Migrational characteristics, biological observations, and relative survival of juvenile salmonids

265 Pages·2016·48.92 MB·English

Migrational Characteristics, Biological
Observations, and Relative Survival of
Juvenile Salmonids Entering the Columbia
River Estuary

Final

Repott

1985
This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S.
Department of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate, and
enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of
hydroelectric facilities on t.he Columbia River and its tributaries. The views
in this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of

BPA.

For copies of this report, write:

Bonneville Power Administration
Division of Fish and Wildlife
Public Information Officer - PJ
P.O. Box 3621
Portland, OR 97208
MIGRATIONAL CHARACTERIS TICS, BIOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS,

AND RELATIVE SURVIVAL OF JUVENILE-SALMONIDS ENTERING THE

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY, 1966-1983

by
Earl M. Dawley
Richard D. Ledgerwood
Theodore H. Blahm
Carl W. Sims
Joseph T. Durkin
Richard A. Kirn
Andris E. Rankis
Gerald E. Monan
and
Frank J. Ossiander

Final Report of Research
Funded by
Bonneville Power Administration
U.S. Department of Energy
Division of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 3621
Portland, Oregon 97208
Contract DE-Al79-84BP39652

and

Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division
Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2725 Montlake Boulevard F.ast
Seattle, Washing ton 98112

April 1986
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. • • . . • . • • . • . •
. • • . • . . . . • . .
GENERAL STUDY AREA.
• • • . . . .
• . • • . . • . • • . . • . •
• • . • .
SECTION I--FALL CHINOOK SALMON, 1966-1972 .
• . . • .
Introduction . • . • • • • • • . • . • •
• • • . • . . • . • • •

1

4

7

7

Methods. • • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • • 7
• • • . .
Definition of Stocks. • . • . • • •
• . • • • . • 9
Releases of Marked Hatchery Fish.
• . . . • . •
• • . • . 10

Results and Discussion • • • . • . .

. • . . • . . . • • .

• • • • •

. • • • • . . . 10

Distribution.
. • • • . • • • • . . • 10
. •
Diel Movement Patterns. . • •
• • . • • • .
. . • 15
Migration Timing.
. • . . . . • • • . • . . • • • • . . • 15
Rates of Downstream Movement. . • • . • . • • . • • •
• . . • 21
Effect of Size at Release. • • .
• . . . . • . • . • • • . 21

Effect of Release Location • • • •

• •

. • • • • • • • • • 27

Effect of River Flow • • . • . • •
• • . • • • • . • • • • 27
• • . . • • . • • . . • . 27
Size and Estuarine Residency. • . •
Relative Survival of Hatchery Fall Chinook Salmon • • • • . . . 32
Conc lusions.
. • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • . • • . . 38

SECTION II--COHO SALMON, 1966-1971. •

Introduction

Methods. • •

Results and Discussion • • •

Annual and Monthly Catches. •

. • . • . • • . • • • • • • • . 41
. . . . • . • • . • . • • • . . . • • . • • . . . . 41
• . • • • • • • . • . • • . • . . • • • • • • . • . 42
. • . • • • • . . • . . • . • • . . . 42
. • • . • • . . • . . • . • . . 42

Timing of Annual Migration. •

. • • . • • . . . • • • . • . . . 42
Page

•
• 51
Rates of Movement. • • . . • . • • . ! • . . • • . . . •
Variation in Hourly Seine Catches. . . • • . . . • . . . • • • . 58
• 58
Fish Length in Relation to Seaward Migration • • . • . • • •
. 63
Conclusions . . • . • . . • • • • • • . . • • . • • . • • . •
SECTION III--SALMONIDS, 1977-1983. • . . • . . • • • • • • . • • • . . 64

• • • • • . • . • • • • . 64
•
• •
Introduction. • • • • • • •
Methods •
. • • . • . . • • • • . • • • • . • • . • • . • • . 64
Sampling • . • . • . . • . . • • • . • • • • . • • . • • • • . . 64
Analysis . • . .
. . . • • . . • . • • • . • • • . • • . 69
• • . • . .
. 69
Relative Survival. . . . . . • . . . •

Results and Discussion.

Migrational Timing •

. . . • . . . . • • . • • . • • . . . 70
. • . • • • . . . • . • . . . . • • . . 73

• 73
Spring and Summer Migration • . • • . • • . . • •
Fall and Winter Migration . • • . . . . . • • . •
• • • . • 73
Movement Rates . • . . • . • • • . • . . • • • • • . . • • • • . 79
Stocks Downstream from John Day Dam • • • • . • . . • . • • . 81
Stocks Upstream from John Day Dam . . . • • . . •
• • • . . 86

Variability of Catch

Diel Patterns •

River Flow. • • • • • •

Fish Size and Location of Sampling.

