U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Evaluation of Alternative Commercial Fishing Gear in the Lower Columbia River, 2013: Behavior and.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

McNary Dam The Dalles DamBonneville Dam John Day Dam Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Below the Four Lower-most Columbia River Mainstem.

Advertisements

Evaluate recreational and commercial mark-selective fisheries. (35018) Geraldine Vander Haegen, WDFW Charmane Ashbrook, WDFW Chris Peery, U. Idaho Annette.

Workshop: Monitoring and Evaluation of Harvest on Columbia River Salmonids July 31- August 1, 2007.

Annual Stock Assessment – Coded Wire Tag Program (ODFW & WDFW) BPA Project Numbers: and

Survival Estimates for the Passage of Juvenile Salmonids Through Dams and Reservoirs of the Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers (Project ) CBFWA March.

Mike Faler - USFWS, Ahsahka, ID Glen Mendel - WDFW, Dayton, WA Evaluate Bull Trout Movements in the Tucannon & Lower Snake Rivers.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Yearling Fall Chinook Salmon Released Upstream of Lower Granite Dam Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management.

Spatial scales of homing and the efficacy of hatchery supplementation of wild populations Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries.

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey New approaches afforded by PIT tag technology have yielded important answers about fish behavior.

ESCAPEMENT GOALS? WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING ‘SCAPEMENT GOALS! Hal Michael Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Overview of Current Production Programs Across the Columbia River Basin.

Adult Steelhead Monitoring Challenges in Cedar Creek, WA Josua Holowatz & Dan Rawding.

Management Strategies for Columbia River Recreational and Commercial Fisheries and Beyond Oregon and Washington Agency Analysis and Recommendations.

C. A. Peery, M. L. Keefer, and S. R. Lee Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit U.S. Geological Survey and Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Coordination of Tag and Mark Recovery Programs Dan Rawding WDFW.

In-Stream PIT-Tag Detection of Resident Salmonids in Washington's White Salmon River Watershed: One System ’ s Saga. Ian G. Jezorek 1, Patrick J. Connolly.

Tagging  Fish are captured via angling & implanted with a VEMCO acoustic transmitter (V13, V9, or V7) – (Figure 4).  Specific age classes are targeted.

Survival Estimation Using Estimated Daily Detection Probabilities Benjamin P. Sandford Fish Ecology Division NOAA Fisheries.

Christopher Caudill, Charles Boggs, Eric Johnson, and Matthew Keefer

Response of a spawning population of Spring Chinook salmon to flow alteration in a regulated system. Steve Corbett, Mary Moser, Andrew Dittman, Darran.

Overview  Modeling to date: –Distribution of mortality –Achieving improvements with specific actions  Building scenarios  Dealing with uncertainty –

Variation in Straying Patterns and Rates of Snake River Hatchery Steelhead Stocks in the Deschutes River Basin, Oregon Richard W. Carmichael and Tim Hoffnagle.

Columbia River salmon : Who (or what) will save them? John Williams Klarälven meeting in Karlstad 9 May 2011.

Integrated Status & Trend (ISTM) Project: An overview of establishing, evaluating and modifying monitoring priorities for LCR Steelhead Jeff Rodgers (ODFW)

Alternative Gear Implementation Project Pat Frazier WDFW Region 5 Fish Program Manager Photo by Wild Fish Conservancy.

Development and Implementation of a Monitoring Program for Mark-selective Chinook Salmon Fisheries in Puget Sound, Washington Washington Department of.

Survival of Migrating Salmonid Smolts in the Snake and Lower Columbia Rivers, 2009 Technical Management TeamDecember 11, 2009 Lessons Learned 2009 Bill.

Documenting O. mykiss life histories in the White Salmon River prior to the reintroduction of anadromous fish above Condit Dam. Brady Allen and Patrick.

In Search of the Lost Legions Attempting to account for Hatchery-origin steelhead returns to the Snake River Herb Pollard – NOAA –National Marine Fisheries.

Steelhead Stock Status Review and ESA Oregon Rhine Messmer ODFW District Staff Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Pacific Coast Steelhead Management.

