Factors affecting the
marine survival of
Puget Sound steelhead
Northwest
Fisheries
Science Center
Barry Berejikian and Meg...
Salish Sea Marine Survival Project
(Steelhead Workgroup)
Puget Sound Steelhead Marine Survival
Workgroup Participants
• Ne...
Outline
• Puget Sound steelhead life history and abundance
trends
• Factors that may affect marine survival
• Freshwater
•...
Puget Sound Steelhead
• Very popular sport and important tribal fisheries
• Predominantly winter-run populations (late fal...
Oncorhynchus mykiss life history
Egg
Parr
Maturation in
freshwater
Smolt (age 1 -3)
Estuary/early marine (2 weeks)
Ocean (...
Abundance of Puget Sound and WA coast
populations
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
S...
Abundance trends
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Nisqually Puyallup Green Skagit Quinault Queets Hoh Quillayute
Puget S...
Marine (smolt-to-adult) survival
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
SAR
Lower Columbia Coast Puget Sound
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
1970 1975 1980...
Where does this lead us?….
• Abundance and SAR trends point to:
 Strong marine signal
 Different signal within Puget Sou...
Freshwater effects
(on subsequent marine survival)
• Some hypotheses:
Reduced diversity (‘Portfolio effect’: e.g., Schind...
11
Hood Canal Steelhead
Freshwater: Spawn timing
DewattoRiver
TahuyaRiver
UnionRiver
NFSkokomishRiver
SFSkokomishRiver
HammaHamma
Duckabush
Dosewa...
Freshwater: Spawn timing and size at age
13
R² = 0.8836
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
50 100 150
Meanforklength(mm)atage-1(spr...
Source: Hood Canal Steelhead Project 14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age
1 2 3 4
Freshwater: Age-at-smoltif...
Source: Hood Canal Steelhead Project
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
20-Mar 3-Apr 17-Apr 1-May 15-May 29-May 12-Ju...
16
Other freshwater effects
Hatcheries may have both ecological and genetic effects:
 Notably, no steelhead released into...
Steelhead in the marine environment
• Pacific Ocean migratory patterns and distribution
• Puget Sound migratory behavior a...
Steelhead Ocean migratory behavior
McMichael et al. Animal Biotelemetry 2013, 1:14 (Figures 2 and 4)
Steelhead Ocean Distribution (spring/summer)
Atcheson et al. 2010. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 141 (4)
19
Steelhead in the marine environment
• Pacific Ocean migratory patterns and distribution
• Puget Sound migratory behavior a...
21
TABLE 2. Fish taxa captured by surface trawls at 52 sites in greater Puget
Sound during May–August 2003; taxa are ranke...
Acoustic telemetry
Vemco 7mm and 9 mm pingers
@ 69kHz, 136 db
Limitations/considerations for acoustic telemetry
• Handling and tag effects never fully known (some
negative effects on g...
Steelhead telemetry in Hood Canal
Moore et al. 2010a. TAFS
Moore et al. 2010b. PLOS One
Moore et al. 2012. PLOS One
Moore ...
Moore et al. 2010a. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 25
Moore M, Berejikian BA, Tezak EP (2013) A Floating Bridge Disrupts Seaward Migration and Increases Mortality of Steelhead ...
Puget Sound Telemetry ‘Study’
Hood Canal Rivers: 2006-2010
Moore, Berejikian, et al. (NWFSC)
Green River: 2006-2009
Fred G...
Telemetry array
Migration Segments
Hood Canal Puget Sound Skagit
1st segment River Mouth - HCB River Mouth - CPS River Mou...
2006 -2009 Puget Sound Telemetry Study
Population
N2006 N2007 N2008 N2009
W H W H W H W H
Hood canal 73 33 123 47 67 42 10...
Cumulative travel times
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
RM-HCB RM-ADM RM-JDF
Hood CanalSkok
BBC
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
RM...