. . . • . . . • • • . . . • • • . • • 89
. • • . . • • . • . • • • . • • • • . . 89
• • • • . . • • • • • 93
• • • • • •
. • • . . • • • . • • . 96
. . • • . • • . • . • • . . .104

Replicate Groups of Marked Fish

Relative Survival in Relation to Controlled Treatments •

Fish Size • • •

Transportation Past Dams. • • • • •

. . • .106
. • . . . . . • • • • • • • . • . . • . • .106
. • • • • . • • . • • . • 111
Page

Serial Releases.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
Stocks . . .
• • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .120
Nutrition • •
. . . • • • • • • . . . . . • • • • • .120
Rearing Density • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
Catch Rate Models for Subyearling Chinook Salmon • • . . . . . • 125
Survival of Subyearling Chinook Salmon to the Estuary • • • . . .129

Decreased Catches Related to the Eruption of Mount St. Helens • • 129

Characteristics of Wild Stocks. • • • • •
. . . • • • • • • • .131
Timing, Size, and Catch Rates. • • • . . . . • • • • . . . . .131
Movement Rates • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Conclusions.
. . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . .131
• • •
. . . . . . .136
SECTION IV--ANCILLARY STUDIES . . . .

Food Consumption of Juvenile Salmonids Captured at Jones Beach • • • 136

• • . . . • • . . . . .136
• • • • • •
Introduction • • • . . .
Methods • • . . . • • • • • • • • • • . . . • • . . . . . . . . .138
• • . . . . . . . • • • • . . . . .138
Stomach Fullness • • •
. . .
. . . . . . .139
Diet Composition and Overlap • •
. . . . . .140
Proximate Analysis • • • • • • • • . . . . .
Stomach Content Weight • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 140

Non-Feeding Juveniles 1979-81 and Some Effects from the Eruption of
Mount St. Helens • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 141

Subyearling Chinook Salmon • • • • • • • •

Yearling Chinook Salmon • •

Coho Salmon.

Steelhead • •

. . . . . . . . . .141
. . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • .146
. . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . • • .149
Page

Diet of Subyearling Chinook Salmon and Effects of the 1980
Eruption of Mount St. Helens • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Insecta .

Crustacea • •

. . .

. . . .152

• 152

.152

Miscellaneous Prey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
Geographical Differences. . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • .159

Feeding Characteristics of Juveniles Entering the Estuary • • • • • 159

Stomach Fullness Comparisons. • • • • • •

. . . . . . . . . .159

Subyearling Chinook Salmon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 159

Yearling Chinook Salmon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 167

Coho Salmon.

Steelhead • •

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 171

Interspecific Comparisons. • • • •

Effects of Time and Tide . •

Diet Composition and Overlap.

• •

• • • • • • • • • • 175

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • .175

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

Proximate Analysis • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 179

Stomach Content Weight • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .179

Discussion.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179

Compensation Mechanism for Low Food Availability • • • • • • • 184

Food Consumption Compared With Juveniles in Other Locations .184

Subyearling Chinook Salmon

Yearling Chinook Salmon • •

Coho Salmon and Steelhead.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 186

Food Consumption at Hatcheries • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 186

Interspecific Interaction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 187

Conclusions • • •

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
Page

Visceral Fat Content of Subyearling Chinook Salmon
Captured at Jones Beach • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . • • • .190
• • • • • . . • • • • • • • . . . . • • • • .190
Introduction . .
• •
. . . . • • • • . . . . . . .190
Methods. . . . . . .
. . . • u • • • • • • • • • • • e • . . .190
Results. . . . . . .
Conclusions. . . . • • . . .
• • • . . . . • • • • • • . . .190
. . . . . . . .195
Catches of Non-Salmonids • • • • • . . . • • . . .
• • •
. . . . . • • . . • • • • . . .195
Introduction • •
• • . . • • . . . . . • • . . .195
Results. • • • • . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • .200
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . .
.201
. . . . . . • • . . • • • • •

APPENDIX A--Uses of Estuarine Catch Data and Biological Samples or
Observations collected for Related Research • • • • • • • • 215

. . . .