BUILDING STRONG ® PORTLAND DISTRICT 1. BUILDING STRONG ® PORTLAND DISTRICT 2 BiOp Performance Standards for Dam Passage Survival RPA RM&E Actions - Strategy.

Adult Entry to Summer Juvenile Rearing of Klamath River Coho Randolph Ericksen Steven Cramer Ian Courter Kathryn Arendt Funded by.

Lewis River Fish Passage Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (draft)

Management Strategies for Columbia River Recreational and Commercial Fisheries and Beyond Oregon and Washington Staff Options for Initial Analysis.

Washington’s Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Steelhead Program – A retrospective and program adaptive management overview Mark Schuck and Joe Bumgarner.

Effectiveness of alternative broodstock, rearing and release practices at Winthrop NFH William Gale and Matt Cooper -USFWS, Mid-Columbia River Fishery.

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

Oregon Steelhead Status, Recovery Planning and Monitoring Kevin Goodson Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Pacific Coast Steelhead Management Meeting.

Washington State Steelhead Stock Status Review PACIFIC COAST STEELHEAD MEETING AMILEE WILSON WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE MARCH 2004.

October 20 & 21, 2009 Stevenson, WA Columbia Basin Coordinated Anadromous Monitoring Strategy Workshop Lower Columbia Sub-Basin.

Survival and Behavior of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Lower Columbia River, Estuary, and Plume G. A. McMichael 1, R. L. McComas 2, J. A. Carter 1, G.

Release Strategies to Improve Post-Release Performance of Hatchery Summer Steelhead in Northeast Oregon. Lance Clarke, Michael Flesher, Shelby Warren,

Ocean rivers SARs LGR-LGR SARs LGR-LGR Harvest Mouth of Columbia predicted returns Mouth of Columbia predicted returns Juvenile travel time and survival.

Species Main focus for NMFS is ESA listed salmonids, Main focus for NMFS is ESA listed salmonids, Equal focus for NMFS is to protect essential fish habitat.

Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Energy Impacts Resulting from Reductions in Summer Bypass Spill July 16, 2003.

Hydraulic and Biological Evaluations. Hydraulic Evaluations  Measuring flow distribution for fixed vertical or rotating drums (with adjustments available).

November 3-5, 2009 Stevenson, WA Columbia Basin Coordinated Anadromous Monitoring Strategy Workshop Upper Columbia Sub-Region 2 Listed ESU/DPS Steelhead-

Evaluation of the Cougar Dam PFFC using acoustic telemetry John Beeman, Hal Hansel, Amy Hansen, Gabriel Hansen, Scott Evans, Philip Haner, Tyson Hatton,

Performance of a New Steelhead Line Derived from Hatchery Parents Collected in Autumn in the Grande Ronde River Lance Clarke, Michael Flesher, Shelby Warren,

Upstream passage success rates and straying of returning adults Presenter: Jack Tuomikoski CSS Annual Meeting Apr 2 nd 2010.

Historical Review Fish Migration Data. Two Management Approaches Spill for Fish Passage Planning dates Percent passage dates.

COLUMBIA BASIN KELTS: ABUNDANCE, DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE, AND REPEAT SPAWNING.

1 Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough Division of Subsistence Alaska Department of Fish and Game Chignik Management Area Subsistence Salmon Fisheries Overview Chignik.

Estimated survival of juvenile salmonids through the lower Columbia River and estuary, and estimated mortality from avian predation John Ferguson NOAA.

Relationships Between River Variables and Salmon Survival Correlation Analysis and Box and Whisker Plots.

Where the Rivers Meet: Salvelinus confluentus Migrations in the Upper Mid-Columbia River Mark Nelson USFWS Mid-Columbia River FRO WA/BC AFS AGM March 29,

Payette MPG Sockeye Adult Tributary Juvenile Data Tributary Data

Northwest Fisheries Science Center Technical Management Team

Timing and distribution of naturally produced coho salmon in the lower Columbia River Good morning, Today I’m going to give you an overview of the joint.

Comparative Survival Study Annual Meeting

Age at ocean entry of Snake River Basin fall Chinook and its significance to adult returns prior to summer spill at LGR, LGS, and LMN dams.