Travel rates
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
RM-NAR/CPS/DP NAR-CPS CPS-ADM ADM/DP-JDF
Travelrate(km/d)
Puget SoundNisqually...
Mark-Recapture Survival Estimates: Cormack-Jolly-Seber
Population
N2006 N2007 N2008 N2009
W H W H W H W H
Hood canal 73 33...
Early marine survival in Hood Canal and Puget Sound steelhead
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Skokomish (W) Skokomish (H...
Source: Welch et al. PNAS 108: 8708-8713
Strait of Georgia and Johnstone Strait
steelhead survival estimates
35
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1
31
61
91
121
151
181
211
241
271
301
331
361
391
421
451
481
511
541
571
601
631
661
...
Distance from Juan de Fuca Strait (km)
050100150200250
Survival(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Big Beef
Green
Nisqually
Puyallup
Ska...
Comparing Puget Sound to Hood Canal
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RM-HCB/CPS HCB/CPS-ADM ADM-JDF RM-JDF
2008...
Telemetry Summary
 Low early marine survival rates consistent with SARs and abundance of Puget Sound steelhead
 Instanta...
Steelhead dying
at high rate in PS
Predation IS proximate/
direct cause of mortality
Predation IS NOT proximate/
direct ca...
2013-2015 Steelhead Marine Survival Study
Activities
2013
September
October
November
December
2014
January
February
March
...
8. Reciprocal transplant
Test following effects on marine survival
 Population
 Location
 1st segment
 2nd segment
 T...
Predator-prey interactions
42
Avian predators (S. Pearson, WDFW, review in prep)
cormorants (most abundant)
Caspian terns
...
Predator-prey interactions (harbor porpoise)
(J. Evenson, WDFW, 2013, unpublished data)
43
1993-1998 1999-2004 2005-2011
Predator-prey interactions (harbor seals)
44
Harbor seal counts
Jeffries et al. 2003 J. Wildlife Manage.
9. Harbor seal/steelhead
interactions
45
B1
C
B2
D
E
A2
A1
Quantify
 core foraging areas of harbor seals
during the steel...
10. Dinner Bell effect
Do smolts with pinging
transmitters experience
similar mortality to those
with temporarily silent
t...
10. Dinner Bell effect
Do smolts with pinging
transmitters experience
similar mortality to those
with temporarily silent
t...
More Acknowledgements…..
Telemetry study funding provided through NOAA, USACE (Seattle District), UW, Steelhead Trout
Club...
• Figure 2. Survival estimates for smolts migrating through fresh- and saltwater migration segments.
Moore M, Berejikian B...
Comparing Puget Sound to Hood Canal
SurvivalProbability
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RM-HCB/CPS HCB/CPS-ADM...
Quantifying encounter and predation rates
• Spatial overlap: seal and steelhead detections on same
receivers
• Temporal an...
Puget Sound Chinook salmon
• Residency in Puget Sound = weeks to years.
• Very abundant in Puget Sound spring through
summ...
6/3/2014 53
20 fish were released and 6 were detected at the Point Reyes Array. That’s 30%
survival over 137 km
12 (60%) w...
6/3/2014 54
Species Year Release
date
Release
size
(mm)
Duration
(weeks)
Detected (Chinook)
Survival est (Sthd)
Instantane...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Factors affecting the marine survival of Puget Sound steelhead

914 views

Published on

Barry Berejikian's presentation on Steelhead survival rates in Puget Sound, at the 2014 Nisqually Annual Program Review. Barry is a scientist for NOAA.

