Puyallup River Screw Trap Report 2012

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project 2012
By: Andrew Berger Robert Conrad Justin Paul
Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department

Puyallup, WA 98371
January 2013
Acknowledgments
Evaluation of juvenile salmonid production requires a tremendous amount of work. We would like to thank several staff at the Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department for their time in the field. Editorial and statistical support was provided by Robert Conrad from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Other individuals and agencies contributed efforts to this project. We would like to thank the City of Puyallup for the access to the trap site and the Pacific Salmon Treaty for funding the project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures........iii List of Tables...v List of Appendices..........vi Introduction.........1 Goals and Objectives.......2 Methods...3 Trapping Gear and Operations..............3 Sampling Procedures......................3 Measuring Flow, Turbidity and Temperature......4 Capture Efficiency...................................4 Catch Expansion..5 Catch and Flow Regime Stratification.....6 Production Estimates.......6 Results.....9 Flow and Turbidity......9 Temperature..11 CHINOOK...........12 Catch......12 Size....13 Capture Efficiency.........................................................................................................14 Estimated Production.....20 Migration Timing..........21 Freshwater Survival...........23 COHO...24 Catch..24 Size........25 Capture Efficiency.....26 Estimated Production.....29 Migration Timing......30 CHUM...............31 Catch..31 Size........32 Capture Efficiency.32 Estimated Production.....33 Migration Timing..33 PINK.................35 Catch..35 Size........35 Capture Efficiency.36 Estimated Production.....39 Migration Timing..39
Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2012
STEELHEAD41 Catch..41 Size........41 Capture Efficiency.............42 Migration Timing..42 ASSUMPTIONS...44 Catch..44 Catch Expansion....44 Trap Efficiency...44 Chinook.44 Coho...44 Chum.....45 Pink.....45 Turbidity, Flow and Temperature............45 DISCUSSION....46 Turbidity and Flow....46 Temperature.......46 Migration Timing..47 Catch, Trap Efficiency and Production Estimates.47 Freshwater Survival...50 Mortality....51 Incidental Catch.51 REFERENCES..52 Literature Citations....52 Personal Communications.53
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Mean daily flow and NTU for the Puyallup River, 2012....10 Scatter plot of mean daily flow and secchi depth for the Puyallup River, 2012.....10 Scatter plot of mean daily flow and NTU for the combined group Puyallup River, 2012. Circle represents data points not included in the non-glacial group, or values obtained after the river had become glacially influenced....11 Mean daily water temperature recorded on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2012.....12 Five-year average and unmarked Chinook catch on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2012.13 Number of marked and unmarked Chinook catch on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2012....13 Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 0+ Chinook captured in the screw trap, 201214 Plot of estimated daytime and nighttime capture efficiency experiments for Chinook, 2004 - 2012 .......15 Plot of inverse of secchi disk depth and capture efficiency for 2011 and 2012 daytime experiments..16 Plot of inverse of secchi disk depth and capture efficiency for 2011 and 2012 nighttime experiments.16 Plot of flow and capture efficiency for 2011 and 2012 daytime experiments........17 Plot of flow and capture efficiency for 2011 and 2012 nighttime experiments........18
Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12.
Figure 13. Plot of NTU and capture efficiency for 2011 and 2012 daytime and nighttime experiments.............18 Figure 14. Mean Fork length of hatchery Chinook used in capture efficiency experiments, 2012.....19
iii
Figure 15.
Capture efficiency and mean fork length of hatchery Chinook used for markrecapture tests, 2012...20
Figure 16. Annual production estimates of unmarked age 0+ Chinook smolts, 2005 201220 Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Estimated daily migration of unmarked 0+ Chinook smolts with mean daily flow, 2012....21 Percent estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook, 2012....22 Correlation of peak incubation flows (Aug. Feb.) on South Prairie Creek and freshwater survival estimates on the Puyallup River, migration years 2004 201224 Unmarked and marked 1+ coho captured in the screw trap, 2012.....25 Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 1+ coho captured in the smolt trap, 2012 ........26 Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for coho smolt release experiments conducted from 20042012 (daytime and nighttime releases indicated).27 Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus inverse of secchi disk depth for 1+ coho salmon releases, 2012....28 Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus flow for 1+ coho smolt releases, 201228 Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus NTU for 1+ coho smolt releases, 201229 Annual production estimates of unmarked age 1+ coho, 20052012..30 Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants with mean daily flow, 2012..30 Percent migration of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 201231 Total number of chum captured in the Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 201231 Mean weekly fork length and size range of chum captured in the screw trap, 2012........32
Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30.
iv
Figure 31. Figure 32. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Figure 36. Figure 37. Figure 38. Figure 39. Figure 40. Figure 41. Figure 42. Figure 43. Figure 43. Figure 45.
Annual production estimates of chum captured on the Puyallup River, 2006 201233 Daily estimated migration of chum with mean daily flows, 2012.....34 Percent estimated migration of wild age 0+ chum, 2012.34 Five-year average and unmarked chum estimate on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 201234 Mean weekly fork length and size range of pink fry in the screw trap..36 Summary of the capture efficiency estimates by statistical week for wild pink releases conducted in 20042012 ..37 Comparison of mean capture efficiency estimates, by statistical week for wild pink releases conducted in 2004-2012 with 95% confidence intervals.37 Estimated capture efficiency of wild pink salmon versus flow, Puyallup River 2012....37 Annual production estimates for pink salmon on the Puyallup River 2004-2012. ............39 Daily estimated migration of pink fry with mean daily flows, 2012.....40 Percent estimated migration of pink fry, 2012...40 Total number of unmarked steelhead captured in the Puyallup River screw trap, 20002012...41 Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked steelhead captured in the screw trap, 2012.42 Daily and five-year average catch of steelhead migrants with mean daily flows, Puyallup River 201243 Percent migration of steelhead captured in the screw trap, Puyallup River 2012...43
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Annual summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments, 20082012..15
Table 2.
Summary statistics for the ANCOVA examining the relationship between the inverse of secchi disk depth and capture efficiency for nighttime Chinook release experiments, 2011-2012.....17 Annual summary statistics for daytime capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments in 2012.......19 Total unmarked Chinook catch for diurnal and glacial melt periods, 201223 Freshwater survival of unmarked Chinook from the Puyallup River, 2012....23 Annual summary statistics for capture efficiency of coho release experiments, 2011 and 2012....27 Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression through the origin for flow, NTU and secchi disk depth (X) and capture efficiency (Y) for coho salmon, 2012......29 Annual summary statistics for the mean capture efficiency for pink salmon release experiments conducted in 2004-2012 (mean of estimates for statistical weeks)...38 Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression through the origin for flow, secchi disk depth and inverse of secchi disk depth (X) with capture efficiency (Y) for pink salmon, 2012.38
Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7.
Table 8. Table 9.
APPENDICES
Figure A1. Figure A2. Figure A3. Table B1. Table B2. Table B3 Table B4 Table B5 The Puyallup River Watershed.....A1 Diagram of a rotary screw trap...A2 Orientation of the screw trap in the lower Puyallup River channel at R.M. 10.6A3 Fork length data for unmarked age 0+ Chinook migrants, 2012..B1 Fork length data for unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2012....B2 Fork length data for unmarked chum, 2012.......B3 Fork length data for unmarked pink, 2012.......B4 Fork length data for unmarked steelhead, 2012.........B5 vi
Table C1. Table C2. Table C3. Table C4.
Hatchery Chinook mark and recapture data for the Puyallup River, 20042012.....C1 H a t c h e r y c o h o ma r k a n d r e c a p t ur e da ta f or the Puya llup Riv e r , 20042012.....C3 Hatchery and wild chum mark and recapture data for the Puyallup River, 20042012.C4 Wild pink mark and recapture data for the Puyallup River, 20042012.C5
vii
INTRODUCTION
The Puyallup River Watershed encompasses 438 square miles and includes three major tributaries: the Carbon River, Mowich River and South Prairie Creek. The Puyallup River flows westward more than 54 miles from the southwest slope of Mount Rainier to Commencement Bay and has an average annual flow of 1,729 cfs near the location of the smolt trap (USGS, 2006). The Puyallup, Carbon and Mowich Rivers originate from glaciers located in Mt. Rainer National Park and exhibit the classic features of glacial streams: frequently shifting braided channels, high turbidity, and low temperatures. Rivers that flow from Mt. Rainer typically have greater sediment loads than other rivers of similar size in the Pacific Northwest not draining volcanoes (Czuba, 2012). South Prairie Creek, which is a non-glacial tributary of the Carbon River, is fed by groundwater and seasonal runoff and offers clear water and moderate temperatures, and provides the majority of prime spawning ground availability in the watershed. The Puyallup-White River Watershed is identified as a Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10 by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The watershed supports eight species of anadromous fishes including six species of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), coastal Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Prior to the construction of the Electron Diversion Dam at river mile (R.M.) 41.5 in 1904 natural production occurred throughout the entire Puyallup River Basin. However, the dam eliminated access to 21.5 miles of spawning habitat. In the fall of 2000, the Puyallup Tribe reopened this habitat for fish use by installing a fish ladder at the Electron Dam. The State of Washington began hatchery production within the watershed in 1914 at Voights Creek State Salmon Hatchery. The confluence of Voights Creek enters the Carbon River at R.M. 4.0 (Appendix A1). Currently, Voights Creek Hatchery rears fall Chinook and Coho. In 1998, the Puyallup Tribe began planting hatchery-reared fall Chinook and Coho into three acclimation ponds in the upper Puyallup watershed. Cowskull pond drains directly into the Puyallup River at R.M. 45.5. The Rushingwater and Mowich ponds drain into the Mowich River, which enters the Puyallup at R.M. 42.3. In addition, surplus Chinook and Coho from Voights Creek Hatchery are released above Electron Dam and allowed to spawn naturally in an attempt to repopulate available habitat. Puyallup River fall Chinook were classified as a distinct stock by the 1992 State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) on the basis of geographic distribution. In 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed Puget Sound Chinook as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Also in 1999, the Puyallup Tribe (PTF) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) created a joint fall Chinook recovery plan with a goal of maintaining natural fall Chinook production while evaluating the production potential of the Puyallup River system and current stock status (WDFW and PTF, 2000). In addition to Chinook, Puget Sound steelheads were listed as threatened under the ESA in 2007. Estimating smolt abundance is a necessary step towards evaluating trends in stock productivity and production potential of the Puyallup River system. 1
In 2000, the Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department started the Puyallup River Smolt Production Assessment Project to estimate: (1) juvenile abundance of native salmonids, with an emphasis on natural fall Chinook salmon, and (2) survival of hatchery and acclimation pond Chinook. Beginning in 2000, an E. G. Solutions 5-ft diameter rotary screw trap has been operated annually on the lower Puyallup at R.M. 10.6, just upstream of the confluence with the White River, and has been used to monitor the outmigration of juvenile salmonids. In 2011, a new 8-ft screw replaced the ageing 5-ft screw. As more data become available, juvenile abundance estimates may provide baseline information allowing managers to re-evaluate escapement objectives in the watershed, create a production potential-based management strategy, and accurately forecast future returns of hatchery and naturally produced adults. In addition, a basin spawner/recruit analysis will help: (1) indicate stock productivity, (2) determine the overall health of the watershed, and (3) evaluate the contribution of enhancement projects. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goals of this project are to estimate the abundance of juvenile salmonids, characterize juvenile migration timing, describe the length distribution for all wild salmonid out migrants, and fulfill the objectives of the Puyallup River Fall Chinook Recovery Plan. To achieve these goals, this project will produce population estimates of out migrating smolts, estimate species-specific migration timing, compare natural versus hatchery abundance and run timing, analyze mean fork length of wild smolts and detail species composition of the sampled population. The objectives of this project are to: 1. Estimate juvenile abundance for all salmonids in the Puyallup River and estimate freshwater survival for naturally produced juvenile Chinook. 2. Investigate physical factors such as light (day vs. night), river flow, and river turbidity and their importance to trap capture efficiency. 3. Continue and further develop methodologies and models to estimate abundance for salmonids. 4. Detail species length and run timing in order to investigate environmental factors contributing to these life history patterns. In this report, all stated objectives will be met for Chinook and Coho salmon for the 2012 smolt outmigration season. Non-target species such as pink, chum and steelhead will be addressed to a lesser extent.
2
METHODS
Trapping Gear and Operations The rotary screw trap used in this project consists of a rotary cone suspended within a steel structure on top of twin, 40-foot pontoons. The opening of the rotary cone is eight feet in diameter, and has a sampling depth of approximately 4.0 feet. The cone and live box assembly are attached to a steel frame that may be raised or lowered by hand winches located at the front and rear of the assembly (Appendix A2). This year was the first year an eight-foot screw was used to trap juveniles; previous trapping utilized a five-foot cone. Two five-ton, bow-mounted anchor winches with 3/8 steel cables are used to secure and adjust the direction of the trap and keep it in the thawed (Appendix A3). The cables are secured to trees on opposite banks. Additional rear cables are secured to trees located on the banks to further stabilize the trap. The rotary screw trap was installed in the lower Puyallup River (R.M. 10.6) just above the confluence with the White River. This year the trap was positioned in the same location as 2008 - 2010, close to where it had been positioned from 2000 to 2006. Trap operation began on February 3rd and continued, when possible, 24 hours a day seven days a week until August 14th. The trap was not fished during some high flow events and hatchery releases in order to avoid damage to the screw and stress to fish. These dates are described in the catch expansion section of the report. The trap was checked for fish at least twice each day: at dawn and dusk. Civil twilight, and sunrise and sunset hours, was used to separate catch into day and night periods. During hatchery releases and high flow events personnel remained onsite throughout the night to clear the trap of debris and prevent overcrowding in the live box. Revolutions per minute (rpm), secchi depth (cm) and weather conditions were recorded during each trap check. Sampling Procedures Smolts were anesthetized with MS-222 (tricaine methanesulfonate) for handling purposes and subsequently placed in a recovery bin of river water before release back to the river. The procedure outlined in the Journal of Fisheries Management using a 1:10 clove oil/ethanol solution for sedation was also used (Anderson et al. 1997). Juveniles were identified as either natural or hatchery origin. All hatchery fish in the Puyallup system are marked with an adipose fin clip or an adipose fin clip plus a coded wire tag. Therefore, unmarked fish are identified as natural and marked fish are identified as hatchery. Hatchery-origin fish were identified in two ways: (1) by visual inspection for an adipose fin (Ad) clips, and (2) with a Northwest Marine Technology wand detector used for coded wire tag (CWT) detection. Fork length (mm) was measured and recorded for unmarked fish.
3
When possible, at least 50 fish per day were measured for each species, and scale samples were collected on all wild steelhead smolts. Species were separated by size/age class. Chinook smolts were recorded as age 0+ (<150mm) or age 1+ (>150mm), but in some instances were recorded as 0+ or 1+ depending on morphological characteristics and time of season rather than a rigid measuring scale. The age class differentiation was also used for Coho, but were identified as fry, age 0+ (<70mm) or smolt, age 1+ (>70mm). All chum were identified as age 0+. Trout fry age 0+ (<60mm) were not differentiated to species. Measuring Flow, Turbidity and Temperature Stream flow measurements were obtained from the United States Geological Surveys (USGS) Alderton gauge, number 12096500 (USGS, 2008), located approximately 1.5 miles above the screw trap. All flow data provided by the USGS is provisional until the following water year. Mean daily flow, measured in cubic feet per second (cfs), was recorded throughout the sample season and stream flow was noted during each capture efficiency experiment. A YSI 6920 sonde multi-parameter water quality meter was used to monitor turbidity (NTU), water temperature (C), pH and Conductivity (uS). The water quality meter was installed on the front of the trap in a large open cylinder, and placed suspended five-feet below the surface of the water. The meter was downloaded and calibrated every 30-days. Turbidity was also measured by taking a secchi disk depth (cm) measurement off the front of the trap during each trap check. Each secchi measurement was applied to its respective day or night catch period. In order to expand secchi readings during un-fished intervals, averages were taken and applied where appropriate, i.e., if fish were migrating and secchi depth was used as a measure of capture efficiency. Water temperature was measured using the YSI multi-parameter meter. Temperature was recorded every half-hour, twenty-four hours a day for the entire migration season. Daily temperature is the average of all measurements taken during each days twenty-four hour period. Capture Efficiency For the 2012 trapping season, marked Chinook and Coho were released at the same site 650 meters above the screw trap. Marked wild pink were released 300 meters above the trap. The time of release varied for each species and is described below. Chinook Chinook reared at Clarks Creek Tribal Hatchery and hatchery Chinook captured in the screw trap were used for all capture efficiency experiments in 2012. A combination of fin clipping and Bismarck Brown Y Biological stain solution was used to identify marked fish. No MS-222 was used on any Chinook except to measure samples for fork length. After marking, fish were transferred to one large aerated container and immediately moved upstream and released. The marked fish were released at either day or night times in order to 4
examine differences in capture efficiency as a result of daylight. Day and night release groups were classified as either day or night by the majority of the first 10 hours after release being in light or dark. Sunrise and sunset times, as well as civil twilight, were used to determine the amount of light for each hour. No control groups were held for releases but all fish were vigorous at release. Coho Coho releases were conducted using hatchery fish reared at Diru Tribal Hatchery. Fish were anesthetized with MS-222 and clipped with either an upper or lower caudal clip. The fish were then transferred to an aerated container and immediately moved upstream and released. All experiments with marked Coho occurred at night. No control groups were held for releases but all fish were vigorous at release. Pink Wild even-year pink captured in the smolt trap were used to conduct capture efficiency experiments in 2012. All fish were marked with Bismarck Brown Y Biological Stain solution. Fish were placed in an aerated stain solution of 0.4 grams Bismark Brown per 5 gallons of water and held in the solution for 20-30 minutes. After marking, fish were placed in totes and aerated until release. In 2012, all pink were released at night. Catch Expansion Due to a variety of factors such as high flows, hatchery releases, and screw stoppers, the trap was not fished continuously throughout the trapping season. There were five days out of 194 possible days when the trap was not fishing for a full 24-hour period, but there were also day or night periods when the trap was not fishing. On these days, the average catch per day (or night) was used to estimate the number of missed fish during that period. The average was calculated by taking the respective catch from the day or night period before and after the un-fished interval, adding them together and then dividing by the total number of periods. Because this method incorporates the catch around the un-fished interval it was used for all un-fished periods throughout the migration season. These dates were: nights of February 21st and 22nd, April 12th, 13th, 20th, 24th, 30th, May 28th and 29th, May 31st, June 1st, June 23rd, July 5th and 15th, August 5th, 6th and 10th, days of February 22nd, March 18th, April 22nd, May 1st, 4th, 28th, 29th and 31st, June 1st - 2nd, 17th, 23rd, 24th, July 6th. This year all species were treated the same with the methods described above; however not all days had fish expansion because there were no fish present on the listed days. In addition to the dates above, hourly expansion was used during high flow events and periods of high catches of fish. On these days, the trap was fished for a known number of hours, pulled for a known number of hours, and then fished again. The number of fish per hour was calculated during the fished interval and applied to the un-fished interval. Hourly expansion was used on: days of February 26th, March 17th, 30th, April 13th, 24th, 30th, May 30th, June 7th, 10th, 20th, July 16th, and 23rd, nights of April 16th, 21st-23rd, 25th, May 1st, 3rd, 4th, 21st, 22nd, June 2nd, 18th, 24th and August 1st, and both days and nights for February 23rd and 25th, March 15th and 16th, April 26th 27th, May 2nd, 23rd, 24th, June 3rd, 19th, July 1st, and 20th.
5
When the trap was fished for a 24-hour period without being checked, catch was split using the percent day:night catch ratio from actual paired day and night catches. Further, day: night catch ratios were estimated separately for the two time period strata (pre-glacial and glacial). Catch and Flow Regime Stratification Flow and turbidity data were examined in stratification periods in order to evaluate the relationship between flow and turbidity, the relationship between secchi disk depth and NTU, and the effect of seasonal turbidity events on capture efficiency. The stratification periods were delineated by the date at which secchi disk depth measurements were permanently 50cm for the remainder of the season. This is the glacial period and this year occurred on July 7th. The dates before July 7th are called the non-glacial period, and the combined period consists of all values from the entire season, including the glacial period. In previous years, a similar stratification method was used to estimate Chinook abundance. In addition to glacial stratification using turbidity, catch data was delineated using both day and night. The effect of light on catch was determined by checking the trap during dusk and dawn periods and segregating catch into its respective category. Production Estimates Because of differences in the relationship between environmental variables and capture efficiency for each species, production estimates for each species were calculated using different methods. Although the methods used to estimate production were different for each species, estimated capture efficiency was calculated similarly for each experiment. ) of the trap for a species and the total catch (C) by the trap (either for Capture efficiency ( E the season or a defined period of time) was calculated as follows:
=r/m E and =C/ E N