MPG Spring-Summer Chinook

Snake River MPG Fall Chinook Adult Tributary Juvenile Data Tributary

The Data Wars Of the Columbia Basin.

The Reintroduction of Late-Run Winter Steelhead into the Upper North Fork Lewis River, Washington, using F1 Wild Broodstock Hatchery Adults.

Comparative Survival Study Project #

Northwest Fisheries Science Center Technical Management Team

Adult Returns and Juvenile Outmigration Data

Direct Survival of Migrating Salmonid Smolts in the Snake and Lower Columbia Rivers: Update with 2007 Results Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

Presentation transcript:

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Evaluation of Alternative Commercial Fishing Gear in the Lower Columbia River, 2013: Behavior and Movement Patterns of Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon Tobias Kock and Theresa Liedtke February 24, 2014

Objectives Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions 1. Describe movement patterns of radio-tagged tule Chinook salmon, bright Chinook salmon, and coho salmon after capture in a beach seine or purse seine. 2.Describe and quantify intended locations of tagged fish. 3.If possible, assess survival of tagged fish after capture.

Radiotelemetry Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Sample size target = 100 fish/group Species Beach seinePurse seine Fisher 1Fisher 2Fisher 3Fisher 4 Tule Chinook salmon100 Bright Chinook salmon100 Coho salmon Number of Fish Half 95% c.i.

Radiotelemetry Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Sample size target = 100 fish/group  Each fish tagged with: (a)radio transmitter (i) detected with telemetry receiver (ii) tag recovery report (b)PIT-tag 3-volt model: coho salmon 7-volt model: Chinook salmon

Radiotelemetry Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Sample size target = 100 fish/group  Each fish tagged with: (a)radio transmitter (i) detected with telemetry receiver (ii) tag recovery report (b)PIT-tag  Monitoring techniques: (a)fixed sites (b)mobile tracking (c)PIT-tag array (d)tag recovery reports

Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions = fixed sites = fish collection/tagging reach F

Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Fish ladders Forebay Tailrace/Tanner Cr.

Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions McCord Cr./Moffett Cr. Hamilton Cr. Dodson/Skamania Landing Woodward Cr.

Fixed Sites Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Washougal Lady Island

Mobile Tracking Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions 3 reaches (1)Bonneville to Cape Horn (2) Cape Horn to Washougal (3) Washougal to mouth of Willamette River Bonneville Dam Cape Horn Washougal I-205 Bridge I-5 Bridge Schedule August – September: daily October: 5 d/week; none during 10/1-10/16 November: 5 total events

Tagging Numbers Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Species Beach seinePurse seine Fisher 1Fisher 2Fisher 3Fisher 4 Tule Chinook salmon100/92100/84100/66100/91 Bright Chinook salmon100/120100/118100/150100/118 Coho salmon100/153100/57100/106100/59 SpeciesBeach seinePurse seineTotal Tule Chinook salmon Bright Chinook salmon Coho salmon Total = ,214

Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Telemetry detections:  99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected  98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected  92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected n = 1 n = 9 n = 30

Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Telemetry detections:  99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected  98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected  92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected  PIT-tag detections:  46% TCHK detected  63% BCHK detected  59% COHO detected

Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Telemetry detections:  99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected  98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected  92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected  PIT-tag detections:  46% TCHK detected  63% BCHK detected  59% COHO detected  Tag recoveries:  27% TCHK  19% BCHK  16% COHO

Detections Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Telemetry detections:  99% of the tule Chinook salmon (TCHK) detected  98% of the bright Chinook salmon (BCHK) detected  92% of the coho salmon (COHO) detected  PIT-tag detections:  46% TCHK detected  63% BCHK detected  59% COHO detected  Tag recoveries:  27% TCHK  19% BCHK  16% COHO  Spit tags  0 TCHK  0 BCHK  13 COHO

Detection Probabilities and Spit Tags Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Upstream telemetry detections  99.3% TCHK  99.3% BCHK  94.4% COHO Washougal Release Bonneville