Published in: Environment
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
914
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Factors affecting the marine survival of Puget Sound steelhead

  1. 1. Factors affecting the marine survival of Puget Sound steelhead Northwest Fisheries Science Center Barry Berejikian and Megan Moore Environmental and Fisheries Sciences Division Manchester Research Station
  2. 2. Salish Sea Marine Survival Project (Steelhead Workgroup) Puget Sound Steelhead Marine Survival Workgroup Participants • Neala Kendall, WDFW • Megan Moore, NWFSC • Barry Berejikian, NWFSC • Scott Pearson, WDFW • Ken Warheit, WDFW • Erik Neatherlin, WDFW • Chris Ellings, Nisqually Indian Tribe* • Sandie O’Neill, WDFW • Mike Crewson, Tulalip Tribes* • Ed Connor, Seattle City Light U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 2 Contributing Experts • Steve Jeffries, WDFW • Bruce Stewart, NWIFC • Paul Hershberger, USGS • John Kerwin, WDFW • Dave Beauchamp, UW • Linda Rhodes, NWFSC • Lyndal Johnson, NWFSC • Gina Yitalo, NWFSC • Penny Swanson, NWFSC • Brian Beckman, NWFSC • Andy Goodwin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Joy Evered, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Kym Jacobson, NWFSC • Mary Arkoosh, NWFSC • Joe Dietrich, NWFSC Project Management and Facilitation • Michael Schmidt, Long Live the Kings • Iris Kemp, Long Live the Kings
  3. 3. Outline • Puget Sound steelhead life history and abundance trends • Factors that may affect marine survival • Freshwater • Marine • Salish Sea Marine Survival Project (wrt steelhead) – next steps 3
  4. 4. Puget Sound Steelhead • Very popular sport and important tribal fisheries • Predominantly winter-run populations (late fall – spring) • Roughly 1.5 M hatchery-reared fish released annually • PS steelhead listed ‘Threatened’ in 2007 • Factors in listing decision • Declines in abundance and productivity • Habitat (dams, urbanization, water quality) • Artificial propagation
  5. 5. Oncorhynchus mykiss life history Egg Parr Maturation in freshwater Smolt (age 1 -3) Estuary/early marine (2 weeks) Ocean (1 – 3 years) Maturation and spawning Rainbow trout (resident form) Steelhead (anadromous form)
  6. 6. Abundance of Puget Sound and WA coast populations 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Skagit Green Puyallup Nisqually Queets Quinault Hoh Quillayute
  7. 7. Abundance trends 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Nisqually Puyallup Green Skagit Quinault Queets Hoh Quillayute Puget Sound Washington Coast South North South North Mean(2005-2010)/Mean(1984-1989)
  8. 8. Marine (smolt-to-adult) survival 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% SAR Lower Columbia Coast Puget Sound 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 SAR Brood year Summer-run Winter-run Source: Puget Sound Steelhead Marine Survival Draft Workplan
  9. 9. Where does this lead us?…. • Abundance and SAR trends point to:  Strong marine signal  Different signal within Puget Sound than elsewhere (lower survival), particularly since early1990’s  Possibly worse conditions in ‘the deep south’ • What is different about Puget Sound that might reduce marine survival relative to other regions?  Puget Sound freshwater stream effects on smolt characteristics  Migration routes in the Pacific Ocean  Puget Sound marine conditions
  10. 10. Freshwater effects (on subsequent marine survival) • Some hypotheses: Reduced diversity (‘Portfolio effect’: e.g., Schindler et al. 2012. Nature) Hatchery effects (genetic or ecological) Water quality (e.g., toxics) Disease
  11. 11. 11 Hood Canal Steelhead
