COMPARATIVE SURVIVAL STUDY Chapter 3: Annual SAR by study category and ratios of SARs

1
COMPARATIVE SURVIVAL STUDY Chapter 3 Annual
SAR by study category and ratios of SARs
Evaluate effectiveness of smolt transportation
relative to other passage routes through dams and
reservoirs
Comparisons of SARs Transport to In-River By
hatchery group Hatchery to Wild Sp/Su Chinook to
Steelhead
2
Snake River spring/summer Chinook and steelhead

• Wild Chinook
• Aggregate Snake (above LGR)
• Hatchery Chinook
• DWOR
• RAPH
• MCCA
• IMNA
• CATH - AP
• Wild Steelhead
• Aggregate Snake
• Hatchery Steelhead
• Aggregate Snake

3
Definitions

• SAR LGR adults / LGR smolts
• TIR SARtransport / SARinriver
• T0 category of smolts transported from LGR,
  LGS or LMN, number of smolts expressed in LGR
  equivalents
• C0 category of smolts migrating through the
  hydrosystem that were not collected at transport
  projects LGR, LGS or LMN, in LGR equivalents
• C1 category of smolts migrating through the
  hydrosystem that were collected and bypassed at
  one or more of transport projects

4

• SARs Wild Chinook showed no benefit from
  transportation (on average)
• Exception in extreme drought year 2001
• SAR LGR adults/LGR smolts

5

• SARs Wild steelhead benefited from
  transportation (on average)
• Benefit is relative
• In-river conditions less than optimal (e.g.,
  before court-ordered spill)
• Wide CI before 2003

6

• In-river SARs Wild Chinook gt Hatchery Chinook
• Transport SARs Some Hatchery SARs gt Wild SARs

In-river SAR
Transport SAR
7

• SAR ratios SAR(Transport) / SAR(In-river) TIR
• Hatchery Chinook - relatively more benefit from
  transportation than wild
• TIR generally positive for hatchery populations
  (MCCA gt RAPH gt DWOR)
• TIR slightly negative for wild populations
  (except 2001)

8

• Adult upstream migration survival (BON LGR) is
  also affected by the juvenile migration
  experience.

Hatchery Chinook
Wild Chinook

• 10 lower adult migration success for LGR
  transport compared to LGS/LMN transport or
  in-river migration
• Implication for straying of transported fish into
  other populations

9
Conclusions Annual SAR by study category and
ratios of SARs

• Wild Chinook no benefit from transportation (on
  average)
• Hatchery Chinook - relatively more benefit from
  transportation than wild varied among hatcheries
• Wild and hatchery steelhead relative benefit
  from transportation wide CI
• Relative transport benefit greater in extreme
  drought year (2001) with poor in-river conditions
• Transported wild and hatchery Chinook and
  steelhead smolts died at greater rate in estuary
  and ocean than in-river migrants (D lt 1)
• Process of collection/bypass compromised SARs C1
  lt C0 in wild and hatchery Chinook and steelhead
• Transportation from LGR reduced adult upstream
  migration success (straying/mortality)

10
(No Transcript)
11
COMPARATIVE SURVIVAL STUDY Chapter 5
Evaluation and Comparison of Overall SARs
Do SARs meet regional goals? Are Snake River
SARs similar to downriver SARs?What management
and environmental factors influence SARs?

• Comparisons of SARs
• NPCC 2 - 6 SAR goal
• Snake vs. John Day wild
• Snake vs. Carson Hatchery
• Multiple regression analyses

12

• Overall SARs of wild Chinook and steelhead fell
  short of the NPCC 2-6 SAR objectives
• NPCC 2 minimum, 4 average for recovery
• Wild Chinook average 0.8
• Wild steelhead average 1.6

13
Good precision - hatchery Chinook SARs Poor
precision aggregate hatchery steelhead SARs
14
Upriver / Downriver SAR comparisons
15
Snake River life-cycle survival rates declined
with FCRPS Recent survival of Snake River
Chinook 1/3 to ¼ that of downriver Chinook
CSS Do we see similar magnitude of differential
mortality in SARs? Can life history differences
explain the differential shift in mortality?
Schaller et al. 1999 Deriso et al. 2001
Schaller and Petrosky 2007
16