Detection Probabilities and Spit Tags Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Upstream telemetry detections  99.3% TCHK  99.3% BCHK  94.4% COHO Washougal Release Bonneville  Downstream telemetry detections  97.7% TCHK  99.1% BCHK  90.2% COHO

Detection Probabilities and Spit Tags Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Upstream telemetry detections  99.3% TCHK  99.3% BCHK  94.4% COHO  Downstream telemetry detections  97.7% TCHK  99.1% BCHK  90.2% COHO  Bonneville PIT-tag detections  95.2% TCHK  97.1% BCHK  95.9% COHO Washougal Release Bonneville

Travel Times Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Release to Bonneville Dam Release to Cascade Locks Release to Washougal

Behavior and Movement Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Bonneville Dam Washougal Release site Passed dam Remained in study area Downstream of Washougal

Behavior and Movement by Origin Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Bonneville Dam Washougal TCHK 29% 44%26% BCHK 15% 62% 21% COHO 26% 53% 14%

Behavior and Movement by Origin Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Bonneville Dam Washougal TCHK 29% 44%26% BCHK 15% 62% 21% COHO 26% 53% 14% Total = 88 Wild = 43 Hatchery = 45 Total = 105 Wild = 68 Hatchery = 37 Total = 51 Wild = 30 Hatchery = 21 Total = 97 Wild = 38 Hatchery = 59 Total = 147 Wild = 55 Hatchery = 92 Total = 77 Wild = 49 Hatchery = 28 Total = 97 Wild = 34 Hatchery = 63 Total = 312 Wild = 195 Hatchery = 117 Total = 197 Wild = 151 Hatchery = 46

Treatment vs Control Groups Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Treatment vs Control Groups Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions All Fish TCHK: 333 BCHK: 506 COHO: 375 WA Ladder TCHK: 89 BCHK: 114 COHO: 114 WA Ladder TCHK: 87% BCHK: 89% COHO: 79% All Fish TCHK: 44% BCHK: 62% COHO: 53% Fate above the dam

Intended Migratory Locations Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions TributaryMainstem Columbia RiverHatchery Wells Dam: 1 (<1 percent) Rocky Reach Dam: 2 (<1 percent) Priest Rapids Dam: 3 (<1 percent)Priest Rapids Hatchery: 3 (<1 percent) Yakima River: 1 (<1 percent)Hanford Reach: 1 (<1 percent)Ringold Hatchery: 1 (<1 percent) Snake River: 3 (1 percent) McNary Dam: 10 (3 percent) Deschutes River: 4 (1 percent)Zone 6: 11 (3 percent) The Dalles Dam: 2 (<1 percent) Klickitat River: 3 (<1 percent) Spring Creek Hatchery: 17 (5 percent) Little White Salmon River: 4 (1 percent)Cascade Locks: 51 (15 percent) Wind River: 1 (<1 percent)Bonneville Dam Forebay: 15 (4 percent) Herman Creek: 2 (<1 percent)Bonneville Dam: 4 (1 percent) Bonneville Hatchery: 30 (9 percent) Tanner Creek: 5 (1 percent) Oneonta Creek: 1 (<1 percent)Zone 5: 53 (16 percent) Multnomah Creek: 3 (<1 percent) Number of fish released = 333 Not detected = 1 (<1 percent) Zone 4: 56 (17 percent) Washougal River: 9 (3 percent) Sandy River: 10 (3 percent) Willamette River: 2 (<1 percent) Lewis River: 5 (1 percent)Zone 3: 6 (2 percent) Cowlitz River: 7 (2 percent)Zone 2: 6 (2 percent) TCHK