where:
= estimated capture efficiency, E

r = number of marked fish recaptured, m = number of marked fish released,
= total estimated number of migrants passing the trap, and N

C = total number of unmarked fish caught in the screw trap. Since our trap was checked twice in a 24-hour period (once in the morning and once in the evening), each morning check roughly reflects the number of fish caught during the previous night and each evening check reflects the number of fish caught during the day. When estimating the total number of migrants passing the trap (N), the number of unmarked fish caught in the smolt trap (C) is the number of fish caught during each dates respective day or 6
night period, and is not the total number of fish counted on the date the trap was checked. In this report, one day will reflect the total number of fish caught in a combined day and night period. For some species, the number of unmarked fish caught in the trap (C) is the sum over some specified amount of time, e.g., day, week, season, or glacial turbidity period. A 95% confidence interval was estimated for each Chinook capture efficiency experiment using methods described by Fleiss (1981). using the variance of E SPSS statistical software was used to analyze data and estimate predictive models of capture efficiency for each species (SPSS, 2003). Chinook Previous years analyses have demonstrated that the capture efficiency of the trap in capturing outmigrating Chinook smolts is influenced by water clarity, (measured by secchi disk depth taken at the trap), diurnal period (daytime and nighttime) and river flow (cfs). Analyses of the complete set of capture efficiency data for Chinook smolts (2004 2009) conducted in 2009 concluded that trap capture efficiency, and its relationship to important environmental variables, was significantly different for the years 2004-2007 compared to 2008 and 2009 data. This coincided with a change in trap location. In 2010, data was combined for the years 2008 2010, and separate models were developed to estimate abundance. In 2011 and 2012, trap position remained the same, but a larger trap was used to estimate capture efficiency, therefore data collected only in 2011 and 2012 was used for analysis. The relationships of secchi depth, NTUs, and river flow with capture efficiency were examined using both correlation and regression analyses. The arcsin of the square root of capture efficiency and inverse of secchi depth, and ln of flow were included in the analyses. Transformed data were used when necessary to linearize relationships, normalize the distributions of the data, and equalize variances among groups. Relationships examined included linear and curvilinear models (e.g. power and exponential models). When significant relationships were indicated, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) strategy was followed to simultaneously examine whether there was a significant relationship between each of the independent X variables (secchi disk depth, NTUs, and flow) and the dependent Y variable (capture efficiency), and if a significant relationship was indicated between X and Y, determine whether the relationship was the same between the two years of data (Milliken and Johnson, 2002). Coho Analyses in 2009 of all coho capture efficiency experiments performed from 2004 2009 concluded that capture efficiency and its relationship to important environmental variables was significantly different for the years 2004 2007 compared to 2008 and 2009. This coincided with the change in trap location. In 2010, experiments conducted from 2008 2010 were not significantly different and combined for analysis and model development. In 2012, we only examined data from 2011 and 2012 because of the difference in screw size between years. Regression analyses similar to those conducted for Chinook were used to examine the relationships of secchi depth, NTU and flow with capture efficiency. However, because there were only six coho experiments, all conducted at night, there was no ANCOVA. 7
Pink Because juvenile pink salmon only run in even-years and with the addition of our new 8-foot screw in 2011, there was only a single year of data available for statistical evaluation. Prior to 2008, relatively small groups of pink salmon were released and pooled on a weekly basis. Since then, there have been fewer releases but larger numbers of individuals in each group, usually 500 individuals. In 2010, GLM analysis concluded there was no significant relationship between flow and capture efficiency with year as a factor, so a single-season mean capture efficiency was used to estimate abundance. This year the relationship between secchi disk depth, NTUs and river flow with capture efficiency were examined using both correlation and regression analyses. The natural log and inverse were used to transform the environmental variables when appropriate. All data were fit to linear, log, power and exponential models to evaluate relationships between capture efficiency and predictor variables. Chum From 2008 2010 only three wild chum experiments were conducted and all three tests were completed in 2008. Prior to 2008, hatchery versus wild chum capture efficiency analyses were conducted and indicated a significant difference between hatchery and wild chum releases. Since it was not possible to release wild chum in all years due to increased numbers of wild pink salmon, pink salmon capture efficiency results were examined in order to explore the possibility of using pink capture efficiency as a surrogate for chum capture efficiency during even-years. Because pink salmon were available this year the models developed for determining pink abundance were also used for chum.
8
RESULTS
Flow and Turbidity During the 2012 trapping season there was only one early distinct peak of mean daily flow of 10,000 cfs on February 22nd (Figure 1). This is the highest volume of flow seen at the trap since the 10,798 cfs peak during March of 2007. There was also a significant flow event on March 16th of 3,970 cfs followed by a third event in late April where flows stayed above 4,000 cfs for the majority of April and into early May (Figure 1). These early high-flow events occur infrequently on the Puyallup. During the 2008-2010 trapping seasons, as well as in 2006, flows steadily increased from the start of the season until a peak in late May or early June, a more typical flow pattern. Average daily flow for the trapping season, February 3rd to August 14th, was 2,317 cfs, the second highest average observed since recorded in 2004. Turbidity was measured by both NTUs and secchi depth. NTU mirrors flow very well from the beginning of the season until the end, with peaks in flow coinciding with peaks in NTU (Figure 1). Secchi disk depth also provides a similar trend as NTU with flow, but the graphic is not provided. Figure 2 indicates the relationship between secchi depth and NTUs. The relationship between the two turbidity variables was significant for all regression models: linear, log, power and exponential (P < 0.000), but the log model fit the data best. An important component of the flow regime on the Puyallup is the period of glacial influence during the late summer after the annual spring melt. As the independent variable, flow was significantly correlated with both NTU (power P = 0.000, R2 = 0.137) and secchi disk depth (log model P = 0.000, R2 = 0.067) for the entire trapping season, however the R2 remained low for both models. When the data was stratified into respective glacial and preglacial periods, the relationship between flow and secchi depth was significant for the preglacial period (log model P = 0.000, R2 = 0.52) but not for the glacial period, while the relationship between flow and NTU was significant for both the pre-glacial (linear model P = 0.000, R2 = 0.62) and glacial period (power model P = 0.044, R2 = 0.10). The relationship is stronger for both variables during the pre-glacial period, while the glacial period appears to have more variability. In general, NTU appears to be a better fit with flow than secchi depth for the entire season and when data is stratified for glacial influence (Figure 3). Although the relationships are not strong there does appear to be a relationship between flow and turbidity on the Puyallup River. From this data and continual observation from year to year, it is evident that snow pack and glacial melt influence the timing and degree of turbidity on the Puyallup River, and therefore the large-scale shift in the flow/turbidity regime during juvenile salmon migration.
9
10450 9500 8550 7600 Flow NTU's
330 300 270 240 210
Flow (cfs)
6650 5700 4750 3800 2850 1900 950 0 2/5 2/20 3/6 3/21 4/5 4/20 5/5 5/20 6/4 6/19 7/4 7/19 8/3
150 120 90 60 30 0
Date
Figure 1. Mean daily flow and NTU for the Puyallup River, 2012.
330 300 270 240 210
R = 0.4928
NTU
180 150 120 90 60 30 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Secchi Depth (cm)
Figure 2. Scatter plot of secchi disk depth and NTU showing log regression for the Puyallup River, 2012.
NTU
180
10
330 300 270 240 210
R = 0.1379
NTU
180 150 120 90 60 30 0 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500
Flow (cfs)
Figure 3. Scatter plot of mean daily flow and NTU for the combined group Puyallup River, 2012. Circle represents data points included in the glacial group, or values obtained after the river had become glacially influenced.
Temperature Daily surface water temperature exceeding 16oC is the limit for Washington Department of Ecology Surface Water Quality Standards for Core Summer Salmonid Habitat use (WDOE, 2006). Figure 4 shows mean daily surface water temperatures from February 3rd to August 15th. Temperatures reached 16oC on August 4th, three weeks later than observed in previous years (Figure 4). This year temperatures reached 10oC on April 21st, one month earlier than in 2009 (Figure 4). Overall, temperatures appeared to be cooler than in 2009 and 2010, when temperature exceeded 16oC in early July, but warmer than 2011, when temperatures never reached the 16oC threshold. From our multi-year temperature data we observe that when water temperatures reach 10oC at an earlier date, critically high temperatures are evident in late summer. This observation was again upheld during the 2011 and 2012 seasons, when in 2011 10oC wasnt reached until mid-May, a possible reason why temperatures never reached 16oC that year. In 2012 however, we see 10oC being reached by late April which is thought to lead to the critically high temperatures in August. Often times high surface water temperatures are recorded in years when the loss of snow pack results in flooding during late winter, or early spring.
11
18.00 16.00 14.00
Water Temperature (C )
12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 2/3 2/19 3/6 3/22 4/7 4/23 5/9 5/25 6/10 6/26 7/12 7/28 8/13
Date
Figure 4. Mean daily surface water temperature recorded on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2012.
CHINOOK Catch Unmarked Chinook A total of 4,208 unmarked Chinook migrants were captured in the screw trap between February 3rd and August 14th, the entire time the trap was fishing. This is the longest migration period for any juvenile salmon in the Puyallup River, 194 days. Sixty-nine percent (2,924) was actual catch and 31% (1,284) was expanded. This is the second highest catch in the previous five-years (range: 436 4,760) and above the five-year average catch of 2,745. Eight Chinook were captured on the first day of trapping indicating outmigration had already begun before the trap was fishing. Its likely the intermediate flow event that occurred prior to installation on January 21st (4,200 cfs) forced out some number of Chinook. In previous years, Chinook have been captured on large early flow events. Each year there is some degree of early run-timing by Chinook influenced by flow events. Catch continued to be low but consistent throughout the year except during the peak flow events when catch increased (Figure 5). There continued to be bi-modal run timing with an early fry (Feb. March) and later smolt (June-July) component. Unlike last year, when peak catch occurred in April, but similar to a majority of other years, the peak catch event occurred in late summer during the peak migration of hatchery Chinook (Figure 6). This may indicate some mixed stock interaction of wild and hatchery Chinook.
12
250
10000
Unmarked Chinook Catch (n=4,208)
Five-year Average Chinook Catch
200
Five-year Average Catch Flow (cfs)
8000
150
6000
100
4000
50
2000
0 2/3 2/18 3/4 3/19 4/3 4/18 5/3 5/18 6/2 6/17 7/2 7/17 8/1
Date
Figure 5. Five-year average and unmarked Chinook catch on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2012.
2500
Number of Marked Chinook Captured
Number of Unmarked Chinook Captured
2000
Number of Marked Chinook Captured
1500
200
1000 100 500
0 2/3 2/18 3/4 3/19 4/3 4/18 5/3 5/18 6/2 6/17 7/2 7/17 8/1
Date
Figure 6. Number of marked and unmarked Chinook captured on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2012.
Size Mean fork length of unmarked age 0+ Chinook increased throughout the trapping season in 2012. Between stat. week 17 and 18 (late-April) there was a 13 mm increase in mean fork length from 48 mm to 61 mm (Figure 7). This was one month earlier than the first major fork length increase during the 2011 season. Growth appears to follow the general trend in increased water temperature. Although an increase in maximum range from 85 mm to 101 mm occurred during stat. week 22 (mid-May), a permanent increase in the maximum in range above 100 mm didnt occur 13
Number of Unmarked Chinook Captured
300
Flow in 2012 (cfs)
until stat. week 26 increasing from 97mm to 110mm (Figure 7). This years minimum and maximum fork lengths followed the same typical progression throughout the migration season as seen last year. Chinook reached above the minimum fork length of 50 mm during stat. week 20 (early-May) and maximum fork length of 100 mm during stat. week 26 (midJune) (Figure 7). Chinook were measured early in the trapping season in the 30 mm size class, indicating the presence of Chinook fry and some degree of survival for this years brood.
130 120 110
Fork Length (mm)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Statistical Week
Figure 7. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 0+ Chinook captured in the screw trap, 2012.
Capture Efficiency During the 2012 season, eight capture efficiency experiments using hatchery Chinook salmon were conducted from February 28th to July 12th. There were three daytime releases and five nighttime releases, about 500 fish were used in every experiment (Appendix C1). A total of 4,036 hatchery Chinook were released during the eight experiments. In the previous two years, a new screw trap that sampled an area 2.56 times larger than the previous trap (8 screw vs. 5 screw) was used. Therefore, analysis here examines data only from 2011 and 2012. Also for the past two years, NTU data associated with the capture efficiency experiments were collected for the first time. Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates in 2012 to Previous Years Estimates Capture efficiency estimates in 2012 ranged from 3.17% to 6.86% (Figure 8). The larger area sampled by the new screw trap resulted in second highest mean capture efficiency in the previous five years when the trap was moved to its current location (Table 1). The capture efficiency experiments in 2012 did not have a wide range, as in most years, which resulted in the lowest standard error. Table 1 summarizes capture efficiency estimates for Chinook since 2008 when the trap was moved to its current location. 14
Mean capture efficiency was significantly different between years 2011 and 2012 for day and night experiments combined (P = 0.011). Further, the mean capture efficiency was significantly different between day experiments performed in 2011 and 2012 (P = 0.05), while not different between night experiments (P = 0.89). Levens test of the homogeneity of group variances was not significant for any ANOVA testing (P > 0.197).
14.00%
Day
Capture Efficiency Percentage
12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00%

2003
Night
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Figure 8. Plot of estimated daytime and nighttime capture efficiency experiments for Chinook 2004 - 2012. Table 1. Annual summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments, 2008 2012.
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mean 4.67% 3.85% 2.83% 8.58% 5.25% N 8 9 6 7 8 St. Error 0.79% 0.92% 0.57% 1.04% 0.53% Median 5.03% 2.60% 2.69% 8.04% 5.44% 1.18% 0.99% 0.67% 5.14% 3.17% Range 7.73% 9.15% 4.73% 12.87% 6.86%
Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth Previous years analyses have demonstrated that: (1) there is a significant relationship (P for the slope parameter < 0.05) between capture efficiency and both secchi disk depth and flow and (2) these relationships may be different between daytime and nighttime experiments. Based on previous years results, these relationships were examined in greater detail.
15
Figures 9 and 10 show the relationship between capture efficiency and the inverse of secchi disk depth for daytime and nighttime experiments, respectively. The inverse of secchi disk depth was used to linearize the relationship. While there is clearly no relationship for the daytime experiments, a simple linear regression indicated that the relationship was significant for the nighttime experiments, 2011/2012 combined (P for slope = 0.042). ANCOVA indicated the hypothesis of equal slopes for the 2011 and 2012 nighttime experiments could not be rejected (P = 0.803) but that the intercepts for the relationships each year were significantly different (P = 0.024). Table 2 summarizes the results of the ANCOVA.
14.00%
2011 Day Only
12.00%
2012 Day Only
Capture Efficiency
10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Inverse of Secchi Disk Depth
Figure 9. Plot of inverse of secchi disk depth and capture efficiency for 2011 and 2012 daytime experiments.
10.00% 9.00% 8.00%
2011 Night Only 2012 Night Only Linear (2011 and 2012 Combined)
Capture Efficiency
7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 y = 1.3124x + 0.0406 R = 0.4694
Inverse of Secchi Disk Depth
Figure 10. Plot of inverse of secchi depth and capture efficiency for 2011 and 2012 nighttime experiments. Regression of combined nighttime data, 2011 and 2012.
16
Table 2. Summary statistics for the ANCOVA examining the relationship between the inverse of secchi disk depth and capture efficiency for nighttime Chinook release experiments, 20112012.
Parameter Slope 2011 Intercept 2012 Interecept Coefficient 1.258 0.052 0.034 Standard Error 0.361 0.006 0.006 Significance 0.013 0.024 0.002 95% Confidence Interval 0.375 0.021 0.018 2.141 0.081 0.049
Capture Efficiency versus Flow Figures 11 and 12 show the relationship between capture efficiency and flow for daytime and nighttime experiments, respectively. There were no significant relationships with flow (all P > 0.08) for analyses on daytime and nighttime sets separately and for the data combined.
14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Capture Efficiency
Flow (cfs)
Figure 11. Plot of flow (cfs) and capture efficiency for 2011 and 2012 daytime experiments.
17
10.00% 9.00% 8.00%
Capture Efficiency
7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Flow (cfs)
Figure 12. Plot of flow and capture efficiency for 2011 and 2012 nighttime experiments.
Capture Efficiency versus NTU For the second year, NTU data was collected during capture efficiency experiments. NTU measurements, with one exception of the final experiment performed in July, were narrowly distributed between 0 and 37 (Figure 13). For all model testing, there was no significant relationship between NTU and capture efficiency (P > 0.45).
14.00%
2011 Day
12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
2011 Night 2012 Day 2012 Night
Capture Efficiency
140
160
NTU
Figure 13. Plot of NTU and capture efficiency for 2011 and 2012 daytime and nighttime experiments.
18
Mean Capture Efficiency Because there was no statistically significant explanatory power of secchi depth, NTU and flow for the 2011-2012 daytime experiments the mean capture efficiency of experiments performed during the daytime in 2012 was used to estimate abundance for catch that occurred during daylight hours. The model of capture efficiency with the inverse of secchi disk depth was used to estimate abundance for catch during the nighttime. Table 3 provides a summary of daytime experiments completed in 2012 and statistics of the mean.
Table 3. Annual summary statistics for daytime capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments in 2012.
Release Date 03/5/12 06/13/12 07/12/12 Average for Experiments Number Released 510 505 489 Number Recaptured 35 16 33 Estimated Capture Efficiency 6.86% 3.16% 6.74% 5.59% Standard Error 0.00050 0.00035 0.00051 0.01212 Confidence Interval 4.89% 1.88% 4.76% 0.37% 9.51% 5.20% 9.44% 10.81%
Hatchery Chinook Length used for Capture Efficiency Experiments Fork length data were collected for all mark-recapture test conducted in 2012. Average fork length of hatchery Chinook used for mark-recapture tests increased over the course of the testing period (Figure 14), but there was no significant relationship between capture efficiency and fork length for the experiments (P > 0.73) (Figure 15).
120
100
Mean Fork Length (mm)
80
60
40
20
0 2/21
3/12
4/1
4/21
5/11
5/31
6/20
7/10
7/30
Date
Figure 14. Mean fork length of hatchery Chinook used in capture efficiency experiments, 2012.
19
10.00%
Estiamted Capture Efficiency
7.50%
5.00%
2.50%
0.00% 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Mean Fork Length (mm)
Figure 15. Capture efficiency and mean fork length of hatchery Chinook used for mark-recapture tests, 2012.
Estimated Production Using the mean daytime capture efficiency abundance estimate plus the inverse of secchi disk depth for the nighttime abundance estimate, a total of 71,227 unmarked Chinook passed the screw trap between February 3rd and August 14th. For the day abundance estimate 29,492 (41%) Chinook passed the trap during daylight hours, while 41,798 (59%) passed during nighttime hours. This is the second highest production estimate within the last eight years (Figure 16), and above the five-year average of 35,839. There is no variance produced for this estimate.
100,000
Estimated Number of Chinook Migrants
90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Figure 16. Annual production estimates of unmarked age 0+ Chinook smolts, 2005 2012.
20
Migration Timing Unmarked 0+ Chinook Migration timing in 2012 was similar to previous years in that Chinook were captured when the trap first began fishing and catches continued through summer until that last day of fishing in mid-August (Figure 17). Typically there are two peaks in migration, one during the early spring and one in early to mid-June, indicating the movement of both fry and smolt stage Chinook. This year, like last year, the peak in early spring was evident, however unlike last year there was a late peak in July. In general, the run peaked early on February 23rd following an increase in flow, then continued fairly consistent following increases in flow, and again peaking in July. This year the largest peak occurred on July 1st, the latest peak since July 4th, 2009 with 3,776 (5%) passing the trap in a single day.
10000 4000
Estimated Number of Chinook
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
Estimated Number of Chinook (n=71,227) Flow (cfs)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0 2/4 2/18 3/3 3/17 3/31 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/9 6/23 7/7 7/21 8/4
Date
Figure 17. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook smolts with mean daily flow, 2012.
Based upon our abundance estimates the first 25% of unmarked Chinook migrated by March 17th, 50% by May 10th and 75% by June 23rd (Figure 18). Eight percent of Chinook migrated during the three days surrounding the peak in February. This year quartiles were not reached following flow events, but rather consistent catches throughout the year. All quartiles were reached much later than in previous years.
Flow (cfs)
21
100%
June 23rd 75%
Percent Migration
May 10th 50%
March 17th 25%
0% 2/4 2/18 3/3 3/17 3/31 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/9 6/23 7/7 7/21 8/4
Date
Figure 18. Percent migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook, 2012.
Glacial and Pre-Glacial Catch Every year a majority of Chinook are captured during the pre-glacial period in the Puyallup River and a smaller portion of fish remain in-river during the turbid, glacially influenced period. The pre-glacial melt period fluctuates little from year to year and is generally defined as the date at which secchi disk depth measurements were 50 cm or less for the remainder of the trapping season. This period usually ends near the beginning of July. This year the pre-glacial period ended on July 7th. Eighty percent of total catch migrated past the trap during this time period (Table 4). Day and Night Catch Day and night migration is an important aspect of juvenile migration patterns and has been a component of smolt trap operation in the Puget Sound region. On the Green River, Seiler et al. (2004) reported a day/night catch ratio range of 0.25 (January to March-fry period) to 0.46 (May to June-smolt period), indicating a majority of fish were captured during nighttime hours. In addition, daytime migration rates of 0+ age Chinook were found to be affected by turbidity on the Skagit River (Seiler et al., 2004). In previous years, we were able to establish a relationship between turbidity and its effects on capture efficiency in daytime and nighttime conditions, where the trap is less efficient at capturing Chinook during the daytime, however in the two most recent years the average capture efficiency has been higher during the day than night. This year day to night ratios were different among pre-glacial and glacial periods, 0.68 and 0.50 respectively, so a majority of Chinook tended to migrate at night rather than during the daylight (Table 4). As seen in previous years, when comparing day and night ratios in the non-glacial versus glacial period, Chinook tended to migrate less during daylight in the glacial period when the water was turbid. This may indicate some preference of Chinook to slow migration until darkness, when turbidity is high. 22
Table 4. Total unmarked Chinook catch for diurnal and glacial melt periods, 2012.
Date Pre-Glacial Glacial Total Day 1,370 276 1,646 (39%) Night 2,009 553 2,562 (61%) Total 3,379 (80%) 829 (20%) 4,208 (100%)
Freshwater Survival Freshwater Survival of Natural 0+ Chinook Relating our total unmarked Chinook outmigration estimate to our potential egg deposition gives us an estimate of freshwater survival to the screw trap (Table 5). This estimate does not include mortality that may occur after fish pass the screw trap. The number of females used to calculate the smolt-to-female ratio and egg production is based on the estimated total number of fish that spawned in the Puyallup River using live/redd counts, or area under the curve (AUC) methodology (Livingood, Pers. Comm.). The number of females was calculated from the male-to-female ratio from South Prairie Creek and fecundity taken from Voights Creek hatchery fall Chinook was used to estimate total egg production. A fecundity of 4,346 eggs/female was used for the 2011 brood (Davis, Pers. Comm.). Maximum and minimum flows are provisional data from the USGS on South Prairie Creek (Clemens, Pers. Comm.).
Table 5. Freshwater survival of unmarked Chinook from the Puyallup River, 2012.
Total Total Run Year Outmigration Number of Estimate Females 2011-2012
*
Potential Egg Deposition 1,685,006
Maximum and Percent Freshwater Smolt / Minimum Flows Survival Female (#smolts / #eggs) Aug.-Feb.* 184 2,140 35 4.23%
71,227
388
= Data gathered from USGS Water Resource Division
Survival rate for this years brood is well above the five-year average of 1.15% and the highest since record in 2004. This is the second year in a row survival has been above two percent, in contrast to 2009-2010 when survival was considerably lower. Freshwater survival continues to be correlated with peak incubation flow on South Prairie Creek using an exponential curve (P = .0041) (Figure 19).
23
4.50% 4.00%
2012 2004 2008 2011 2010 2007