  12. 12. Freshwater: Spawn timing DewattoRiver TahuyaRiver UnionRiver NFSkokomishRiver SFSkokomishRiver HammaHamma Duckabush DosewallipsRiver LittleQuilceneRiver BigBeefCreek 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 Proportionofredds Source: WDFW SGS Database & Hood Canal Steelhead Project 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Proportionofredds Kitsap Peninsula Olympic Peninsula
  13. 13. Freshwater: Spawn timing and size at age 13 R² = 0.8836 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 50 100 150 Meanforklength(mm)atage-1(spring) Mean spawning date (days from Jan 1) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Age-1 Age-2 Age-3Forklength(mm)
  14. 14. Source: Hood Canal Steelhead Project 14 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Age 1 2 3 4 Freshwater: Age-at-smoltification
  15. 15. Source: Hood Canal Steelhead Project 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 20-Mar 3-Apr 17-Apr 1-May 15-May 29-May 12-Jun 26-Jun Cumulativeproportionofsmolts Date Big Beef Dewatto Tahuya Little Quilcene Duckabush Hamma Hamma Skokomish Freshwater: Smolt migration timing L. Quilcene Duckabush Hamma Hamma SF Skokomish TahuyaDewatto Big Beef R² = 0.6455 110 115 120 125 130 135 360 410 460 510 560 610 MeanCalendardayofoutmigration Accumulated winter temperature units ( C)
  16. 16. 16 Other freshwater effects Hatcheries may have both ecological and genetic effects:  Notably, no steelhead released into the Nisqually River since 1980 Water Quality/toxics: Toxic contaminant exposure data for steelhead is lacking Nisqually considered most pristine in main basin of Puget Sound Disease:  Nanophyetus: more prevalent in south than north Puget Sound  Rapid infections; can affect swimming performance 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Nisqually Puyallup Green Skagit Quinault Queets Hoh Quillayute Mean(2005-2010)/Mean(1984-1989) Puget Sound Washington Coast Mean annual hatchery smolt releases 1986-2007 0K 203K 207K 329K
  17. 17. Steelhead in the marine environment • Pacific Ocean migratory patterns and distribution • Puget Sound migratory behavior and survival
  18. 18. Steelhead Ocean migratory behavior McMichael et al. Animal Biotelemetry 2013, 1:14 (Figures 2 and 4)
  19. 19. Steelhead Ocean Distribution (spring/summer) Atcheson et al. 2010. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 141 (4) 19
  20. 20. Steelhead in the marine environment • Pacific Ocean migratory patterns and distribution • Puget Sound migratory behavior and survival
  21. 21. 21 TABLE 2. Fish taxa captured by surface trawls at 52 sites in greater Puget Sound during May–August 2003; taxa are ranked in order based on highest to lowest frequency of occurrence. (Rice et al. 2012. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 4: 117-128) SPECIES % frequency 1. Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 65.6 2. Pacific herring Clupea pallasii 57.6 3. Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 51.5 4. Surf smelt Hypomesus pretiosus 50.0 5. Chum salmon O. keta 35.4 6. River lamprey Lampetra ayresii 25.4 7. Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexapterus 22.4 8. Coho salmon O. kisutch 11.7 9. Bay pipefish Syngnathus leptorhynchus 11.2 10. Pacific sandfish Trichodon trichodon 9.0 11. Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus 8.8 12. Shiner perch Cymatogaster aggregata 6.1 13. Steelhead O. mykiss 3.7 **species ranked 14-33 not shown
  22. 22. Acoustic telemetry Vemco 7mm and 9 mm pingers @ 69kHz, 136 db
  23. 23. Limitations/considerations for acoustic telemetry • Handling and tag effects never fully known (some negative effects on growth) • Tag loss in seawater 2% (V7) - 12% (V9), but not until after outmigration • Seals can hear them (Cunningham et al. in review) • Detection range of receivers varies depending on currents, noise, water quality etc. • Expected to under-estimate natural survival rates
