effectiveness of alternative broodstock, rearing and release practices at winthrop nfh
DESCRIPTION
Effectiveness of alternative broodstock, rearing and release practices at Winthrop NFH. William Gale and Matt Cooper -USFWS, Mid-Columbia River Fishery Resource Office Chris Pasley -USFWS, Winthrop National Fish Hatchery. How it began - Grand Coulee Mitigation. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Effectiveness of alternative broodstock, rearing and release practices at Winthrop NFH
William Gale and Matt Cooper -USFWS, Mid-Columbia River Fishery Resource Office
Chris Pasley-USFWS, Winthrop National Fish Hatchery
How it began - Grand Coulee Mitigation
• Built as mitigation for Grand Coulee Dam - Simple times
• Located on the Methow River in Winthrop, WA.
• Currently rears spring Chinook, coho and steelhead.
Mitigation still critical to hatchery purpose and funding.
Winthrop NFH
Leavenworth NFH
Entiat NFHGrand Coulee Dam
Wells Dam
Wanapum Dam
Rocky Reach Dam
Rock Island Dam
Chief Joseph Dam
0 30 6015Kilometers
Then everything changed……
• NOAA listings of spring Chinook salmon (endangered), and steelhead (threatened), Service listing of bull trout (threatened)
• Hatchery Review:• USFWS HRT Process• HSRG Process
How do we meet the conflicting demands of mitigation, recovery and reform?
Steelhead in the Methow: Past Paradigm• Collection of adults at
Wells Dam, brood for two programs.
• Collection occurs in fall prior to spawning.
• Collection at Wells Dam results in use of out of basin adults
This paradigm sacrifices population structure!!
Winthrop NFH
Leavenworth NFH
Entiat NFHGrand Coulee Dam
Wells Dam
Wanapum Dam
Rocky Reach Dam
Rock Island Dam
Chief Joseph Dam
0 30 6015Kilometers
Hatchery Reform at WNFH• Transition to local
broodstock.• Collection in sync with
natural spawning• Precludes a yearling
program due to cold water and later emergence.
• Evaluation/Adoption of a two year smolt rearing program.
Transition to Local Brood• Began in BY 2008. Collection via
angling to collect wild fish and volunteers to the hatchery ladder.
• Goal is pNOB ≥ 0.5., 50k smolt program.
• Angling is a viable means of collecting adults.
• Limited to current program size.
• Other techniques need to be evaluated. Increased angler involvement?
Evaluation of 2yr smolt rearing• Rear and release 2 groups
of 50K annually (100K total).
• S1 releases progeny of Wells Dam collection.
• S2 releases progeny of local brood.
• 100% CWT, 15K PIT / group.
Evaluation of 2yr smolt rearing program• Following factors examined:
– Hatchery growth
– Post release survival and migratory behavior
– Residualism
– Age structure of adult returns
Hatchery Growth
May JulSe
pNov Jan
MarMay Jul
Sep
Nov JanMar
0
50
100
150
200
250
S2S1
Mea
n FL
(mm
)
2010 Release
May JulSe
pNov Jan
MarMay Jul
Sep
Nov JanMar
0
50
100
150
200
250
S2S1
Mea
n FL
(m
m)
2011 Release
May-08
Jul-08
Sep-08
Nov-08Jan-09
Mar-09
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Nov-09Jan-10
Mar-10
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Feeding Regime
S2S1
MEA
N P
ERCE
NT
BODY
WEI
GHT
/ DAY
Length Frequency at Release
85-89
105-109
125-129
145-149
165-169
185-189
205-209
225-229
245-249
265-269
285-289
305-3090%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
85-89
105-109
125-129
145-149
165-169
185-189
205-209
225-229
245-249
265-269
285-289
305-3090%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
1 YR
2 YR
20112010
194 ± 2 mm
214 ± 1 mm 159 ± 1 mm
187 ± 1 mm
Fork Length (mm)
21.7 cm FL S1 Program
85-89
105-109
125-129
145-149
165-169
185-189
205-209
225-229
245-249
265-269
285-289
305-3090%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%1 YR2 YR
Precocial?Parr?
22 cm FL S2 Program
Mark-Recapture: Methods• S1 and S2 PIT tagged smolts released
annually (≈15 K / group).
• M-R models using mainstem Columbia River arrays.
• Full models tested for GOF.
• Parameters estimated using model averaging (AIC methods).
In addition to the standard assumptions this approach assumes that apparent survival estimates for the first reach is a combination of residualism and true mortality.
Mark Recapture: Downstream Detections
Unique PIT Detections2010 Release Year Winthrop Rocky Reach
Dam McNary Dam John Day Dam
Bonneville Dam
S1 14,841 5,474 382 389 1,643
S2 14,756 5,156 466 370 2,174
2011 Release Year
S1 14,698 2,559 364 891 241
S2 14,881 4,135 708 1,187 460
Apparent Survival2010 Release
Reach
RRJ MCJ JDJ
Appa
rent
Sur
viva
l
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 S1 S2
2011 Release
ReachRRJ MCJ JDJ
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
*
*
Travel Time
0
10
20
30
40
50
Rocky Reach Dam
McNary Dam
BonnevilleDam
Trav
el T
ime
(Day
s)
0
10
20
30
40
50S1 S2
Rocky Reach Dam
McNary Dam
Bonnevile Dam
2010 2011
*
**
**
Residuals: Methods
• Collections occurred in the summer/fall following release.
• Sampling by e-fishing, angling, and seine.
• Sampling focused on the area around WNFH.
• Both side channel and mainstem habitat surveyed.
1- year Wells stock
2- year Methow stock
Occurrence of residuals by rearing group
2010 20110.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
0.16%
0.42%
0.02%
0.13%
S1
S2
• 2010 – n = 120, Spring Creek.
• 2011 - n = 230, Spring Creek and Methow River (6 km)
Residuals Sex Ratio
Male Female0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
64%
36%
100%
0%
S1
S2
Male Female0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
63%
37%
74%
27%
S1 = 196 samplesS2 = 34 samplesS1 = 113 samples
S2 = 7 samples
% M
ale
2010 2011
Conclusions• Results indicate that S2 performance is
comparable or better than S1.– S2’s have a higher survival after release and faster
travel time than S1’s.– Residual life history type differs and the frequency of
residuals is likely higher in the S1 group.• To reach a comparable size different growth
trajectories are needed, this impacts life history decisions.
Unanswered Questions• Can we use physiology to further categorize
life history types (i.e. parr vs. maturing)• Will the age structure of adult returns differ?
How will it compare to wild?• Can we use PIT arrays to describe/model
residual movement/behavior and assess ecological impacts.
How do we know when we are locally adapted?
Questions?
Acknowledgements• The Players:
– NOAA-Fisheries – Barry Berejikian, Chris Tatara, Don Larsen, Penny Swanson.
– UW – Mollie Middleton and Jon Dickey.
– FWS – M. Hall, R. Schmit, C. Hamstreet.
• Cooperators:– USGS and BOR – WDFW
• Funding: BPA, BOR, USFWS.
Mark-Recapture: Model Structure
WNFH Rocky Reach McNary John Day BonnevilleΦ1 Φ2 Φ3 Φ4
p1 p2 p3 p4
WNFH Rocky Reach McNary John Day BonnevilleΦ5 Φ6 Φ7 Φ8
p5 p6 p7 p8
S1
S2
Size at Release
S1 S2 Wild Age-1 Wild Age-2100
120
140
160
180
200
220
2010
2011
Fork
leng
th (m
m)
Wild smolt data from WDFW: Snow et al, 2011.