0 2,000 4,000 6,000
R = 0.7142
Freshwater Survival Estimate
3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00%
2006 2005
2009
8,000 10,000
Peak incubation flow (cfs) on South Prairie Creek
Figure 19. Correlation of peak incubation flows (Aug. Feb.) on South Prairie Creek and freshwater survival estimates on the Puyallup River, migration years 2004 2012.
COHO Catch Unmarked 1+ Coho We captured a total of 3,486 unmarked coho in the 2012 trapping season. Seventy-four percent (2,589) of the coho were actual and 26% (897) were expanded. This is above the five-year average but a 50% decrease in catch compared to the 2011 season. The first coho migrant was caught on the second day of trap operation on February 4th and the last on August 6th. Although catch rates varied from day to day overall catch progressed until the peak on May 14th when 285 unmarked coho were caught in the trap (Figure 20). Seventy-two percent (2,527) of all unmarked coho were captured during the month of May in conjunction with periods of high flow. Marked 1+ Coho A total of 7,944 hatchery coho were captured in the screw trap in 2012. This does not include efforts for expansion, as for wild coho. There is no production estimate for hatchery coho. The first marked coho was captured on February 3rd and the last on July 16th. The peak in catch occurred on April 17th when 562 marked coho were caught in the trap (Figure 20). Coho were released from Voights Creek Hatchery on April 9th and the trap was inundated with coho on the night of April 12th, so it took only three days for coho to move the 11 miles downstream to the screw trap. As seen in previous years, hatchery coho appeared to be in24
river the entire time the trap was fishing, indicating early escapement from the upstream hatchery and prolonged rearing in the mainstem. Ninety-one percent of hatchery coho were caught during the months of April and May.
300
Unmarked 1+ Coho Marked 1+ Coho
600
Number of unmarked 1+ Coho captured
250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 2/3 2/17 3/2 3/16 3/30 4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3
500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
Date
Figure 20. Unmarked and marked 1+ coho captured in the screw trap, 2012.
Size Similar to 2009, unmarked age 1+ coho had a weekly average range between 83 mm and 120 mm throughout the majority of the migration, as opposed to last year when coho in the 80 mm 110 mm size class were absent from the beginning of the migration. There was not a continuous trend in increased mean weekly fork length throughout the season, like Chinook. Instead, as in most years, there was a peak in mean fork length during late April, after which the mean fork length leveled and peaked again in late June (Figure 21). Similar to previous years, the majority of the larger migrants moved past the trap during the peak of the migration, between stat. week 14 and 27. Migrants measuring 80 mm or less were captured at the beginning of the season as well as near the end (Appendix B2). At the end of the season, between stat. week 28 and 32, weekly average length began to decrease, and there was a much smaller size range of migrants. This indicates the final migration of the smaller individuals from the brood class.
Number of marked 1+ Coho captured
275
550
25
190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Fork Length (mm)
Statistical Week
Figure 21. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 1+ coho captured in the screw trap, 2012.
Capture Efficiency During the 2012 season two capture efficiency experiments were conducted using hatchery coho. All releases occurred during the nighttime and were conducted on May 10th and June 7th (Appendix C2). About 800 coho smolts were used in each release. In 2010, evaluation concluded that trap capture efficiency, and its relationship to important environmental variables, was significantly different for the years 2004 2007 compared to 2008 2010 data. This coincides with a change in the trap location. In 2011, the new larger trap was used so this years data analysis only includes experiments from the two previous years. Figure 22 plots capture efficiency results for the past several years. Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates Performed in 2012 and 2011 In 2012, the mean capture efficiency from the two experiments was 3.76%, while the mean in 2011 was 7.14% (Table 6). Levens test of the homogeneity of group variances was not significant (P = .965), indicating the t-test was appropriate to compare means. The t-test of the annual means was not significant (P = 0.182), indicating the two means were not different. Because the means were not different, the capture efficiency tests were combined for regression analysis.
26
9.00%
Day Night
Estimated Capture Efficiency
7.50% 6.00% 4.50% 3.00% 1.50% 0.00% 2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Figure 22. Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for coho smolt release experiments conducted from 2004 through 2012 (daytime and nighttime releases indicated). Table 6. Annual summary statistics for capture efficiency of coho release experiments, 2011 and 2012.
Year 2011 2012 Mean 7.14% 3.76% N 3 2 St. Error 1.23% 1.51% St. Dev. 2.13% 2.13% 1.82% -15.42% Range 12.45% 22.94%
Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth, NTU and Flow Figures 23, 24, and 25 show the regression through the origin of the inverse of secchi disk depth, flow, and NTUs with capture efficiency, respectively. Regression through the origin provided significant relationships for flow (P = 0.006), NTU (P = 0.007), secchi disk depth (P = 0.042) and the inverse of secchi disk depth (P = 0.003). There was not a significant relationship between capture efficiency and secchi disk depth, flow or NTU without regression through the origin (P > 0.206). The adjusted R2 is high for most all significant models. Table 7 summarizes the statistics for these regressions.
27
9.00% 2011 7.50% 2012
Capture Efficiency
6.00% 4.50% 3.00% 1.50% 0.00% 0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
Inverse Secchi Disk Depth
Figure 23. Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus inverse of secchi disk depth for 1+ coho salmon releases, 2012.
9.00% 2011 7.50% 2012
Capture Efficiency
6.00% 4.50% 3.00% 1.50% 0.00% 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Flow (cfs)
Figure 24. Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus flow for 1+ coho salmon releases, 2012.
28
9.00% 2011 7.50% 2012
Capture Efficiency
6.00% 4.50% 3.00% 1.50% 0.00% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
NTU
Figure 25. Plot of estimated capture efficiency versus NTU for 1+ coho salmon releases, 2012. Table 7. Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression through the origin for flow, NTU, secchi disk depth and inverse of secchi disk depth (X) with capture efficiency for coho salmon (Y), 2012.
Model Parameter Flow NTU Secchi Depth Inv. Sec. Dep. Unstandardized Coefficients B .00002272 .00923697 .00029480 8.8387965 Std. Error .000004 .001831 .000101 1.32087 Adjust. 2 R .844 .830 .603 .897 T statistic 5.305 5.044 2.930 6.692 Significance .006 .007 .042 .003 95% Confidence Interval for B Lower Bound .00001083 .00415216 .00001549 5.1711468 Upper Bound .00003462 .01432178 .00057411 12.506124
Although there were several significant models, the model of best fit when comparing the adjusted R2 for all regression through the origin models was the inverse of secchi disk depth. This model was used to estimate abundance. Estimated Production Using combined day and night catch applied to the capture efficiency inverse secchi disk depth model we estimate that 57,704 unmarked 1+ coho passed the trap from February 4th to August 6th. This is the second largest estimate in the last four years, but lower than the three-year average of 63,924 (Figure 26).
29
Estimated Number of Coho Migrants
100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Figure 26. Annual production estimates of unmarked age 1+ coho, 2005 - 2012.
Migration Timing Similar to previous years, coho migration was unimodal with one large distinct peak (Figure 27). This year the peak in migration did not coincide with a large flow event as in some years. Instead peak migration occurred just after a sustained week long moderate flow event. However, the large distinct peak did occur on a relatively higher flow day compared to the surrounding days. Regardless of flow regimes on the Puyallup migration begins early with a majority of migration occurring during the month of May (Figure 28).
5,000
Estimated Number of Unmarked +1 coho (n=57,704) Flow (cfs)
10000
Estimated Number of 1+ coho
4,000
8000
2,000
4000
1,000
2000
0 2/3 2/18 3/4 3/19 4/3 4/18 5/3 5/18 6/2 6/17 7/2 7/17 8/1
Date
Figure 27. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 1+ coho with mean daily flow, 2012.
Flow (cfs)
3,000
6000
30
100%
75%
May 18th
Percent Migration
May 13th 50%
May 7th 25%
0% 2/3 2/18 3/4 3/19 4/3 4/18 5/3 5/18 6/2 6/17 7/2 7/17
Date
Figure 28. Percent migration of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2012.
CHUM Catch A total of 3,460 juvenile chum migrants were captured in the screw trap in 2012 (Figure 29). This is only 30% of what was caught in 2011, but the 4th highest catch since 2004. Fortyfive percent (1,554) of these fish were actual catch and 55% (1,906) were expanded. The first chum migrant was caught on March 5th and the last on June 21st. This is the shortest migration period for any juvenile salmon on the Puyallup River, only 109 days. The peak in catch occurred on April 21st.
14000 12000 10000
Total Chum Catch
8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Figure 29. Total number of chum captured in the Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 - 2012.
31
Size Similar to the trends in 2007 and 2009-2011 fork length in 2012 remained constant between 35 mm and 40 mm until stat week 18 (Figure 30). After which a 16% increase was observed until stat week 25. As seen in previous years size range increased throughout the season. The maximum length increased from 40 mm at the beginning of the season to 66 mm towards the end, while the minimum fork length remained constant within the 30 mm size range (Appendix B3). Although a smaller percentage increase in size was observed this year compared to previous years the trend in increased fork length follows what has been observed in previous years.
75 70 65
Forkl Length (mm)
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Statistical Week
Figure 30. Mean weekly fork length and size range of chum captured in the screw trap, 2012.
Capture Efficiency Due to the low catch of wild chum and inundation of pink salmon in the screw trap no chum capture efficiency experiments were conducted in 2012. In addition, the pink/chum ratio capture efficiency estimate could not be used because the old five-foot screw was used during the last pink/chum migration. Instead, the pink capture efficiency model with flow was used to model chum capture efficiency. This was done with the following assumptions: The mean fork length for both species is similar enough that no difference in capture efficiency exists between species. Levens test for the homogeneity of group variances was performed before a t-test for the mean of fork lengths and was significant (P = 0.000), indicating substantial variance in length, so a t-test could not be performed. Both species share similar life histories and migratory behavior/timing in that emigration occurs shortly after emergence and is fairly short.
32
Estimated Production Using the pink capture efficiency equation, we estimate that 48,511 chum passed the trap in 2012 (Figure 29). This years production estimate is only 14.6% of the five-year average (332,898) and comparable to the 2009 estimate (Figure 31).
720,000
Estimated Number of Chum Migrants
660,000 600,000 540,000 480,000 420,000 360,000 300,000 240,000 180,000 120,000 60,000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Figure 31. Annual production estimates of chum captured on the Puyallup River, 2006 2012
Migration Timing Using production estimates, the peak of the migration occurred on April 16th when 7,500 chum, 15.5% of the total run, passed the trap (Figure 32). The migratory peak preceded a 4,760 cfs peak in flow on April 20th. In 2012, the second earliest migratory peak for chum occurred in the past six years, after the 2011 peak on April 6th. Even with the relatively early peak this year, the timing of percent migration is comparable to what has been seen in previous years (Figure 33).
33
10,000
9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0
Estimated Chum Migrants (N=48,511) Flow (cfs)
10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
2/4 2/16 2/28 3/11 3/23 4/4 4/16 4/28 5/10 5/22 6/3 6/15
Date
Figure 32. Daily estimated migration of chum with mean daily flows, 2012.
100%
May 2nd 75%
Percent Migration
50%
April 19th
April 14th 25%
0% 3/4 3/16 3/28 4/9 4/21 5/3 5/15 5/27 6/8 6/20 7/2
Date
Figure 33. Percent migration of wild age 0+ chum, 2012.
The five-year average chum migration indicates a substantial amount of chum smolts migrating through the month of May (Figure 34). This years estimated production trend shows a drastic decline in the amount of outmigrants in May, and a steep decline after the initial peak on April 16th.
Flow (cfs)
34
8000
Estimated chum migrants (N=48,511) 5yr ave. estimated chum migrants
24000 21000 18000 15000 12000 9000 6000 3000 0
6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2/4 2/16 2/28 3/11 3/23 4/4 4/16 4/28 5/10 5/22 6/3 6/15 6/27
Date
Figure 34. Five year average and unmarked chum estimate on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2012.
The early migratory peaks which have occurred over the last three years have been attributed to both warmer water temperatures and early high flows, as compared to earlier years. These findings suggest that the affect on chum migration is dependent upon these two abiotic factors. Future work will focus on continued analysis of these competing factors and which is the dominant force. Pink Catch This year we captured a total of 225,149 pink migrants in the smolt trap. Sixty-five percent (145,496) of catch was actual and 35% (79,653) was expanded. The first pink was captured on the first day of trapping, indicating some missed catch. The last pink was captured on June 10th. This is the second largest catch recorded on the Puyallup River (range: 2,789 251,373) as well as the latest we have ever seen a pink salmon in the trap. Size The pink migrants sampled exhibited an increase in average length until stat week 13, although maximum and minimum lengths had no apparent trend (Figure 35). The 30 mm size class was present throughout the trapping season. The largest pink measured was 62 mm in stat week 21 and the smallest was 28 mm in stat weeks 6, 8, and 21 showing that minimum lengths were seen at both the beginning and end of the season (Appendix B4).
5 Yr. Average Estimated chum Migrants
7000
35
65 60 55
Fork Length (mm)
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Stat Week
Figure 35. Mean weekly fork length and size range of pink fry captured in the screw trap, 2012.