• Snake River wild SARs ¼ of John Day SARs
• 8 dams vs. 3 dams
• SAR data consistent with spawner-recruit analyses

17
Life history characteristics Snake vs. John Day
wild

• No consistent, systematic differences in smolt
  size (FL)
• Emigration timing from tributaries within a
  similar time frame (with greater variation for
  Snake)
• Rate of emigration similar (1st to 3rd dam), a
  function of water velocity
• Snake smolts estuary arrival timing 7-10 days
  later than John Day smolts (a function of FCRPS)
• When arrive to estuary at same time, Snake SARs
  are lt John Day SARs
• A natural experiment weight of evidence

18
Multiple Regression Analysis Historic Snake
River Chinook SARs vs. smolt migration and
ocean/climatic indices
19

• Pacific Decadal Oscillation
• Interdecadal climate variability in the North
  Pacific (Sea Surface Temperature)
• Coastal Upwelling Index
• based upon Ekman's theory of mass transport due
  to wind stress - 45oN (productivity)
• Good Ocean
• Cool phase PDO
• April Upwelling
• Oct Nov Downwelling

Coastal Upwelling Process
20
Water Travel Time Lewiston to Bonneville Dam
WTT influences smolt travel time reach survival
pre-dam 2 days current 19 days (10-40 days)
1938 (BON), 1953 (MCN), 1957 (TDD), 1961 (IHR),
1968 (JDA), 1969 (LMN), 1970 (LGS), 1975 (LGR)
21
Expected change in SARsvs. WTT, PDO
Upwelling WTT significant variable in all
best-fit models i.e., Snake River SARs not just
due to ocean condition Analysis does not use
downriver populationsResponse to WTT - similar
to results using upriver/downriver populations
22
Do PIT tag SARs represent SARs of the run at
large?

• Run reconstruction (RunRec) SARs slightly larger
  than point estimate PIT SARs
• RunRec SARs fell within the 90 CIs of for 5 of 8
  years
• Unresolved issues with wild adult accounting for
  RunRec SARs assessing bias is difficult
• For analyses using ratios of SARs, issue is of
  little concern (e.g., upriver/downriver,
  transport/in-river)

23
CSS New Analytical Tools

• Bootstrap CI methods for SARs, ratios of SARs
  (Ch. 3)
• Method to estimate central tendency of SARs,
  ratios of SARs accounting for large inter-annual
  variation and variable sample sizes (Ch. 4)
• Within year differences of TIR i.e., when is it
  best to transport?
• Potential for looking at SAR differences between
  groups over multiple years with small or variable
  sample sizes
• Simulation model to investigate potential bias in
  CJS survival estimates due to assumption
  violations (Ch. 7)
• CJS parameter estimates are robust in the
  presence of within-season changes in survival or
  detection probabilities

24
Conclusions

• Different responses of wild Chinook and wild
  steelhead to transportation
• maximization of survival of both species cannot
  be accomplished by transportation as currently
  implemented.
• Improvements in in-river survival
• can be achieved through management actions that
  reduce the water travel time or increase the
  average percent spilled.
• the effectiveness of these actions varies over
  the migration season.
• Higher SARs of Snake River wild yearling Chinook
  were associated with
• faster water travel times during juvenile
  migration through the FCRPS,
• cool broad-scale ocean conditions,
• and near-shore downwelling during the fall of the
  first year of ocean residence.

25

• Other management uses of CSS PIT-tag groups
• Idaho in-season Chinook harvest management
• run size
• run timing
• upstream conversion rates
• Survival - release to LGR
• SARs from LGR smolt to LGR adult
• McCall, Rapid River, Dworshak Imnaha and
  Catherine Cr. hatcheries only
• LSRCP programmatic and management needs for other
  Chinook hatcheries
• LSRCP tagging initiated 2007, expanded 2008 in
  coordination with CSS
• LSRCP steelhead tagging program
• LSRCP tagging intiated 2008 in coordination with
  CSS