Monitoring adult salmon populations before and during dam … · John McMillan . NOAA, Northwest...
37
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
Transcript of Monitoring adult salmon populations before and during dam … · John McMillan . NOAA, Northwest...
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