Capture Efficiency We completed three capture efficiency experiments in three separate statistical weeks in 2012. A total of 1,536 pink were released during the mark-recapture experiments. The number of individuals used in each experiment ranged from 510-513. Capture efficiency for each individual experiment ranged from 4.68% to 6.43% (Appendix C4). Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates in 2012 to Previous Years Estimates The range of combined weekly capture efficiency experiments conducted in 2012 is higher than those in previous years (Figure 36). This is most likely due to the increase in capture efficiency of the eight-foot screw, which was used for the first time on pink salmon in 2012. Also, the two highest capture efficiency experiments with pink salmon were observed in 2012 (Figure 36).
36
7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 2003
Estimated Capture Efficiency
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Figure 36. Summary of capture efficiency estimates, by statistical week for wild pink releases conducted in 2004-2012.
The graph of the mean capture efficiency by year shows that the mean for the 2012 experiments was higher than in any other year (Figure 37). Table 8 provides summary statistics for each year. ANOVA was conducted on these data only for years 2008, 2010 and 2012, when the trap was moved to its current location and pink releases consisted of greater than 250 individuals in each experiment. Levenes test of the homogeneity of group variances was not significant (P = 0.321), indicating ANOVA was appropriate to compare annual means. The ANOVA of the annual means was significant (P = 0.002). The Bonferroni multi-comparison procedure indicated that 2012 was significantly different than both 2008 and 2010 (P < 0.006), while 2008 and 2010 were not different from each other (P = 1.00).
0.09
Mean Capture Efficiency (95% CI)
0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 2002 -0.01
n=3 n=6 n=7 n=8 n=8
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Year
Figure 37. Comparison of mean capture efficiency estimates, by statistical week, for wild pink releases conducted in 2004 2012 with 95% confidence intervals.
37
Table 8. Annual summary statistics for the mean capture efficiency for pink salmon release experiments conducted in 2004 - 2012 (mean of estimates for statistical weeks).
Year 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Mean 2.712% 0.989% 1.683% 1.915% 5.795% N 7 8 8 6 3 St. Error 0.2325% 0.1447% 0.3104% 0.8060% 0.5605% Median 2.614% 1.075% 1.766% 1.300% 6.275% 95% Confidence Interval 2.143% 0.647% 0.949% -0.157% 3.383% 3.281% 1.331% 2.417% 3.987% 8.207%
Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth, NTU and Flow Because 2012 was significantly different from any other year, only experiments performed in 2012 were used for analysis. Evaluation of capture efficiency and NTU, secchi disk depth and flow were all not significant (P < .138). However, regression through the origin provided significant relationships for flow (P = 0.007), secchi depth (P = 0.047) and the inverse of secchi depth (P = .010). Statistics are provided for the significant models Table 9.
Table 9. Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression through the origin for flow, secchi disk depth and inverse of secchi disk depth (X) with capture efficiency (Y) for pink salmon, 2012.
Model Parameter Flow Secchi Depth Inv. Sec. Dep. Unstandardized Coefficients B .00002748 .00030378 9.806917 Std. Error .000002 .000068 1.00316 Adjust. 2 R .981 .863 .969 T statistic 12.337 4.467 9.776 Significance .007 .047 .010 95% Confidence Interval for B Lower Bound .00001790 .00001115 5.4906653 Upper Bound .00003706 .00059641 14.123169
Conclusion of Capture Efficiency Experiments for Pink Although there were three significant models, all regression through the origin, the capture efficiency with flow was chosen as our model to estimate abundance because it had the highest R2. This is the first year any environmental variable has been used to predict capture efficiency for pink salmon abundance estimates. Figure 38 depicts the capture efficiency and flow model.
38
7.00% 6.00%
Capture Efficiency
5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Flow (cfs)
Figure 38. Estimated capture efficiency of wild pink salmon versus flow, Puyallup River 2012.
Estimated Production From the capture efficiency flow model it was estimated that 4,267,929 pink migrants passed the trap in 2012. The estimated production this year is the second lowest since the first estimate in 2004 (Figure 39).
15,000,000 13,500,000
Estimated Number of Pink Migrants
12,000,000 10,500,000 9,000,000 7,500,000 6,000,000 4,500,000 3,000,000 1,500,000 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Date
Figure 39. Annual production estimates for pink salmon on the Puyallup River, 2004 - 2012.
Migration Timing The first pink was captured on February 3rd and the last on June 10th (Figure 39). Similar to previous years, migration was unimodal with one large distinct peak in early April. Pink numbers peaked again in late April but this peak was much smaller (Figure 40). The major 39
peak occurred two weeks earlier than peaks in 2008 and 2010, closer to the 2004 and 2006 run timings. The peak in pink migration occurred on April 6th when 302,106 pinks, 7.1% of the total estimate, passed the trap. Sixty-nine percent of the total pink estimate migrated during April with the 50 and 75 percentiles also being reached in April (Figure 41). This coincides with previous years findings that the peak outmigration for pink Salmon occurs during the month of April.
10,500
Pink Migrants (n = 4,267,929)
3.08E+05
Flow (cfs)
2.86E+05 2.64E+05 2.20E+05 1.98E+05 1.76E+05 1.54E+05 1.32E+05 1.10E+05 8.80E+04 6.60E+04 4.40E+04 2.20E+04
9,000 7,500 6,000 4,500 3,000 1,500 0
0.00E+00 2/3 2/13 2/23 3/4 3/14 3/24 4/3 4/13 4/23 5/3 5/13 5/23 6/2 6/12
Date
Figure 40. Daily estimated migration of pink fry with mean daily flows, 2012.
100%
April 12th 75%
Percent Migration
April 7th 50%
March 30th 25%
0% 2/3 2/13 2/23 3/4 3/14 3/24 4/3 4/13 4/23 5/3 5/13 5/23 6/2 6/12
Date
Figure 41. Percent estimated migration of pink fry, 2012.
Estimated Number of Pink
2.42E+05
Flow (cfs)
40
STEELHEAD Catch Six-hundred fifty-six unmarked steelhead were captured in the smolt trap during the 2012 trapping season. This is the highest catch of steelhead since trapping began in 2000 and a thirteen percent increase from last years record catch (Figure 42). This is a significant improvement in catch compared to the years 2003 - 2007. Again, it is likely that the larger screw trap used this year is responsible for the large catch, so an increase in abundance of steelhead may not be certain. Monitoring catch in the future will determine the trend of abundance. Due to the low numbers of steelhead available for recapture, no capture efficiency tests are completed for steelhead so a total abundance estimate is not provided. Sixty-one percent (397) of unmarked catch was actual and 39% (259) was expanded.
750 675 656 579 539 482
Unmarked Steelhead Captured
600 525 450 375 300 225 150
250 189 156 74 77 39 54 199
75 0
25
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Figure 42. Total number of unmarked steelhead captured in the Puyallup River screw trap, 20002012.
Size There does not appear to be any growth trend during the 22 weeks of migration and there is a wide range in length among samples throughout the sampling period (Figure 43). There appears to be steelhead present in the 160 180 mm size class from week to week, indicating this length, or age class, of steelhead is actively migrating throughout the trapping period. Maximum and minimum fork length was variable for each statistical week. In 4 out of the possible 14 stat weeks, with more than one sample, there was a difference of over 100 mm between the maximum and minimum steelhead sampled (Appendix B5). These observations coincide with those of previous years.
41
285 260
Fork Length (mm)
235 210 185 160 135 110 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Statistical Week
Figure 43. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked steelhead captured in the screw trap, 2012.
Capture Efficiency No capture efficiency tests were completed this year, or in any previous year due to the difficulty of obtaining and marking sufficient numbers of steelhead. In 2009, the last brood of steelhead was released from Voights Creek State Hatchery. The two-year (2008 and 2009) mean capture percentage, using the 5ft screw, from hatchery ad-marked steelhead released was 0.43%. In each of the previous six years (2004 2009), capture percentage remained below 1%. However, this efficiency percentage cannot be applied to this years catch due to the larger sized 8ft screw being utilized since 2011. Migration Timing Different from other species, steelhead catch is used to characterize migration. The first steelhead was caught on February 9th and the last on July 6th (Figure 44). The largest peak was on April 26th when 47 steelhead migrants were caught. This was 7.2% of the total catch of 656. Two other major peaks in catch occurred on May 3rd and May 21st with 44 and 41 migrants being caught respectively (Figure 44). All peaks coincided with peak flows. The 5-year average catch was 65% of this years catch with 2012 catch following the same migration timing but having larger peaks more often (Figure 44). The 5-year average has been less than the catch every year since the 5-year average was first analyzed in 2010. This suggests an increasing trend for steelhead smolts migrating out of the Puyallup River. Although a larger 8ft screw was used in 2011 and 2012 which may have caused the increase in catch seen over the 5-year average for those years, this does not explain the larger catch over the 5-year average for 2010 when the 5ft screw was still being utilized. Future analysis comparing catch increase over the 5-year average with the 5ft screw vs. the 42
new 8ft screw is needed, and will be accomplished as more years of steelhead catch data with the 8ft screw are acquired and analyzed. May is typically the peak month for migration, followed by April and then June. Similar to previous years, a majority of the migrants were caught on periods of high flows between late April and early June. This year 61% of steelhead migrated during the month of May, with the 50th percentile being reached by May 5th and the 75th percentile by May 18th (Figure 45). This is a similar finding to previous years.
50 45
Steelhead Catch 2012 (N=656) Average Five-Year Catch Flow (cfs)
10000 9000 8000 7000
Number of Steelhead Captured
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2/3 2/14 2/25 3/7 3/18 3/29 4/9 4/20 5/1 5/12 5/23 6/3 6/14 6/25 7/6
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
Date
Figure 44. Daily and five-year average catch of steelhead migrants with mean daily flows, Puyallup River 2012.
100%
Percent of Steelhead Captured
75%
May 18th
50%
May 5th
25%
April 25th
0% 2/3 2/18 3/4 3/19 4/3 4/18 5/3 5/18 6/2 6/17 7/2
Date
Figure 45. Percent migration of steelhead captured in the screw trap, Puyallup River 2012.
Flow (cfs)
6000
43
ASSUMPTIONS
Catch Catch recorded during morning and evening trap checks is the actual number of fish that outmigrated during the night and day periods, respectively. Catch Expansion Our data represents actual and observed samples, except during certain instances when the trap could not be fished due to any number of reasons: high flows and debris, high volume of hatchery fish or trap maintenance. During these un-fished intervals, average daily catch and hourly sub-sampling was used to expand for the missed catch. Catch data for these un-fished periods is assumed to be what would have been captured had the trap been operating. For most species, we expanded a significant amount of fish during times when the trap was not fishing. The percent expanded is provided for each species in their respective sections. We feel that expanding for times when the trap is not fishing is better than assuming no catch at all. We will continue to monitor the actual and expanded percentages of fish captured in the trap. The entire outmigration season for all species was sampled. Complete migration curves were generated for Chinook, coho, pink, chum and steelhead. The trap was fished twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week with the exception of the periods noted above. During these periods catch numbers were extrapolated to adequately reflect the catch that was missed. Trap Efficiency All marked fish are identified and recorded. The number of marked fish passing the trap is known. Survival from release site to trap is 100%. Release strata are contained within the measured period (i.e., marked fish pass the trap within a week and have no chance of being counted in the following weeks release group). All fish in a release group have an equal chance of being captured. Chinook Marked hatchery Chinook are captured at the same rate as wild Chinook. Chinook capture efficiency for the entire season is represented by the mean of daytime capture efficiency and the inverse of seccchi disk depth/capture efficiency model for nighttime. There was a difference in capture efficiency between the combined 2008 - 2010 data and the 2011-2012 data, so data was not combined. Coho
Marked hatchery coho are captured at the same rate as wild coho. Coho capture rate is a function of the inverse of secchi disk depth.
44
Chum The capture efficiency/flow model developed using pink salmon represents the same capture efficiency for wild chum. Pink
The three capture efficiency experiments performed with pink salmon were sufficient to cover the range of flows which pink salmon migrate. The regression through the origin is a sufficient model that reflects the relationship between flow and capture efficiency.
Turbidity, Flow and Temperature Ambient light at each secchi measurement remained similar throughout the sampling period to ensure an accurate measurement. Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) accurately reflects the clarity of the water during the entirety of that time period strata. Secchi measurements taken in day and night time actually reflect the clarity of water during the entirety of that time period strata. Flows obtained from the USGS after the sampling season are actual and true flows that are represented at the trap site. Actual flow data are corrected and published the following fiscal year, therefore flows recorded may not be the actual flows published by USGS. Water temperature recorded by the multi-parameter water quality probe on the front of the trap is the true river water temperature.
45
DISCUSSION