Tributaries Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions TCHKBCHKCOHO Yakima R. (1)Methow R. (1)Wenatchee R. (1) Snake R. (3)Snake R. (10)Yakima R. (1) Deschutes R. (4)Umatilla R. (3)Snake R. (1) Klickitat R. (3)Deschutes R. (4)Umatilla R. (2) Little White Salmon R. (4)Klickitat R. (4)Deschutes R. (2) Wind R. (1)White Salmon R. (1)Klickitat R. (13) Herman Cr. (2)Little White Salmon R. (14)Hood R. (1) Tanner Cr. (5)Herman Cr. (1)Little White Salmon R. (1) Oneonta Cr. (1)Moffett Cr. (2)Herman Cr. (1) Multnomah Cr. (3) Tanner Cr. (4) Washougal R. (9)Washougal R. (4)Hamilton Cr. (2) Sandy R. (10)Sandy R. (3)Moffett Cr. (1) Willamette R. (2)Willamette R. (3)Oneonta Cr. (3) Lewis R. (5)Lewis R. (1)Multnomah Cr. (1) Cowlitz R. (7)Cowlitz R. (3)Washougal R. (3) Sandy R. (5) Clackamas R. (1) Lewis R. (6)

Mainstem Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions TCHKBCHKCOHO Wells Dam (1)Wells Dam (6) Rocky Reach Dam (2)Rocky Reach Dam (5) Priest Rapids Dam (3)Rock Island Dam (3) Hanford Reach (1)Priest Rapids Dam (16) McNary Dam (10)Hanford Reach (3) Zone 6 (11)McNary Dam (50)McNary Dam (5) The Dalles Dam (2)Zone 6 (12)Zone 6 (8) Cascade Locks (51)The Dalles Dam (22)The Dalles Dam (7) Bonneville Dam Forebay (15)Cascade Locks (86)Cascade Locks (105) Bonneville Dam (4)Bonneville Dam Forebay (9)Bonneville Dam Forebay (33) Zone 5 (53)Bonneville Dam (3)Bonneville Dam (40) Zone 4 (56)Zone 5 (56)Zone 5 (29) Zone 3 (6)Zone 4 (106)Zone 4 (38) Zone 2 (6)Zone 3 (5)Zone 3 (1) Zone 2 (1)

Hatcheries Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions TCHKBCHKCOHO Priest Rapids Hatchery (3)Priest Rapids Hatchery (34)Dworshak Hatchery (1) Ringold Hatchery (1)Ringold Hatchery (7) Spring Creek Hatchery (17)Spring Creek Hatchery (1) Bonneville Hatchery (30)Bonneville Hatchery (18)Bonneville Hatchery (29)

Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Slide 20Slide 22Slide 9 Fast travel times Substantial #’s downstream Limited downstream monitoring Don’t Use Survival Model

Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Detection historyAlive Alive or dead Fish moved upstream and arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam x Fish was harvested in a fishery x Fish returned to a hatchery x Fish entered a spawning tributary x Fish was observed moving > 4 d after release x Fish was recovered dead < 4 d of release x Fish was not observed moving > 4 d after release x Fish was never detected x

Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions TCHK Description Beach seinePurse seine Overall Elapsed time from release Overall Elapsed time from release < 4 d> 4 d< 4 d> 4 d Arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam49% (87)157245% (71)2447 Harvested in fishery7% (13)3105% (8)35 Returned to hatchery10% (17)3148% (13)112 Entered a tributary13% (22)12111% (17)116 Observed moving > 4 d after release14% (25)02519% (30)030 Total fish that survived capture93% (164) % (139)29110 Not moving > 4 d after release6% (11)11011% (18)180 Confirmed mortality Not detected1% (1)10000 Total fish that may not have survived7% (12)12011% (18)180

Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions BCHK Description Beach seinePurse seine Overall Elapsed time from release Overall Elapsed time from release < 4 d> 4 d< 4 d> 4 d Arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam60% (142) % (188)40148 Harvested in fishery3% (8)26 17 Returned to hatchery3% (8)082% (6)06 Entered a tributary3% (7)162% (6)06 Observed moving > 4 d after release17% (41)04112% (32032 Total fish that survived capture87% (206) % (240)41199 Not moving > 4 d after release11% (27)2709% (23)230 Confirmed mortality<1% (1)10000 Not detected2% (4)402% (5)50 Total fish that may not have survived13% (32)32010% (28)280