  24. 24. Steelhead telemetry in Hood Canal Moore et al. 2010a. TAFS Moore et al. 2010b. PLOS One Moore et al. 2012. PLOS One Moore et al. 2013. PLOS One
  25. 25. Moore et al. 2010a. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 25
  26. 26. Moore M, Berejikian BA, Tezak EP (2013) A Floating Bridge Disrupts Seaward Migration and Increases Mortality of Steelhead Smolts in Hood Canal, Washington State. PLoS ONE 8(9): e73427. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073427 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0073427 Known survivors Presumed mortalities Telemetry useful for identifying hotspots Possible mortalities Undetermined
  27. 27. Puget Sound Telemetry ‘Study’ Hood Canal Rivers: 2006-2010 Moore, Berejikian, et al. (NWFSC) Green River: 2006-2009 Fred Goetz, Tom Quinn et al (UW, ACOE) Puyallup River: 2006, 2008-2009 Andrew Berger et al. (Puyallup Tribe) Nisqually River: 2006-2009 Sayre Hodgson et al. (Nisqually Tribe) Skagit River: 2006-2009 Ed Conner et al. (Seattle City Light)
  28. 28. Telemetry array Migration Segments Hood Canal Puget Sound Skagit 1st segment River Mouth - HCB River Mouth - CPS River Mouth - DP 2nd segment HCB – ADM CPS – ADM 3rd segment ADM – JDF ADM – JDF DP - JDF
  29. 29. 2006 -2009 Puget Sound Telemetry Study Population N2006 N2007 N2008 N2009 W H W H W H W H Hood canal 73 33 123 47 67 42 105 59 Green 100 50 39 50 48 50 50 - Nisqually 55 - 49 - 14 - 69 - Puyallup 25 25 - - - 90 - 66 Skagit 23 - 47 - 50 50 25 55 TOTAL 334 355 411 293
  30. 30. Cumulative travel times 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 RM-HCB RM-ADM RM-JDF Hood CanalSkok BBC 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 RM-NAR RM-CPS/DP RM-ADM RM-JDF Traveltime(days) Puget Sound Nisqually Puyallup Green Skagit
  31. 31. Travel rates 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 RM-NAR/CPS/DP NAR-CPS CPS-ADM ADM/DP-JDF Travelrate(km/d) Puget SoundNisqually Puyallup Green Skagit 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 RM-HCB HCB-ADM ADM-JDF Hood Canal Skok BBC
  32. 32. Mark-Recapture Survival Estimates: Cormack-Jolly-Seber Population N2006 N2007 N2008 N2009 W H W H W H W H Hood canal 73 33 123 47 67 42 105 59 Green 100 50 39 50 48 50 50 - Nisqually 55 - 49 - 14 - 69 - Puyallup 25 25 - - - 90 - 66 Skagit 23 - 47 - 50 50 25 55 TOTAL 334 355 411 293 Categorical variables Population Region (HC, SS, Skagit) Rear type (H/W) Migration Segment Year Tag Type Continuous variables Distance travelled Body Length Model with lowest AICc = ~(Segment x population)+ (year)+ (rear type H/W) N=1393
  33. 33. Early marine survival in Hood Canal and Puget Sound steelhead 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Skokomish (W) Skokomish (H) Hamma (H) BBC (W) AverageRM-JDFSurvival Hood Canal 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Nisqually (W)Puyallup (W) Puyallup (H) Green (W) Green (H) Skagit (W) Skagit (H) Puget Sound W = Wild H = Hatchery Combined early marine survival estimate = 17% (hatchery = 12% , wild = 20%)
  34. 34. Source: Welch et al. PNAS 108: 8708-8713 Strait of Georgia and Johnstone Strait steelhead survival estimates
  35. 35. 35 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 1 31 61 91 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331 361 391 421 451 481 511 541 571 601 631 661 691 721 Numberofsurvivors Days after seawater entry River mouth to Pacific Ocean (21 days) Adult return at 3% SAR (720 days) Instantaneous daily mortality rates: River mouth to Pacific Ocean (M = 0.086) Pacific Ocean entry to adult return (M = 0.003)
