A SUMMARY OF ACOUSTIC TAGGING PROGRAMS FOR MIGRATORY AND RESIDENT CHINOOK SALMON IN PUGET SOUND Anna N. Kagley, Correigh Greene, Kurt Fresh & Dawn Spillsbury-Pucci - NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/FE Division Joshua Chamberlin, Fred Goetz & Tom Quinn - University of Washington/School of Fisheries Abstract: Like many other stocks throughout the Pacific Northwest, Puget Sound Chinook salmon have now declined to the point that they are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. An increased understanding of their residence time, origins, migration pathways, predator/prey interactions, and habitat use is needed to help reverse this trend. We are currently using acoustic telemetry to help fill this information void. This poster is a brief summary of the Chinook portion of this collaborative effort initiated over the last three years and an overview of the upcoming research plans. This united approach will give a clearer picture of the status of Puget Sound Chinook salmon including ocean-bound smolt and resident (blackmouth) behavior and survival in both the estuarine and nearshore environments and contribute to a greater ecosystem level of understanding. This in turn will help direct future fisheries management decisions surrounding recovery and help focus future protection and restoration efforts. Author Contact Information: Anna Kagley NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/FE Division 2725 Montlake Blvd E – Seattle, WA (206) Introduction: Puget Sound Chinook salmon have several diverse life history types. In addition to the traditional “ocean-type” life cycle model (river, estuary, sea, return to spawn in freshwater) there are other types including “resident” (river, estuary, and never leave for sea). We were most interested in how habitat use differed between these types and how this may influence the commercial, sport and tribal fisheries. Summary: Puget Sound fish are on the move! There are different scales of movement including a surprising amount of rapid short-term long distance movement. There are also patterns of movement patterns within smaller geographic areas (“movers” & sitters). All this movement expends energy. Why? Future Plans: Tag more fish and focus more closely on fish size and time of year tagged. Improve receiver/data recovery and mobile tracking efforts. Use genetic results to look for hatchery/wild differences. Look for population differences and “other” life history types and deviations within the “ocean-type” and “resident” life history examples. Examine fish movement patterns correlations with tides, diel patterns, water quality, predator/prey interactions and other possible environmental predictors. Acknowledgements: Eva Schemmel Scott Stelzner Eric Jeanes King County folks NOAA Folks: Kim Guilbault, Jason Hall, Kinsey Frick, Casey Rice, Kelly Andrews, Mary Moser, John Ferguson, and Ed Casillas The rest of the tagging community. “Ocean-Type” Fry Sub-yearling (smolt) Yearling (juv.) Adult “Resident” River Estuary Nearshore Ocean River Estuary ? ? “Other” ? ? ? ? Preliminary Results: “Ocean-type” fish movement: We hypothesized that these fish (based on run timing and size) would rapidly exit North from their tag/release location in Skagit Bay. We detected 29 unmarked Chinook heading South. Many were still present in the winter months following tagging (perhaps indicating a variation of the “resident” type). Detected on multiple receivers West Pt Alki Beans Pt Admiralty Possession Hood Canal Pt Madison Tacoma Skagit Bay Deception Detected on a single receiver Spatial Facts: We hypothesized that these fish would have a high probability of staying in Puget Sound due to timing and size. All fish were caught/released in the central Puget Sound area. We detected over 50% of our fish on at least 1 receiver. 25% were detected up to a month after release; most from receivers adjacent to the capture/release locations. 5 fish released around central Puget Sound were detected moving around the same area 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 months later. Another 2 fish spent 2 and 5 months, respectively, traveling between central and South Puget Sound and were detected on all receivers in between. Materials & Methods: Deployed 200 receivers in greater Puget Sound (see map). Tagged over 100 sub-yearling (presumed “ocean-type) and over 200 larger yearling (presumed “resident”) fish with tags in the last three years. Tag battery life ranges from approximately 3 months for the smaller “ocean-type” and 6+ months for the larger “residents”. “Resident” fish movement: Receiver locations in Central Puget Sound Temporal Facts: Fish A: tagged November 2006, returns July-October 2007; visited 9 receivers. Fish B & C: tagged in June 2006, returns June January 2008, found on 20 receivers Fish D: tagged in June 2006, returns June-August 2007 and again May-June 2008, found on 11 receivers.