Probable Survival Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions COHO Description Beach seinePurse seine Overall Elapsed time from release Overall Elapsed time from release < 4 d> 4 d< 4 d> 4 d Arrived at, or passed Bonneville Dam62% (130)785258% (96)4947 Harvested in fishery2% (5)321% (2)20 Returned to hatchery9% (18)2167% (12)210 Entered a tributary8% (16)4125% (9)09 Observed moving > 4 d after release4% (8)088% (13)013 Total fish that survived capture84% (177)879080% (132)5379 Not moving > 4 d after release8% (17)17012% (19)190 Confirmed mortality Not detected8% (16)1608% (12)140 Total fish that may not have survived16% (33)33020% (33)330

Fisher Differences Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Description Beach seinePurse seine Fisher 1Fisher 2Fisher 3Fisher 4 Tule Chinook salmon Probable survivors85 (92%)79 (94%)59 (89%)80 (88%) Unknown fate7 (8%)5 (6%)7 (11%)11 (12%) Fisher’s exact test result =p = 0.769p = Bright Chinook salmon Probable survivors105 (88%)101 (85%)131 (87%)109 (92%) Unknown fate14 (12%)18 (15%)19 (13%)9 (8%) Fisher’s exact test result =p = 0.569p = Tule Chinook salmon Probable survivors135 (88%)42 (74%)91 (86%)41 (70%) Unknown fate18 (12%)15 (26%)15 (14%)18 (30%) Fisher’s exact test result =p = 0.018p = 0.015

Behavior of Questionable Fish Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions

Behavior of Questionable Fish Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions SpeciesBehavior groupBeach seinePurse seine Tule Chinook salmon1118 Upstream only (2)12 Upstream, then downstream (3)00 Downstream (4)10 Upstream, then downstream, passed Washougal (5)02 Downstream, then passed Washougal (6)914 Bright Chinook salmon2723 Upstream only (2)20 Upstream, then downstream (3)00 Downstream (4)02 Upstream, then downstream, passed Washougal (5)01 Downstream, then passed Washougal (6)2520 Coho salmon1719 Upstream only (2)34 Upstream, then downstream (3)00 Downstream (4)13 Upstream, then downstream, passed Washougal (5)01 Downstream, then passed Washougal (6)1311

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Many fish didn’t pass Bonneville Dam  55% TCHK  36% BCHK  37% COHO Overview of Study

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Many fish didn’t pass Bonneville Dam  55% TCHK  36% BCHK  37% COHO  TRT and CON differences Overview of Study

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Many fish didn’t pass Bonneville Dam  55% TCHK  36% BCHK  37% COHO  TRT and CON differences  Some PIT-tagged fish are missed at Bonneville  95.2% TCHK  97.1% BCHK  95.9% COHO Overview of Study

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Effects of Government shutdown  Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking  However, no apparent data gaps Coho Salmon Uncertainties

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Effects of Government shutdown  Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking  However, no apparent data gaps  Weaker transmitters  Lower detection %  More undetected fish Coho Salmon Uncertainties

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Effects of Government shutdown  Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking  However, no apparent data gaps  Weaker transmitters  Lower detection %  More undetected fish  Higher spit rate Coho Salmon Uncertainties

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Effects of Government shutdown  Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking  However, no apparent data gaps  Weaker transmitters  Lower detection %  More undetected fish  Higher spit rate  Fisher differences  Variable catch  Differences in probable survival Coho Salmon Uncertainties

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions  Effects of Government shutdown  Direct effects on tagging and mobile tracking  However, no apparent data gaps  Weaker transmitters  Lower detection %  More undetected fish  Higher spit rate  Fisher differences  Variable catch  Differences in probable survival  Biology Coho Salmon Uncertainties

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Survival  Probable survival underestimates true survival

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Survival  Probable survival underestimates true survival  Estimates are encouraging  89 – 93% TCHK  87 – 90% BCHK  80 – 84% COHO

Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions Survival  Probable survival underestimates true survival  Estimates are encouraging  89 – 93% TCHK  87 – 90% BCHK  80 – 84% COHO  2013 data useful for designing future survival studies  Fewer sites: Skamania Landing to Bridge of the Gods  More sites: Mainstem Columbia R. and tributaries downstream of Washougal  High detection probabilities = precise estimates, fewer fish

Questions Introduction Methods Results Summary Questions