  36. 36. Distance from Juan de Fuca Strait (km) 050100150200250 Survival(%) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Big Beef Green Nisqually Puyallup Skagit Skokomish Can we identify mortality ‘hot spots’? NAR CPS HCB DP ADM NAR = Tacoma Narrows CPS = Central Puget Sound ADM = Admiralty Inlet HCB = Hood Canal Bridge DP = Deception Pass
  37. 37. Comparing Puget Sound to Hood Canal 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RM-HCB/CPS HCB/CPS-ADM ADM-JDF RM-JDF 2008 SurvivalProbability 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RM-HCB/CPS HCB/CPS-ADM ADM-JDF RM-JDF 2009 (Skokomish RM-HCB = 66 km) (Nisqually RM – CPS = 67 km)
  38. 38. Telemetry Summary  Low early marine survival rates consistent with SARs and abundance of Puget Sound steelhead  Instantaneous daily mortality rates are high (i.e., mortality occurs very quickly)  Rapid travel times (1 – 3 weeks from river mouths to ocean entry) Puget sound may serve more a migratory corridor than a rearing environment Has it always been this way, or is that part of the problem?  Hood Canal and Puget Sound steelhead exhibit different patterns  Central Puget Sound may represent a mortality hotspot
  39. 39. Steelhead dying at high rate in PS Predation IS proximate/ direct cause of mortality Predation IS NOT proximate/ direct cause of mortality Poor fish condition and/or altered behavior: freshwater (F) or marine (M) effect (ranked) 1. Disease (M/F) 2. Poor water quality/toxics (M/F) 3. Genetic fitness loss (F) 4. HABs (M) 5. Foraging/Starvation (M) 6. Portfolio (outmigrant size or timing -F) 7. Structural changes in marine habitats (M) Predator-prey interactions 1. Depensation 2. Increase in key predator populations 3. Decrease abundance of other prey
  40. 40. 2013-2015 Steelhead Marine Survival Study Activities 2013 September October November December 2014 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2015 January February March April May June Permitting Upgrade telemetry receivers Studies 1: Complete retro telemetry data analysis 2: Complete SAR trend analysis 3: Fish characteristics vs. SARs 4. Enviro. data vs. SARs & telemetry 5: Predator review 6: Genome-wide association study 7: Juvenile fish health assessment 8: Reciprocal transplant 9. Harbor seal interactions 10: Dinner bell effect 11: Modeling (affiliated) Legend for study work Preparation Field Work Analysis Reporting Tech Memo Due
  41. 41. 8. Reciprocal transplant Test following effects on marine survival  Population  Location  1st segment  2nd segment  Translocation (nuisance) 41 B1 C B2 D E A2 A1
  42. 42. Predator-prey interactions 42 Avian predators (S. Pearson, WDFW, review in prep) cormorants (most abundant) Caspian terns common mergansers loons rhinoceros auklets (feed on smaller prey) Mammalian predators Harbor porpoise Harbor seals Identifying potentially important predators on steelhead smolts Criteria: 1. Spatial and temporal overlap, 2. Known to eat steelhead 3. Known to eat similarly sized salmon or other fish 4. Increasing or stable abundance,
  43. 43. Predator-prey interactions (harbor porpoise) (J. Evenson, WDFW, 2013, unpublished data) 43 1993-1998 1999-2004 2005-2011
  44. 44. Predator-prey interactions (harbor seals) 44 Harbor seal counts Jeffries et al. 2003 J. Wildlife Manage.
  45. 45. 9. Harbor seal/steelhead interactions 45 B1 C B2 D E A2 A1 Quantify  core foraging areas of harbor seals during the steelhead smolt outmigration;  spatial and temporal overlap of harbor seals and steelhead smolts in specific areas of Puget Sound;  predation events by seals on tagged steelhead smolts GPS, acoustic tag/receiver, VHF
  46. 46. 10. Dinner Bell effect Do smolts with pinging transmitters experience similar mortality to those with temporarily silent transmitters?