Turbidity and Flow From secchi disk depth and NTU data, there is evidence that flow effects turbidity throughout the migration of juvenile salmonids. As flow increases and pulses throughout the year turbidity cycles in synchronicity in response. Capture efficiency of the trap is correlated with both parameters for all salmon species. In addition, there is a trend toward increased flow and turbidity in relation to increasing air temperature as the summer progresses. During the flow/turbidity regime, flow initially increases in conjunction with turbidity, but after some time flow steadily decreases and turbidity begins to increase as flow becomes low and stable. This usually occurs during late June or early July. The event will continue through summer until fall when air temperatures begin to decrease and rains contribute clear cool water. This shift in flow regime is a seasonal phenomenon on the Puyallup River and is attributed to the degree of snow and glacial melting at higher elevations, as annually acquired snow pack begins to melt and glacial melt begins to contribute more flow. The influence of this flow/turbidity regime on salmonids is important as conditions for rearing are likely degraded under such low flow and turbid conditions. We will continue to monitor all environmental variables associated with this phenomenon at each trap check and evaluate its effect on capture efficiency, and therefore abundance of juvenile salmonids. The importance of other environmental factors such as, air temperature, annual snow pack and freezing levels at glacial elevations are being monitored since these factors may dictate the timing of migration and ultimately the life history patterns of juvenile salmonids. Temperature Temperature is the dominate factor for embryonic development and alevin emergence (Quinn, 2005). It may take up to an additional month for Chinook fry to emerge from the gravel when temperatures are 8o (C) compared to 11o (C) (Quinn, 2005). Surface water temperature data was collected using an Onset hobo and a YSI multi-parameter sondes probe from 2007 - 2012, so comparison of the affect of temperature on development and growth in other years is difficult; however temperature data is collected at other sites in the Puyallup River and future work will explore the affects of temperature on migration timing and growth. In 2012, mean monthly water temperature was similar to the cool temperatures of 2011 for the beginning of trapping in February and also comparable to 2011 for the months May July. 2011 and 2012 both saw the lowest temperatures in February and the second lowest during May and June since 2007. Although not as cool in February as 2011, 2008 had the coldest months from April to July. Further, both years had the first and second highest Chinook production for the years 2007 2011, indicating some interaction between cool water and abundance during the migration. However, there may be other environmental factors which we lack data for, such as water temperature for the development period of Chinook, or annual snow pack, which may have significant impacts on abundance.
46
Migration Timing Using smolt trap catches to monitor migration timing does not take into account the influence of a dynamic river system on the capture efficiency of the screw trap. We found differences between the migration timing of juvenile Chinook and coho using screw trap catches as opposed to daily production estimates. Due to differences in capture efficiency of the screw trap under various environmental conditions for differing species, we believe the best way to quantify migration is to use daily estimated production because it attempts to normalize all catch days. This year we began fishing the trap at the beginning of February, near the start of other trapping seasons. In an attempt to reduce the damage to the trap during high flow events we adjust our start date depending on the degree of snow pack in the mountains and forecast for el nino/la nina events in late winter, so in some years the degree of early migration may be missed. This year there was both a high flow event in February and we captured Chinook on the first day of fishing, so its likely that fish were already migrating to the lower river when the trap was installed. Further, there were also Chinook captured on the last day of fishing, so Chinook migration spanned the entire length of our fishing period and likely beyond. Our data suggests that the migration window for Chinook is at least five months in duration, the longest window of any salmon on the Puyallup. Although we do not feel we are missing a significant portion of fish we try to install the trap as early as possible each year. Catch, Trap Efficiency and Production Estimates Chinook In 2009, analysis showed a difference in capture efficiency experiments conducted in 2008/2009 compared to previous years (2004 2007). In 2010, capture efficiency experiments were combined with data from 2008 and 2009 to develop a capture efficiency/flow model. With the addition of a new larger screw trap in 2011 no data were available for a multi-year analysis, instead only 2011 and 2012 were comparable. Statistical analysis using ANCOVA for data collected only in 2011 and 2012 confirmed a relationship between capture efficiency and the inverse of secchi disk depth for nighttime experiments only, while daytime experiments were not significant. Instead the mean was used to estimate abundance for the daytime catch, while the model was used for the nighttime catch. This was the second time since 2007 the mean was used to estimate capture efficiency for at least a portion of the abundance estimate. It is very likely that there is a difference between the total abundance estimate using a model that incorporates environmental variation into capture efficiency, and an annual mean. Additional experiments in future years will expectantly establish a significant relationship. This year and last year we did not observe an increase in the catch of unmarked Chinook during the release of hatchery Chinook, as in previous years. However, a smaller peak of unmarked Chinook was still evident during the bulk of hatchery migration. Since all fish are identified by both visual and electronic methods at the trap there may be either significant 47
numbers of marked hatchery-origin (HOR) Chinook being identified as unmarked natural origin Chinook (NOR), or NOR Chinook are intermixed and actively migrating along with HOR Chinook. In all years, there is some degree of mass marking error associated with tagging. If this mass marking error is significant, there may be implications regarding both juvenile and adult production and escapement estimates. There has been no attempt to apply the mass marking error rate to production estimates in any years. Further, we did catch several ad-marked 1+ hatchery Chinook earlier than the release date, these Chinook were part of a Voights Creek hatchery transfer and appeared to move passed the trap by the end of April. The D:N catch and production ratios from 2005 2007, and 2010, indicate that a majority of fish are captured during the night, but a majority of production is generated from the day; except in 2008 where there was both more catch and production during the day. In 2009, there was both more catch and production during the night than during the day. Whether or not there is actually more fish migrating during the daytime hours than nighttime hours for some years could be a function of low capture efficiency estimates applied to daytime catches, however we noticed that during the morning hours, just after light, a number of Chinook are captured in the trap. This would be counted as day catch. It is likely that juvenile Chinook are migrating aggressively during the night only to reach the traps location in the early morning, which would explain the large D:N ratios. Since the new trap was installed in 2011, there has been both more catch and abundance during the night than day. This year we captured several Chinook in the 30 mm size class beginning on the first day of fishing, so it appears Chinook were present in the fry stage at the beginning of trapping. This indicates that although we may have missed a portion of migrants because Chinook were captured on the first day of fishing, this life stage was present at the beginning of the migration. In some years, this life stage is absent and often correlates with low abundance and survival. Coho For all coho mark-recapture tests completed from 2004 2010 a significant relationship between flow and capture efficiency exists. Mark-recapture tests completed in 2004 - 2006 revealed a relationship between capture efficiency and flow, where capture efficiency increased with increased flow. With the inclusion of the 2007 and 2008 data the relationship between flow and capture efficiency became less evident. With the addition of 2009 data, a significant relationship was again found between flow and capture efficiency but for only 2008 and 2009 experiments combined. In 2008, the trap location was changed from its location in 2007, and its likely that this is the factor contributing to the change in capture efficiency between years. Analyses in 2010 included experiments from 2008 2010 and again a positive relationship between capture efficiency and flow was significant. This year with the larger screw trap capture efficiency was again positively related to flow, but also with NTU and secchi disk depth, albeit at higher capture efficiency than previous years. In fact, the model with secchi disk depth provided a better model than did flow, although all models were significant. Future experiments will help clarify the relationships among these variables. 48
This year catch and production were well below last years record numbers of migrants and intermediate in comparison to other years. Again, coho were captured at the beginning of fishing and catch remained fairly consistent throughout the year. This is in contrast to previous years, where catch was intermittent throughout the early part of the migration. This may be in part due to the larger screw. Although we assume we were catching a proportional number of coho in comparison to other years, we have a greater number of fish days that are applied to the abundance estimate, unlike previous years where a majority of days in the beginning of trapping were zero catch days. Whether or not this has any implications for the total abundance estimate from year to year will be evaluated. No mark-recapture tests were completed for sub-yearling coho captured in the screw trap. There were 543 0+ age coho captured this year, there is evidence that this age class may be an important aspect of the life history strategy for coho salmon and may be an indication of factors contributing to the survival of coho salmon (Miller et. al., 2003). The number of 0+ age coho will continue to be monitored on the Puyallup River. Chum Using ANCOVA analysis for all available data from 2004 2009, we were able to find a significant difference between the capture efficiency of wild and hatchery chum and model wild chum capture efficiency using flow. However, we were not able to establish a difference between groups of years for wild chum due to the low numbers of releases in 2008 and 2009 combined. Although we modeled flow and capture efficiency using wild chum there was some indication from experiments performed using Chinook and coho that there were differences between years. In 2010, there were again no wild chum releases, and instead we employed an adjusted capture efficiency using the relative capture of pink salmon to chum for years when data was available. This produced one single capture efficiency estimate for the abundance. Due to the unusually low catch of wild chum and the use of a new 8ft screw on the trap the models used for chum capture efficiency experiments in previous years could not be utilized for the 2012 season. In 2012 we instead used the pink capture efficiency modeled with flow to model the chum capture efficiency. The pink capture efficiency was used with the assumption that the mean fork length for both species was similar enough that no difference in capture efficiency between the species was significant. Since a t-test could not be performed due to significant group variances this assumption was made in accordance with the mean fork length trends for both species outlined in the results section of this report. In addition, since the life history strategies for both species are similar we felt comfortable with using pink capture efficiency to estimate the capture efficiency for chum. For all data from 2004 2009, we found the modeled capture efficiency for hatchery chum was 1.0% higher than the modeled capture efficiency for wild chum. If this finding is true for other species of salmonids, our reported capture efficiencies using hatchery Chinook and coho are likely biased high. Since historically chum are the only species where large numbers of both hatchery and wild fish are available for testing, future analysis of the 49
relationship between the efficiency of the trap in capturing wild and hatchery chum should be completed. Pink This year was the first year an environmental variable was used to estimate abundance for pink salmon. In all previous years, abundance was estimated with a mean. When comparing the two methods of estimation we find that the numbers are not that different, mean estimate: 3.8 million and flow model: 4.2 million. Considering there is some degree of variance associated with both estimates they are probably within range of one another. Establishing a significant environmental model with capture efficiency for pink salmon is difficult because only in even years are fish available for releases. In addition, there are significant differences between years for trap placement, hydraulic movement of the river, and species interaction that stratify data. Future, work will hopefully add to the number of releases and the current relationship between flow and capture efficiency. Steelhead This year unmarked steelhead catch was the largest since trapping began on the Puyallup. Whether or not this is an actual trend in population abundance or an artifact of annual variation of trap efficiency cannot be determined. From 2004 2009 capture efficiency of hatchery steelhead from Voights Creek Hatchery ranged from 0.08% to 0.45%, so a reliable estimate of efficiency is not available. However, if these capture efficiency results are applied to their respective years unmarked steelhead catch, the trend in the total number of steelhead differs between catch and the abundance estimate. There has been no attempt to estimate capture efficiency for steelhead since the steelhead program was discontinued at Voights Creek hatchery in 2009. Although we cannot assume abundance is actually greater this year compared to other years, it is a relief to see that catch actually increases with a larger trap, and there are in fact increasing numbers of steelhead migrating from the Puyallup. Freshwater Survival Freshwater Survival of Wild 0+ Age Chinook This year survival was the greatest since calculation in 2004 and above the five-year average, but still remains low compared to survival in other systems, Skagit River (Kinsel et. al., 2008), Green River (Topping et al., 2011) Cedar River and Bear Creek (Kiyohara et al., 2011) and the Stillaguamish River (Griffith et al., 2012). As indicated in Figure 17, flow appears to be the dictating environmental factor contributing to smolt survival in the Puyallup River, and other rivers on the west slope of the Cascades. Maximum and minimum flows in conjunction with freshwater survival will continue to be monitored on the Puyallup River to better understand the influence of flow regimes on the survival of juvenile Chinook salmon.
50
Mortality No mortalities were recorded on cutthroat trout but three mortalities occurred on wild steelhead. Screw trap mortalities also included: 26 unmarked 0+ Chinook, 111 Ad-marked 0+ Chinook, 2 unmarked 0+ coho, 2 unmarked 1+ coho, 11 Ad 1+ coho, 22 chum and 466 pink. Measures were taken to reduce predation on chum and Chinook fry by coho and steelhead smolts through the inclusion of artificial, protective habitat structures in the live box. We found the inclusion of black plastic Bio-Rings strung together in the water column was the most effective in reducing mortality and predation. Incidental Catch In addition to the focus species, we also caught 39 cutthroat trout, 543 wild 0+ coho fry, and three unmarked yearling Chinook. Non-salmonid species caught in the screw trap included brook lamprey, pacific lamprey, sculpin, long-nose dace, stickleback, bass, and sunfish.
51
REFERENCES Literature Citations

