Monitoring adult salmon populations before and during dam removal on the

Elwha River using imaging SONAR.

Keith Denton, KPD Consulting, LLC

Martin Liermann, George Pess, Alex Stefankiv, John McMillan

NOAA, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Raymond Moses Mike McHenry Lower Elwha Tribe

Joe Anderson John McMillan

Jeff Duda, USGS Roger Peters, USFWS

Outline

• SONAR as a fish counting tool

• History of Elwha SONAR project

• Chinook

• Steelhead

Joe Anderson John McMillan

What is SONAR?

Top View

Side View

Comparisons among SONAR sites

Location/Species Size of River

Length of Run Size of Run Economic

Value

Yetna Sockeye

Fraser Sockeye

Yukon Chinook/Chum

Kenai Chinook

Coastal Cal. Steelhead

Secesh Chinook

Coweemen Chinook

Elwha Chinook/Steelhead

Large

Medium

Small

Comparisons among SONAR sites

Location/Species Size of River

Length of Run Size of Run Economic

Value

Yetna Sockeye

Fraser Sockeye

Yukon Chinook/Chum

Kenai Chinook

Coastal Cal. Steelhead

Secesh Chinook

Coweemen Chinook

Elwha Chinook/Steelhead

Large

Medium

Small

Comparisons among SONAR sites

Location/Species Size of River

Length of Run Size of Run Economic

Value

Yetna Sockeye

Fraser Sockeye

Yukon Chinook/Chum

Kenai Chinook

Coastal Cal. Steelhead

Secesh Chinook

Coweemen Chinook

Elwha Chinook/Steelhead

Large

Medium

Small

Comparisons among SONAR sites

Location/Species Size of River

Length of Run Size of Run Economic

Value

Yetna Sockeye

Fraser Sockeye

Yukon Chinook/Chum

Kenai Chinook

Coastal Cal. Steelhead

Secesh Chinook

Coweemen Chinook

Elwha Chinook/Steelhead

Large

Medium

Small

Methods - Why

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Turb

idit

y (n

tu's

)

Date

Turbidity (ntu's)

Methods - Why

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Turb

idit

y (n

tu's

)

Date

Turbidity (ntu's)

Methods - Why

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Turb

idit

y (n

tu's

)

Date

Turbidity (ntu's)

Methods – When?

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Flow

(cfs

)

Month

Elwha Monthly Average Flows for the Last 10 years

Methods – When?

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Flow

(cfs

)

Month

Elwha Monthly Average Flows for the Last 10 years

Methods – When?

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Flow

(cfs

)

Month

Elwha Monthly Average Flows for the Last 10 years

Elwha SONAR location

Deployment

Chinook Methods

Chinook Methods

-Started in 2009

Chinook Methods

-Started in 2009

-Record between 40 and 90 days of the run

Chinook Methods

-Started in 2009

-Record between 40 and 90 days of the run

-Count 20 minutes of each hour of data

Chinook Methods

-Started in 2009

-Record between 40 and 90 days of the run

-Count 20 minutes of each hour of data

-Total Passage = Up - Down

Chinook Methods

-Started in 2009

-Record between 40 and 90 days of the run

-Count 20 minutes of each hour of data

-Total Passage = Up - Down

-Account for various sources of uncertainty

Chinook Results-2013

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

Cum

ulat

ive

Run

Size

Daily

Chi

nook

Pas

sage

Date

Daily Passage

Gap Fill

Cumulative Run Size

Chinook Results-2013 Uncertainty Tabulation

-Observer Error: 5.5% CV

Chinook Results-2013 Uncertainty Tabulation

-Observer Error: 5.5% CV

-Gap Fill: 0.6% CV

Chinook Results-2013 Uncertainty Tabulation

-Observer Error: 5.5% CV

-Gap Fill: 0.6% CV

-Expanded 20 Minute Counts: 2.0% CV

Chinook Results-2013 Uncertainty Tabulation

-Observer Error: 5.5% CV

-Gap Fill: 0.6% CV

-Expanded 20 Minute Counts: 2.0% CV

-Unmonitored Channel: 4.7% CV

Chinook Results-2013 Uncertainty Tabulation

-Observer Error: 5.5% CV

-Gap Fill: 0.6% CV

-Expanded 20 Minute Counts: 2.0% CV

-Unmonitored Channel: 4.7% CV

-Species Composition: 2.9% CV

Chinook Results-2013 Uncertainty Tabulation

-Observer Error: 5.5% CV

-Gap Fill: 0.6% CV

-Expanded 20 Minute Counts: 2.0% CV

-Unmonitored Channel: 4.7% CV

-Species Composition: 2.9% CV

Total CV (additive variances) 8.1%

Chinook Results-2013 Uncertainty Tabulation

-Observer Error: 5.5% CV

-Gap Fill: 0.6% CV

-Expanded 20 Minute Counts: 2.0% CV

-Unmonitored Channel: 4.7% CV

-Species Composition: 2.9% CV

Total CV (additive variances) 8.1%

Species Comp

Date

Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

40

60

80

100

120

coho

coho

chum Winter steelhead

Chinook

Chinook jacks

pink

Leng

th

Date

Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

40

60

80

100

120

coho

coho

chum Winter steelhead

Chinook

Chinook jacks

pink

Leng

th

jacks

(cm

)

Chinook Results

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Estim

ate

Year

SONAR

Redd Based

Steelhead Methods

-Pilot status from 2010-2012, first full winter in 2013

-Operate January through June

-Several high flow and turbidity events

-CV much higher than Chinook season

Joe Anderson

Steelhead results: 2013 Joe Anderson

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Cu

mu

lative R

un

SizeD

aily

Pas

sage

Date

Measured Passage

Measured and Far Bank Estimated Passage

Estimated Passage Data Gaps

Cumulative Run Size

Conclusions -Imaging SONAR is a reliable escapement estimation tool on the Elwha River. -SONAR is one of few tested tools available during dam removal for basin wide escapement estimates. -Chinook escapement in 2012 and 2013 was above average. -Steelhead enumeration is more difficult but fills a crucial data gap.

Acknowledgements and Funding

Wilson Wells, Phillip Blackcrow, and Rebecca Paradis, Mel Elofson: Lower Elwha Tribe Hermann Enzenhofer and Andrew Gray: Canadian DFO

Funding: EPA, USFWS, NPS and NOAA

Species Comp John McMillan

Elwha SONAR location