  47. 47. 10. Dinner Bell effect Do smolts with pinging transmitters experience similar mortality to those with temporarily silent transmitters? ~ 5 days
  48. 48. More Acknowledgements….. Telemetry study funding provided through NOAA, USACE (Seattle District), UW, Steelhead Trout Club of Washington, Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking Network (POST) Survival Modeling Support Mike Melnychuk (UW) Jeff Laake (NOAA SWFSC) Field/Logistic Support Long Live the Kings ▪ Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group ▪ Mat Gillam ▪ R2 Resource Consultants ▪ Bob Leland ▪ Kelly Kiyohara ▪ Pat Michael Brody Antipa ▪ Pete Topping ▪ Deborah Feldman ▪ Kelly Andrews ▪ John Blaine ▪ Jim Deveraux ▪ Skip Tezak Correigh Greene ▪ Anna Kagley ▪ Shawn Larson ▪ Jeff Christiansen ▪ John Rupp ▪ Chuck Ebel ▪ Jose Reyes-Tomassini ▪ Jennifer Scheurell ▪ Chris Ewing Dawn Pucci ▪ Kurt Dobszinsky ▪ Paul Winchell ▪ David Welch ▪ Debbie Goetz ▪ Jose Gimenez ▪ Aswea Porter ▪ Emiliano Perez ▪ Craig Smith ▪ Tim Wilson ▪ Florian Leischner ▪ Christopher Ellings ▪ Scott Steltzner
  49. 49. • Figure 2. Survival estimates for smolts migrating through fresh- and saltwater migration segments. Moore M, Berejikian BA, Tezak EP (2012) Variation in the Early Marine Survival and Behavior of Natural and Hatchery-Reared Hood Canal Steelhead. PLoS One 7(11): e49645. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049645 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0049645 Telemetry useful for estimating survival (especially relative survival) -Release to river mouth -River mouth to HC bridge -HC bridge to Admiralty Inlet -Admiralty Inlet to Pillar Point
  50. 50. Comparing Puget Sound to Hood Canal SurvivalProbability 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RM-HCB/CPS HCB/CPS-ADM ADM-JDF RM-JDF 2008 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RM-HCB/CPS HCB/CPS-ADM ADM-JDF RM-JDF 2009 (Big Beef RM-HCB = 25 km) (Green River RM-CPS = 11 km)
  51. 51. Quantifying encounter and predation rates • Spatial overlap: seal and steelhead detections on same receivers • Temporal and spatial overlap: concurrent pings on same fixed (moored) receivers • Potential encounters: pings detected on mobile (seal-mounted) receivers • Putative predation events: • recurring continuous pings on seal-mounted receivers, perhaps followed by... • Stationary tags (defacated tags) connected to seal movements/locations
  52. 52. Puget Sound Chinook salmon • Residency in Puget Sound = weeks to years. • Very abundant in Puget Sound spring through summer (Beauchamp and Duffy 2011, Rice et al. 2012) • Spring/summer growth rate and body size strongly correlated with survival (in hatchery stocks: Duffy and Beauchamp 2011) • Foraging opportunities, diet composition, and competition (including comp. with hatchery Chinook salmon) likely influence survival.
  53. 53. 6/3/2014 53 20 fish were released and 6 were detected at the Point Reyes Array. That’s 30% survival over 137 km 12 (60%) were detected traveling from the river mouth through San Pablo Bay and through San Francisco Bay (77 Km), 2 went south of the Bay Bridge Array, and 10 that entered the ocean were detected at point reyes. Sundstrom et al 2013 Oregon estuaries, lose about 50% in < 20 km or even shorter distances. Steepest losses in areas where there’s been documented high predation rates San Francisco Bay
  54. 54. 6/3/2014 54 Species Year Release date Release size (mm) Duration (weeks) Detected (Chinook) Survival est (Sthd) Instantaneous daily mortality Chinook (Hatch) 2008 May 9 190-233 ~14 43% M = 0.008 Sthd (Wild) 2008 April 16 – May 27 170-190 ~ 2 ~ 1 ~ 3 89% RM to HCB 18% HCB to JDF 16.5% RM to JDF M = 0.008 M = 0.242 M = 0.086 Is the estimate 20% EMS high or low? Chamberlain et al. 2011 TAFS and Moore et al. 2012 PLOS One

×