Anderson GW, Mckinley SR, Colavecchia M. 1997. The Use of Clove Oil as an Anesthetic for Rainbow Trout and Its Effects on Swimming Performance. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17(2): 301-306. Conover, W. J. 1980. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 493 p. Conrad, R.and M. T. MacKay. 2000. Use of a Rotary Screwtrap to monitor the Out-migration of Chinook Salmon Smolts from the Nooksack River:1994-1998. Northwest Fishery Resource Bulletin. Proj. Report Series No. 10. NWIFC. Olympia, Washington. Czuba, J.A., Magirl, C.S., Czuba, C.R., Curran, C.A., Johnson, K.H., Olsen, T.D., Kimball, H.K., and Gish, C.C., 2012, Geomorphic analysis of the river response to sedimentation downstream of Mount Rainier, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1242, 134 p. Fleiss, J.L. 1981. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley. Griffith, Jason, Scofield, C. Stillaguamish Smolt Trapping Project, Annual Report 2011. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Natural Resources Department. August 2012. Kinsel, Clayton, Mara Zimmerman, Lori Kishimoto and Pete Topping. 2008. 2007 Skagit River Wild Salmon Production Evaluation Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, WA. Kiyohara, Kelly and Mara Zimmerman. 2011. Evaluation of Juvenile Salmon Production in 2010 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, WA. Miller, B.A., S. Sadro. 2003. Residence Time and Seasonal Movements of Juvenile Coho Salmon in the Ecotone and Lower Eustuary of Winchester Creek, South Slough, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Volume 132:546-559. Milliken, G. A. and D. E. Johnson. 2002. Analysis of Messy Data, Volume III: Analysis of Covariance. Chapman and Hall, Inc., New York. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2007. Regional Mark Information System. www.rmis.org Quinn, Thomas P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology Of Pacific Salmon And Trout. University of Washington Press, Canada. 52
Region 6-Fish Management Division and Puyallup Tribe of Indians. 2000. Puyallup River Fall Chinook Baseline Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Seber, G.A.F. 1982. The Estimation of Animal Abundance, Second Edition. MacMillan Publishing Co. New York: 654. Seiler, D., G, Volkhardt, P. Topping and L. Kishimoto. 2004. Green River Juvenile Salmonid Production Evaluation. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Annual Report, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, Washington Seiler, D., S, Neuhausyer and L. Kishimoto. 2004. 2003 Skagit River Wild 0+ Chinook Production and Evaluation. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Annual Report, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, Washington SPSS. 2003. SPSS version 12.0 for windows. SPSS Inc. Topping, Pete and Mara Zimmerman. Green River Juvenile Salmonid Production Evaluation: 2009 and 2010 Annual Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, WA. USGS Surface-Water Annual Statistics for Washington, USGS 12096500 Puyallup River at Alderton. 2006. United States Geological Survey. December 2006. <http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/uv/?site_no=12096500&PARAmeter_cd=000 60,00065> Washington State Department of Ecology. 2006. Water Quality Standards for the Surface Waters of the State of Washington Chapter 173-201A WAC. Publication number 06-10-091 November 2006.
Personal Communications
Davis, S. WDFW Voights Creek Hatchery. November 2012. Livingood, T. Fisheries Biologist. WDFW Region 6. January 2012. Clemens, John. United States Geological Survey. Media Contact USGS. USGS Washington Water Science Center. November 2012.
53
Appendix A
Puyallup River Screw Trap Location, Design and Position
Figure A1. The Puyallup River Watershed, the red dot depicts screw trap location at R.M. 10.6 and the black dot depicts Voights Creek State Salmon Hatchery on the Carbon River at RM 4.0.
A1
Figure A2. Diagram of the Puyallup River screw trap, 2012.
A2
Figure A1. Position of the screw trap in the lower Puyallup River at R.M. 10.6
A3
Appendix B
Mean Weekly Fork Length Data for Unmarked Chinook, Coho, Chum and Steelhead, Puyallup River Screw Trap 2012
Table B1. Fork length data of unmarked age 0+ Chinook migrants, 2012.
Dates 1/30-2/5 2/6-2/12 2/13-2/19 2/20-2/26 2/27-3/4 3/5-3/11 3/12-3/18 3/19-3/25 3/26-4/1 4/2-4/8 4/9-4/15 4/16-4/22 4/23-4/29 4/30-5/6 5/7-5/13 5/14-5/20 5/21-5/27 5/28-6/3 6/6-6/10 6/11-6/17 6/18-6/24 6/25-7/1 7/2-7/8 7/9-7/15 7/16-7/22 7/23-7/29 7/30-8/5 8/6-8/12 Stat Week 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Average Fork Length (mm) 39 39 39 40 40 40 41 40 40 42 42 48 61 67 71 71 74 79 79 85 85 92 98 100 102 101 106 106 Max 41 40 43 49 44 44 49 59 45 60 61 70 73 84 87 85 101 88 96 97 110 108 115 116 118 112 121 120 Min 37 38 36 36 33 32 36 35 34 35 35 36 38 34 54 55 47 58 56 50 55 69 85 77 80 75 90 79 Standard Deviation 1.27 0.83 1.29 1.99 1.96 1.64 2.36 3.23 1.92 5.69 4.97 12.17 7.57 9.34 7.90 7.30 11.27 7.66 10.31 8.58 9.37 7.03 6.64 6.96 6.76 8.59 9.41 11.91 N 11 8 102 86 45 73 63 56 83 18 30 7 96 90 55 40 62 18 43 47 46 57 83 110 127 24 11 15
B1 Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project 2012
Table B2. Fork length data of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2012.
Dates Stat Week 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 99 97 107 92 122 105 108 91 0 114 110 111 113 111 112 111 115 112 96 110 108 106 108 99 109 104 111 128 111 172 135 116 91 0 139 142 158 147 136 184 120 138 135 122 130 142 115 124 112 109 92 90 96 75 79 80 100 91 0 76 77 88 92 87 96 100 90 90 80 98 91 92 89 89 109 6.11 9.39 14.62 18.08 46.89 19.67 11.31 0.00 0.00 15.08 13.89 11.59 11.61 9.23 14.76 5.38 12.65 15.36 13.52 12.84 20.54 6.68 12.02 8.26 0.00 3 4 4 3 3 6 2 1 0 32 61 125 90 76 44 10 50 22 10 5 5 11 6 6 1 Average Fork Length (mm) 110 Max Min Standard Deviation 0.71 N
1/30-2/5 2/6-2/12 2/13-2/19 2/20-2/26 2/27-3/4 3/5-3/11 3/12-3/18 3/19-3/25 3/26-4/1 4/2-4/8 4/9-4/15 4/16-4/22 4/23-4/29 4/30-5/6 5/7-5/13 5/14-5/20 5/21-5/27 5/28-6/3 6/4-6/10 6/11-6/17 6/18-6/24 6/25-7/1 7/2-7/8 7/9-7/15 7/16-7/22 7/23-7/29 7/30-8/5 8/6-8/12
110
109
Table B3. Fork length data for wild chum migrants, 2012.
Dates 3/5-3/11 3/12-3/18 3/19-3/25 3/26-4/1 4/2-4/8 4/9-4/15 4/16-4/22 4/23-4/29 4/30-5/6 5/7-5/13 5/14-5/20 5/21-5/27 5/28-6/3 6/4-6/10 6/11-6/17 6/18-6/24 Average Stat Week Fork Length (mm) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 38 38 37 38 39 38 39 39 41 41 42 41 48 45 45 44 Max 40 40 44 45 46 51 54 50 59 56 66 55 48 56 53 Min 36 36 31 33 35 34 34 34 33 35 28 35 48 34 35 Standard Deviation 1.17 1.21 2.37 2.60 2.57 3.05 4.18 3.65 6.21 5.80 8.55 6.73 0.00 8.78 8.14 N 14 12 32 47 38 70 44 34 65 44 31 18 1 16 7 1
Table B4. Fork length data of unmarked steelhead migrants, 2012.

