ca
pe
me
nt
Cedar River
Bear/Cottage *
Adult Abundance: Escapement Estimate
2007
Cedar Escapement Goal
Bear/Cottage Goal
Adult Abundance & Distribution: Redds & Landsburg Passage
Escapement graphsCedar River Chinook salmon redd counts
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Nu
mb
er C
hin
oo
k R
edd
s
Lower River
Above Landsburg
Proportion of Hatchery Fish on Spawning Grounds
Age of Hatchery vs. Natural Origin Spawners (Females only)
Cedar River 2003-2006 Compostion of spawner age by NOR (N=488) and HOS (n=213) groups (Chi-square = 20.9, p<0.001)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
3 4 5
Age of adult sample
Pro
po
rtio
n
Hatchery Origin
Natural Origin
Pre-Spawn Mortality
Program 2 – Fry/Smolt Trapping
Abundance - • Total “fish out”
Productivity -
• What do we mean?– Survival from life stage to life stage– Full life cycle survival– Population replacement
Diversity –
• Life history strategies
Distribution – …..not so much
Cedar RiverAbundance – • Wide range in Fry production & variable by year• Smolt production is less variable and has increased since
1998, except recently
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Fis
h-
ou
t
fry
smolts
Jan-April small fry (45mm) migration with later (May-June) larger smolt (60-100mm) migration
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Sm
olt
s/1
00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Sm
olt
su
rviv
al %
Redds
Smolts
Smoltsurvival
Cedar RiverFigure matches #redds with #smolts produced
Big differences in 2000 and 2006
“Resilience” effects (2000) and “Resistance to Catastrophe” (2006)
One Productivity Estimate
Lifecycle estimate - redds to redds
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
redd
/redd
pro
duct
ivity
DATA redd/redd productivity -all effects
Productivity target (3.1)
Line of replacement (1.0)
Monitoring data analysis & AM framework
• Evaluation of vsp parameters compared to targets
VSP Parameters
Abundance Productivity Distribution Diversity
Targets Escapement goal
Cedar: 1250Bear/Cottage: 350
Increase juvenile and
smolt survival (2x),
Increase adult returns per
spawner (1-3)
Expand spawning area
distribution;Convert satellite
to core area
Increase Cedar instream rearing;
Improve Samammish to support smolt
rearing
Indicators Juvenile abundance
Egg to smolt survival (%), Redd counts
Relative comparison of
Bear vs. Cedar, Redd surveys
Fry vs. smolt numbers,
migration timing
Current Performance
Yes/NoMet escapement goal on Cedar in
2007.
% survival, Redd:Redd estimates
Relative use and importance of
migration areas
Migration timing to locks
Past Trend/ Future Expectation
Increasing/ Decreasing
>1 increasing ?
Summary – Cedar River• Chinook escapement in 2007 was relatively high.
– 2008 should be relatively high barring strong ocean effects– 2009 should be weak – uncertainty is on Ocean effects; – 2010 improved; – 2011 high returns
• Spring 2008 outmigration should be highest on record since 1991.
• Future expectations based on improved understanding of flow effects on survival, productivity of recolonization group, smolt versus fry abundance, effects from hatchery and harvest, and strong Ocean influence.
Importance
• Chinook life history requires consistent long-term annual monitoring to understand status and trends in population dynamics in order to compare to goals for recovery.
• Predictive relationships between fish in and fish out data will help devise possible future management actions based on expected fish performance years ahead of time.
Top Related