APPENDIX B--Miscellaneous Tables Relating to Migration of Juvenile
• • .224
• •
• • • • • •
Salmonids • • • • • • •
INTRODUCTION

Natural runs of salmonids in the Columbia River basin have decreased as
a result of hydroelectric-dam development, poor land- and forestmanagement, and over-fishing (Raymond 1979; Netboy 1980).
This has
necessitated increased salmon culture to assure adequate numbers of
returning adults. Hatcheries are now the primary source of salmon for the
Columbia River; in the late 1970s, they annually produced about 100 mil lion
fall chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha; 21 million spring and summer
chinook salmon; 3 0 mil lion coho salmon, O. kisutch; and 10 million
steelhead, Salmo gairdneri. Even with hatchery production at this level,
management agencies agree that, in general, salmonid harvests have
deteriorated.

Hatchery procedures and facilities are continually being modified to
improve both the efficiency of production and the quality of juveniles
produced. Initial efforts to evaluate changes in hatchery procedures were
dependent upon adult contributions to the fishery and returns to the
hatchery. Since salmonid survival depends on river, estuarine, and ocean
habitats, the variations in adult return data are difficult to evaluate and
unknown factors may overshadow the impacts of changes in hatchery culture
techniques--a better system of evaluation was needed.

From 19 6 6-1972, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies
Division, developed and refined procedures for sampling juvenile salmon and
steelhead entering the Columbia River estuary and ocean plume (Fig. 1).
The sampling of hatchery f�sh at the terminus of their freshwater migration
assisted ·in evaluati,ng hatchery production techniques and identifying
migrational or behavioral characteristics that influence survival to and
through the estuary.

Because of a lack of funds, no samp ling was done from 1973 through
1976. From 1977 through 1983, the Northwest Regional Council and the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) funded the estuarine sampling program
to provide assessment of salmonid outmigrations from wild stocks and from
mitigation hatcheries experimenting with enhanced cultural procedures. The
facilities or procedures implemented for safe juvenile salmonid passage at
dams and through reservoirs were also evaluated. Extensive fish marking
programs by state and federal fishery agencies provided the capability to
assess migrational behavior and relative survival of identifiable hatchery
and wild stocks. Fall chinook salmon (subyearlings), particularly,
provided a consistent and thorough index because of inten�ive marking
programs to assess contribution (Vreeland 1984).

The Columbia River estuary sampling program was unique in attempting
to estimate survival of different stocks and define various aspects of
migratory behavior in a large river, with flows during the spring freshet
Previous
from 4 to 17 thousand cubic DEters per second (m 3 /second).
knowledge of estuarine sampling for juvenile salmonids was limited to
several small river systems and the evaluation of movement behavior,
residence times, and feeding behavior, e.g., Chehalis River, Herrman 1971;
Siuslaw River, Nicholas et al. 1979; Sixes River, Reimers 1973 and Bottom
1981; Nanaimo River, Healey 1980; and Yaquina River, Myers 1980.

I
During our initial research (1966-1972), various fishing methods
(fyke, trawl, gill, and seine nets) were used at many locations throughout
the estuary.
Procedures and sites used from 1977-1980 and 1981-1983 were
adopted from earlier work with the extension of sampling sites into marine
waters adjacent to the mouth of the Columbia River.

The speci fic objectives of the overall study with juvenile salmonids
were as follows (objectives were expanded with time; Objectives 1-4 apply
to research from 1966 through 1972, and Objectives 1-10 apply to research
from 1977 through 1983):

1. Evaluate sampling equipment, develop procedures, and establish
suitable sampling sites which could provide the recovery of representative
samples of juvenile salmonid migrants from each fish stock passing through
the estuary.

2. Document recovery dates for all marked fish, define migration
timing for each species, and examine the di fferences between identifiable
races and stocks in relation to biological, cultural, and migrational
variables.

Document movement rates between release and sampling sites and
3.
evaluate effects from environmental and biological variables.

4. Examine diel movement patterns at Jones Beach.

5. Evaluate consistency of recovery percentages and determine the
effects of river flow.

6. Provide capture percentages of marked groups to estimate relative
survival of juvenile migrants in relation to:

a. Fish production at mitigation hatcheries.
b. Juvenile bypass systems at dams.
c. Transportation programs.
d. Fish size, release site, and date.
e. Survival to adulthood.
f. River flows and electrical power production.

7. Compare recovery data of marked wild fish to recovery data of
hatchery stocks.

8. Examine stomach contents of tagged salmonids to determine the
extent of inter- and intra-specific competition for food throughout the
1979-1983 migration period and relate stomach fullness to variables which
may have affected feeding habits. Compare observed feeding rates to those
of fish from other areas.

2