Downstream Survival of Juvenile Stream Type Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Through the Snake/Columbia River Hydropower System and Adult Return Rates AFEP

Downstream Survival of Juvenile Stream Type Chinook

Salmon and Steelhead Through the Snake/Columbia

River Hydropower System and Adult Return Rates

AFEPNovember 13, 2006Bill Muir, Steve Smith, John Williams, and Doug Marsh

Outline• Stream type Chinook survival from

Snake River Basin hatcheries to LGR



• Chinook and steelhead survival through individual reaches




• Their survival through the entire hydropower system




• Their survival through the entire hydropower system

• Smolt-to-adult returns

Bonnevill

e

The D

alle

s

John D

ay

Hells Canyon

OxbowBrownlee

Priest Rapids

Wanapum

Rock Island

Rocky Reach

Wells

Chief Joseph

Grand Coulee

McN

ary

Ice H

arb

or

Litt

le G

oose

Low

er

Gra

nit

e

Low

er

Monum

enta

l

Estuaryrecoveries

Juvenile detectors

0

50

100

150

200

Apr 9

Apr 16

Apr 23

Apr 30

May 7

May 14

May 21

May 28

1997

2001

Weekly Mean Flow (kcfs)Lower Granite Dam

2005

2006

Date at Lower Granite Dam

Mea

n F

low

(k

cfs)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Apr 9

Apr 16

Apr 23

Apr 30

May 7

May 14

May 21

May 28

1997

2001

Mean Percentage Spilled LGR, LGS, LMN

2005

2006

Date

Per

cen

tag

e S

pil

l

Transportation

• 62% of non-tagged stream type Chinook

• 76% of non-tagged steelhead

Hatchery stream type Chinook (1993-2006)

0 200 400 600 800

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00KooskiaImnaha R. weir

Rapid RiverMcCallPahsimeroiSawtooth

Dworshak

R2=0.955, p<0.0001

Distance to Lower Granite Dam (km)

Surv

ival

Rele

ase

to L

GR

Stream type ChinookAll Snake River Basinhatcheries combined

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 20060.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

X = 60.7%

64.4%

Sur

viva

lRel

ease

to

LGR

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Est

imat

ed s

urvi

val

Lower Granite to Little Goose

X = 92.3%

SteelheadStream type Chinook

92.8%

X = 90.3%

95.8%

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Est

imat

ed s

urvi

val

Stream type Chinook Steelhead

Little Goose to Lower Monumental

X = 89.6% X = 88.2%

93.3% 90.9%

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Est

imat

ed s

urvi

val

Lower Monumental to McNary


X = 85.0% (92.2)

X = 71.4% (84.5)

88.7%

77.6%

Lower Monumental-McNarySurvival Partitioned in 2006

• Chinook Salmon– LMN-MCN 0.887 (0.004)

• Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor: 0.914 (0.003)• Ice Harbor to McNary Dam: 0.964 (0.005)

• Steelhead– LMN-MCN: 0.776 (0.016)

• Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor: 0.913 (0.010)• Ice Harbor to McNary Dam: 0.863 (0.018)

Bonnevill

e

The D

alle

s

John D

ay

Hells Canyon

OxbowBrownlee

Priest Rapids

Wanapum

Rock Island

Rocky Reach

Wells

McN

ary

Ice H

arb

or

Litt

le G

oose

Low

er

Gra

nit

e

Low

er M

onum

enta

lCrescent Island

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Est

imat

ed

surv

ival


McNary to John Day

X = 83.9% X = 71.5%

86.8%

84.0%

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1998 2000 2002 2004 20060.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

Est

imat

ed s

urvi

val


John Day to Bonneville

X = 79.5% (89.2%)

??

X = 71.5% (84.6%)

89.1%(94.3)

69.1%(83.1)

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1998 2000 2002 2004 20060.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Est

imat

ed s

urvi

val

Snake River Trap to Bonneville

??


X = 45.8%

58.1%

X = 32.2%

37.3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Apr 9

Apr 16

Apr 23

Apr 30

May 7

May 14

May 21

May 28

1997-2004

2001

Median travel time Stream type ChinookLower Granite to Bonneville (461 km)

2005

2006

Date at Lower Granite Dam

Tra

vel

tim

e (d

ays)

LGR-BON Travel Timeby number of detections

0

3

6

9

12

15

18 2005 2006

Number of times detected

Mea

n D

ays

LG

R t

o B

ON

Snake River Trap to Bonneville Dam TailracePer-project expansion in some years

1965 1970 1975 19800.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1995 2000 2005

Nodata

Chinook

Steelhead58.1%

37.3%

Outmigration year

Hyd

rosy

stem

sur

viva

l

How big of part does hydropower system survival

play in adult returns?

Stream type Chinookbased on PIT tags

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 20060.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

In-river survival

Hyd

ropow

er sy

stem

surv

ival

SAR (%

)

Stream type Chinookbased on PIT tags

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 20060.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

**

* Incomplete adult returns

In-river survial

SAR

*

Hyd

ropow

er sy

stem

surv

ival

SAR (%

)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

R2 = 0.250P = 0.117

Stream type Chinook based on PIT tags

Hydropower system survival

SAR (%

)

Steelheadbased on PIT tags

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 20070.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

In-river survival

Migration year

Hyd

ropow

er sy

stem

surv

ival

SAR (%

)


1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 20070.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

*

* Adult returns incomplete

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

*

SARIn-river survival

Migration year

Hyd

ropow

er sy

stem

surv

ival

SAR (%

)


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.90.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

R2 = 0. 011P = 0.759

Hydropower system survival

SAR (%

)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

1

2

3

4PIT-taggedunmarked

Snake River wild Chinook salmon (LGR to LGR + catch)

Year of outmigration

Sm

olt-

to-a

dult

retu

rn -

% (

SA

R)

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

1

2

3

4

5

PIT-tagged wildunmarked wild

PIT-tagged hatchery

Snake River steelhead


Sm

olt-

to-a

dult

retu

rn -

% (

SA

R)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Dworshak Hatchery Chinook salmon *

PIT

unmarked


Sm

olt-

to-a

dult

retu

rn -

% (

SA

R)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Rapid River Hatchery Chinook salmon *

PIT

unmarked


Sm

olt-

to-a

dult

retu

rn -

% (

SA

R)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

McCall Hatchery Chinook salmon*

* Includes adjustment for harvest upstream of LGR

PITunmarked


Sm

olt-

to-a

dult

retu

rn -

% (

SA

R)

Hatchery to hatchery SARs - no adjustment for smolt survival toLGR or adult harvest downstream of LGR- Data after 2005 CSS report

Potential causes

• Shed or expelled PIT tag• Tag not read in adult• Decreased fitness• Different passage history than

untagged• Combination of the above

Conclusions

• Stream type Chinook survival averaged 64% from hatchery release to the first dam in 2006

Conclusions


• Reach survival averaged 93% per project for Chinook and 88% for steelhead in 2006

Conclusions



• Hydropower system survival was 58% for Chinook and 37% for steelhead in 2006

Conclusions



• Hydropower system survival was 58% for Chinook and 37% for steelhead in 2006

• Chinook and steelhead direct hydropower system survival has little influence on SAR

Questions

Documents

Downstream Survival of Juvenile Stream Type Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Through the Snake/Columbia River Hydropower System and Adult Return Rates AFEP