Dates Average Stat Week Fork Length (mm) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 121 181 196 135 177 160 171 186 163 196 195 191 186 178 176 186 162 172 130 Max 121 231 215 135 206 190 205 186 200 242 255 275 270 217 243 223 172 172 130 Min 121 122 177 135 150 110 127 186 130 133 150 138 150 144 148 160 146 172 130 Standard Deviation 0.00 39.39 26.87 0.00 23 32.21 28 0 30 33 28 27 22 19 20 23 8 0 0 N 1 9 2 1 7 5 8 1 4 9 49 59 72 81 52 7 7 1 1
1/30-2/5 2/6-2/12 2/13-2/19 2/20-2/26 2/27-3/4 3/5-3/11 3/12-3/18 3/19-3/25 3/26-4/1 4/2-4/8 4/9-4/15 4/16-4/22 4/23-4/29 4/30-5/6 5/7-5/13 5/14-5/20 5/21-5/27 5/28-6/3 6/4-6/10 6/11-6/17 6/18-6/24 6/25-6/1 6/2-6/8
Appendix C
Mark Recapture Data for Chinook, Coho and Chum, Puyallup River Screw Trap, 2004 - 2012
Table C1. Capture efficiency results for hatchery Chinook, 2004 - 2012.
Release Date
5/19/2004 5/25/2004 6/1/2004 6/4/2004 6/7/2004 6/10/2004 6/15/2004 6/17/2004 6/22/2004 6/23/2004 7/1/2004 7/6/2004 7/7/2004 7/12/2004 7/13/2004 5/2/2005 5/3/2005 5/17/2005 5/18/2005 6/7/2005 6/22/2005 6/23/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 4/18/2006 4/28/2006 5/15/2006 5/25/2006 6/13/2006 6/14/2006 3/8/2007 4/10/2007 5/8/2007 5/11/2007 6/6/2007 6/7/2007 6/11/2007 2/11/2008 3/5/2008 3/19/2008 3/21/2008 3/25/2008 5/24/2008 6/2/2008 6/27/2008
Year
2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008
Release Time
1500 1530 1600 1550 1615 2015 2200 2230 1630 2200 2115 1730 2200 1745 2145 2107 1115 2130 1145 2115 2045 1115 1145 2045 2052 1000 2145 2105 2130 945 1830 2004 2130 1400 1120 2130 2145 2115 1115 1415 2030 2230 2200 2145 1330
Day or Night
D D D D D N N N D N N D N D N N D N D N N D D N N D N N N D N N N D D N N N D D N N N N D
Glacial Number Number Capture Period* Released Recaptured Efficiency

