Presentation on theme: "Frank Leonetti, Snohomish County"— Presentation transcript:
1Frank Leonetti, Snohomish County Biological Monitoring in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8): Results of “fish in/fish out” monitoringSarah McCarthy, WRIA 8Hans Berge, King CountyFrank Leonetti, Snohomish County
2Lake Washington/ Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Tiered approach to prioritization of habitat actions.Subbasins were placed into 3 tiers based on watershed condition and level of use by Chinook salmon:Core/migratorySatelliteEpisodic/None
3“Fish In/Fish Out” Monitoring Objectives:Document the Status and Trends in VSP parametersCompare to Plan “targets” and Adaptive Management goals for populationsImprove understanding of those habitat factors affecting ChinookEstimate Chinook response to restoration actionsAre multiple actions cumulatively affecting habitat conditions and fish populations?Monitoring of multiple Chinook life stages is essential!Primary life stages to monitor:Adult spawnersJuvenile migrants from streamsJuvenile migrants through the lakes & migratory corridorsSmolt use of nearshore marine areas
4Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Interdependent parameters for evaluating viability:AbundanceHow many fish are there at various life stages?ProductivityIs the population growing?DistributionDon't put all your fish in one streamDiversityHow many life history strategies are present?
5VSP Parameters Monitoring Program Abundance Productivity Distribution DiversitySpawnerSurveysAdult counts,Redd countsEstimates of total eggs,Prespawning mortalityRelative use of streams and rivers in core, satellite and episodic areasAge structure, Hatchery or Natural origin
6VSP Parameters Monitoring Program Abundance Productivity Distribution DiversitySpawnerSurveysAdult counts,Redd countsEstimates of total eggs,Prespawning mortalityRelative use of streams and rivers in core, satellite and episodic areasAge structure, Hatchery or Natural originFry/SmoltTrappingJuvenile abundanceEgg to smolt survival (%)Relative comparison of Bear vs. CedarFry vs. smolt numbers, migration timing
7VSP Parameters Monitoring Program Abundance Productivity Distribution DiversitySpawnerSurveysEscapement,Redd countsEstimates of total eggs,Prespawning mortalityRelative use of streams and rivers in core, satellite and episodic areasAge structure, Hatchery or Natural originFry/SmoltTrappingJuvenile abundanceEgg to smolt survival (%)Relative comparison of Bear vs. CedarFry vs. smolt numbers, migration timingPIT-TagMigration survival estimatesRelative use and importance of migration areasMigration timing to ocean
20Program 2 – Fry/Smolt Trapping Abundance -Total “fish out”Productivity -What do we mean?Survival from life stage to life stageFull life cycle survivalPopulation replacementDiversity –Life history strategiesDistribution – …..not so much
21Cedar River Abundance – Wide range in Fry production & variable by yearSmolt production is less variable and has increased since 1998, except recentlyJan-April small fry (45mm) migration with later (May-June) larger smolt (60-100mm) migration
22Cedar River Figure matches #redds with #smolts produced Big differences in 2000 and 2006“Resilience” effects (2000) and “Resistance to Catastrophe” (2006)
23One Productivity Estimate Lifecycle estimate - redds to redds
24Monitoring data analysis & AM framework VSP ParametersAbundanceProductivityDistributionDiversityTargetsEscapement goalCedar: 1250Bear/Cottage: 350Increase juvenile and smolt survival (2x),Increase adult returns per spawner (1-3)Expand spawning area distribution;Convert satellite to core areaIncrease Cedar instream rearing; Improve Samammish to support smolt rearingIndicatorsJuvenile abundanceEgg to smolt survival (%), Redd countsRelative comparison of Bear vs. Cedar, Redd surveysFry vs. smolt numbers, migration timingCurrent PerformanceYes/NoMet escapement goal on Cedar in 2007.% survival, Redd:Redd estimatesRelative use and importance of migration areasMigration timing to locksPast Trend/ Future ExpectationIncreasing/ Decreasing>1increasing?Evaluation of vsp parameters compared to targets
25Summary – Cedar River Chinook escapement in 2007 was relatively high. 2008 should be relatively high barring strong ocean effects2009 should be weak – uncertainty is on Ocean effects;2010 improved;2011 high returnsSpring 2008 outmigration should be highest on record since 1991.Future expectations based on improved understanding of flow effects on survival, productivity of recolonization group, smolt versus fry abundance, effects from hatchery and harvest, and strong Ocean influence.
26ImportanceChinook life history requires consistent long-term annual monitoring to understand status and trends in population dynamics in order to compare to goals for recovery.Predictive relationships between fish in and fish out data will help devise possible future management actions based on expected fish performance years ahead of time.