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.