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 800 601 628 609 610 613 610 595 604 610 608 602 615 609 419 1,011 1,017 855 1,025 806 804 804 812 828 512 556 801 810 591 605 503 522 510 507 493 265 384 520 500 509 509 496 556 505 501 5 5 5 5 5 2 9 3 5 20 36 15 30 18 23 26 1 17 7 19 27 5 27 53 17 1 16 28 23 12 11 16 8 4 14 2 4 24 13 32 6 27 43 33 15 0.00625 0.00832 0.00796 0.00821 0.00820 0.00326 0.01475 0.00504 0.00828 0.03279 0.05921 0.02492 0.04878 0.02956 0.05489 0.02572 0.00098 0.01988 0.00683 0.02357 0.03358 0.00622 0.03325 0.06401 0.03320 0.00180 0.01998 0.03457 0.03892 0.01983 0.02187 0.03065 0.01569 0.00789 0.02840 0.00755 0.01042 0.04615 0.02600 0.06287 0.01179 0.05444 0.07734 0.06535 0.02994
Secchi Depth (cm)

104 150 65 82 66 94 113 130 34 13 28 32 30 30 18 139 163 72 84 144 33 29 29 28 206 175 100 79 40 43 200 180 135 200 34 61 63 78 229 219 220 211 48 99 45
NTU
-
Flow (cfs)
1,480 1,110 2,740 1,980 2,370 2,050 1,750 1,610 1,640 1,880 1,390 1,370 1,310 1,070 1,270 1,700 1,810 2,440 2,310 1,380 1,750 1,740 1,340 1,210 1,630 1,530 1,476 1,879 2,172 2,333 2,420 1,890 1,480 1,430 1,850 1,290 1,610 2,870 1,170 1,360 1,200 1,090 2,610 2,120 2,030
C1
3/2/2009 3/17/2009 4/23/2009 4/27/2009 5/14/2009 5/27/2009 5/30/2009 6/10/2009 7/7/2009 2/8/2010 2/18/2010 3/12/2010 3/29/2010 7/15/2010 7/22/2010 2/15/2011 2/22/2011 2/28/2011 3/11/2011 3/16/2011 3/18/2011 7/25/2011 2/28/2012 3/5/2012 4/10/2012 5/24/2012 6/4/2012 6/13/2012 7/2/2012 7/12/2012
2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012
1903 2115 2100 1115 2215 1030 2130 1130 2200 1845 1145 1945 2100 2230 1030 1945 1020 1845 1900 1200 1030 2130 1845 1045 2030 2330 2215 1030 2215 930
N N N D N D N D N N D N N N D N D N N D D N N D N N N D N D
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
1004 504 503 503 505 505 503 502 500 504 503 520 507 500 300 508 505 511 506 510 505 511 515 510 505 499 505 505 508 489
15 9 22 46 23 5 36 13 13 13 12 20 24 14 2 33 65 37 26 41 58 45 20 35 24 19 31 16 34 33
0.01494 0.01786 0.04374 0.09145 0.04554 0.00990 0.07157 0.02590 0.02600 0.02579 0.02386 0.03846 0.04734 0.02800 0.00667 0.06496 0.12871 0.07241 0.05138 0.08039 0.11485 0.08806 0.038835 0.068627 0.047525 0.038076 0.061386 0.031683 0.066929 0.067485
118 158 162 221 116 191 50 48 48 207 221 152 57 40 38 190 165 67 87 97 175 39 134 224 207 106 58 128 35 19
5.3 3.9 15.3 11.4 9.9 4.2 26.0 8.4 3.4 0.0015 7.0 13.9 10.4 36.9 142.7
1,350 1,120 2,310 1,880 3,260 2,710 3,440 2,590 1,210 980 1,190 1,230 1,910 980 1,130 1950 1350 1700 2810 2740 2110 1850 1880 1790 1350 3200 2710 2920 2540 2410
*1 = Non-glacial Period and 2 = Glacial Period
C2
Table C2. Capture efficiency results for 1+ hatchery coho, 2004 - 2012.
Date Year Time of Release Number Released Number Secchi Depth Recaptured (cm) NTU Flow (cfs) Capture Efficiency
4/14/2004 5/3/2004 3/21/2005 3/23/2005 3/29/2005 3/31/2005 4/13/2005 4/14/2005 4/17/2006 4/27/2006 5/15/2006 3/21/2007 4/12/2007 4/9/2008 4/14/2008 4/22/2009 4/27/2009 5/7/2009 4/7/2010 5/4/2010 4/21/2011 5/12/2011 5/18/2011 5/10/12 6/7/12
2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012
1930 2030 1715 1145 1330 1711 1915 1215 1700 2045 2145 1945 2030 2130 2130 2115 2115 2145 2030 2130 2115 2200 2200 2230 2345
208 211 502 513 516 513 511 516 506 520 494 804 611 805 807 804 800 800 815 801 810 811 608 800 797
3 4 4 6 10 11 9 10 7 7 6 9 6 14 23 45 36 31 11 15 40 59 56 18 42
150 92 138 138 79 155 162 195 206 188 100 133 203 219 159 106 225 81 212 120 191 198 107 227 120
1.9 5.1 8.9 3.6 8.7
1010 1230 759 704 2470 1590 1240 1260 1790 1400 1476 2730 1480 1150 1670 2590 1840 3180 1020 2170 1730 2360 2920 2,210 3,330
0.01440 0.01900 0.00800 0.01170 0.01940 0.02140 0.01760 0.01940 0.01380 0.01350 0.01210 0.01119 0.00982 0.01739 0.02850 0.05597 0.04500 0.03875 0.01350 0.01873 0.04938 0.07275 0.09211 0.02250 0.05270
C3
Table C3. Capture efficiency results for hatchery and wild chum, 2004 - 2012.
Date
3/31/2004 4/1/2004 4/6/2004 4/7/2004 4/9/2004 4/15/2004 4/16/2004 4/19/2004 4/28/2004 5/10/2004 5/18/2004 5/25/2004 6/1/2004 3/16/2005 3/19/2005 3/27/2005 3/28/2005 4/19/2005 4/20/2005 5/11/2005 5/13/2005 5/19/2005 4/12/2006 4/19/2006 4/24/2006 5/1/2006 5/10/2006 5/24/2006 4/2/2007 4/4/2007 4/8/2007 4/13/2007 4/16/2007 4/25/2007 5/18/2007 2/25/2008 3/25/2008 4/16/2008 4/24/2008 5/6/2008 3/6/2009 3/13/2009 3/26/2009 4/3/2009 5/2/2011
Year
04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 11
Time of Release
800 1900 2010 900 1900 850 2000 1945 2010 2000 1945 1745 1945 1733 1030 1710 915 1115 1830 2040 917 2050 2030 2035 2130 2130 2100 2030 1945 1945 2030 2100 2000 2300 2100 1845 2215 2115 2200 2225 1850 2015 2030 2100 2145
Day or Night
D N N D N D N N N N N N N N D N D D N N D N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Hatchery or Wild
H H H H W H H W W W W W H H H H H H H W H H H H H W W W H W W W H W W H H W W W H H H H W
Number Number Secchi Released Recaptured Depth (cm)

534 539 518 461 156 519 514 233 200 157 564 151 518 540 525 531 515 525 525 526 530 535 119 492 518 58 51 51 506 27 53 48 523 114 60 516 525 379 630 662 498 505 507 500 514 20 26 24 20 2 23 15 6 4 7 15 1 7 19 26 3 21 7 20 6 8 5 3 17 4 0 1 1 21 0 0 0 27 4 0 7 11 6 12 19 23 26 13 8 8 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 65 138 138 23 40 192 192 132 165 124 201 198 195 198 190 79 154 180 130 200 210 192 200 220 211 219 203 148 162 148 129 81 200
NTU
2.7
Flow Capture (cfs) Efficiency

1340 1230 832 832 817 964 840 683 940 1000 940 1100 2570 704 677 4480 3750 1810 1550 2080 1810 2400 1410 1378 1450 1537 1378 2136 1940 1650 1960 1430 1350 1180 1270 1150 1090 1330 908 1700 1070 790 1690 2310 2010 0.03745 0.04824 0.04633 0.04338 0.01282 0.04432 0.02918 0.02575 0.02000 0.04459 0.02660 0.00662 0.01351 0.03519 0.04952 0.00565 0.04102 0.01333 0.03810 0.01154 0.01518 0.00943 0.02521 0.03455 0.00772 0.00000 0.01961 0.01961 0.04150 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.05163 0.03509 0.00000 0.01357 0.02095 0.01583 0.01905 0.02870 0.04618 0.05149 0.02564 0.01600 0.01556
C4 Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project 2012
Table C4. Capture efficiency for pink salmon, 2004 - 2012.

Date 3/4/2004 3/5/2004 3/6/2004 3/7/2004 3/8/2004 3/9/2004 3/10/2004 3/11/2004 3/12/2004 3/13/2004 3/14/2004 3/15/2004 3/16/2004 3/17/2004 3/18/204 3/19/2004 3/20/2004 3/21/2004 3/22/2004 3/23/2004 3/25/2004 3/25/2004 3/28/2004 3/31/2004 4/1/2004 4/3/2004 4/5/2004 4/6/2004 4/7/2004 4/9/2004 4/12/2004 Year 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Time of release 1800 1745 2000 1815 1830 1815 1800 1800 1830 1745 1800 1815 1815 1800 1830 1800 1800 1830 1830 1845 800 1900 1900 800 1900 1830 1945 2015 900 1900 1900 Number Number Released Recaptured 19 47 41 58 96 99 92 69 80 104 72 172 155 105 100 110 143 99 106 105 200 200 506 510 522 514 612 510 425 530 517 0 1 1 1 0 3 1 2 3 4 3 7 4 1 2 2 4 2 7 2 6 4 18 21 14 7 13 8 23 5 19 Flow (cfs) 1409 1310 1260 1250 1400 1700 1670 1450 1360 1250 1150 1110 1060 1010 1100 1090 1030 1010 1130 1270 1370 1260 1270 1340 1230 885 870 825 832 817 1120 Secchi Depth (cm) NTU Capture Efficiency 0.00000 0.02128 0.02439 0.01724 0.00000 0.03030 0.01087 0.02899 0.03750 0.03846 0.04167 0.04070 0.02581 0.00952 0.02000 0.01818 0.02797 0.02020 0.06604 0.01905 0.03000 0.02000 0.03557 0.04118 0.02682 0.01362 0.02124 0.01569 0.05412 0.00943 0.03675
C5 Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project 2012
3/3/2006 3/8/2006 3/12/2006 3/15/2006 3/18/2006 3/21/2006 3/23/2006 3/27/2006 3/31/2006 4/3/2006 4/7/2006 4/11/2006 4/16/2006 4/26/2006 3/4/2008 3/8/2008 3/13/2008 3/15/2008 3/17/2008 3/18/2008 3/25/2008 3/30/2008 3/31/2008 4/7/2008 4/20/2008 4/24/2008 2/18/2010 3/4/2010 3/15/2010 3/22/2010 4/1/2010 5/12/2010 2/27/2012 3/8/2012 5/7/2012
2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2012 2012 2012
1645 1800 1900 1900 1915 1900 1900 2000 1915 2100 2030 2100 2115 1830 1345 1915 2200 2030 2100 2030 2300 1730 2045 2130 1930 2200 1900 1930 1945 2030 2030 1930 1845 1915 2330
178 123 180 237 251 198 299 294 211 307 522 226 261 201 290 161 493 741 257 625 751 531 729 509 682 732 488 498 506 508 507 505 513 513 510
2 0 4 3 2 1 0 4 0 2 4 0 6 3 10 1 6 1 5 17 18 16 7 12 8 6 5 2 11 8 29 3 33 24 32
1620 1410 1270 1220 1310 1200 1190 1180 1209 1350 1270 1339 2124 1445 1310 1030 1750 1640 1500 1480 1090 1050 996 1190 1020 908 1170 893 795 908 1260 1370 2080 1560 2580
134 216 191
10.0 1.5 3.9
0.01124 0.00000 0.02222 0.01266 0.00797 0.00505 0.00000 0.01361 0.00000 0.00651 0.00766 0.00000 0.02299 0.01493 0.03448 0.00621 0.01217 0.00135 0.01946 0.02720 0.02397 0.03013 0.00960 0.02358 0.01173 0.00820 0.01025 0.00402 0.02174 0.01575 0.05720 0.00594 0.06433 0.04678 0.06275
C6

Puyallup River Screw Trap Report 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Puyallup River Screw Trap Report 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project 2012

By: Andrew Berger Robert Conrad Justin Paul

Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2012

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2012

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2012

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2012

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2012

Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7.

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2012

Table C1. Table C2. Table C3. Table C4.

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2012

=r/m E and =C/ E N

= estimated capture efficiency, E

= total estimated number of migrants passing the trap, and N

10450 9500 8550 7600 Flow NTU's

330 300 270 240 210

Secchi Depth (cm)

330 300 270 240 210

18.00 16.00 14.00

Five-year Average Chinook Catch

Five-year Average Catch Flow (cfs)

Number of Marked Chinook Captured

Number of Unmarked Chinook Captured

Number of Marked Chinook Captured

1000 100 500

Number of Unmarked Chinook Captured

Flow in 2012 (cfs)

Fork Length (mm)

Capture Efficiency Percentage

12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00%

2012 Day Only

Inverse of Secchi Disk Depth

Inverse of Secchi Disk Depth

10.00% 9.00% 8.00%

12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

2011 Night 2012 Day 2012 Night

Mean Fork Length (mm)

Estiamted Capture Efficiency

0.00% 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Mean Fork Length (mm)

Estimated Number of Chinook Migrants

Estimated Number of Chinook

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Estimated Number of Chinook (n=71,227) Flow (cfs)

June 23rd 75%

May 10th 50%

March 17th 25%

Figure 18. Percent migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook, 2012.

Potential Egg Deposition 1,685,006

= Data gathered from USGS Water Resource Division

2012 2004 2008 2011 2010 2007

Freshwater Survival Estimate

3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00%

Peak incubation flow (cfs) on South Prairie Creek

Number of unmarked 1+ Coho captured

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Number of marked 1+ Coho captured

Fork Length (mm)

Estimated Capture Efficiency

7.50% 6.00% 4.50% 3.00% 1.50% 0.00% 2003

9.00% 2011 7.50% 2012

6.00% 4.50% 3.00% 1.50% 0.00% 0.000

Inverse Secchi Disk Depth