Puyallup Tribe of Indians Smolt Trap Report

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid
Production Assessment Project

2007
Andrew Berger
Robert Conrad
Justin Paul
Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department

Puyallup, WA 98371
December 2007
Acknowledgments
Evaluation of juvenile salmonid production requires a tremendous amount of

work. We would like to thank the following people for their time in the field
and support in writing this document: Russ Ladley, Eric Marks, Chris
Phinney, Terry Sebastian, Maria Parnel and Blake Smith. Editorial and
statistical support was also provided by Robert Conrad from the Northwest
Indian Fisheries Commission.
Other individuals and agencies contributed efforts to this project. We would

like to thank the City of Puyallup for the access to the trap site along the
levy and the Pacific Salmon Treaty for funding the project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures……….…………………………..…………………………………………….....iii
List of Tables……………………………………..……………………………………………….v
List of Appendices…………………………………………..……………………………….......vii
Introduction………………………………………………….………………………....………....1
Goals and Objectives…………………………………..………………………………….……....2
Methods…………………………………………………..……………………………………….3
Trapping Gear and Operations……………………………...………...………..……......3
Sampling Procedures…………..……..…………………..……………………..............3
Measuring Flow and Turbidity…………………………..………………………………..4
Capture Efficiency…………………………………………………...................................4
Catch Expansion………………………………………………..…………………………5
Production Estimates…………………………………………..……………………….....6
Results and Discussion………………………….………………..……………………………….8
Flow and Turbidity…………………………………..…………………………………....8
Temperature………………………………..………………………………………….…..9
CHINOOK…...………………………………………..…………………………………....10
Catch…………………………………..……………………………………………..…..10
Size…………………………………………………..…………………………………..10
Capture Efficiency.....................................................................................................…....11
Estimated Production…………………………..………………………………………...19
Migration Timing….………………………………………….……………………........21
Freshwater Survival...….…………………………………..…………………….……....22
COHO………………………………………………………..……………………………….23
Catch………………………………………………………..……………………………23
Size……………………………………………………………….………………….......24
Capture Efficiency…………………………………………..…………………………...25
Estimated Production………………………………..…………………………………...28
Migration Timing….………………………………………..………………………...…28
In-River Mortality....…………………………..…………………………………………29
CHUM………………………………………………….……………………………..............30
Catch………………………………………..……………………………………………30
Size…………………………………………..………………………………………......30
Capture Efficiency……………………………….………………………………………31
Estimated Production….…………………………………..……………………………..36
Migration Timing….………………………………….…………………………………37
STEELHEAD……………………………………………………………………………….38
Catch……………………………………………..………………………………………38
Size………………………………………………….……...…………………….….…..38
Capture Efficiency......……………………………………….…………..……………....39
Migration Timing………………………………..………………………………………39
i
Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Assessment Project 2007
ASSUMPTIONS……………………………….……………………………………………..41
Catch…………………………………………….……………………………………….41
Catch Expansion………………………………………………………………………....41
Trap Efficiency…………………………………………………………………..…….41
Chinook………………………………………………………………………………….41
Coho…………………………………………….………………………………………..42
Chum…………………………………………..………………………….……………..42
Turbidity and Flow……………………………………….………...….…….…..……....42
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………….…………………………...43
Turbidity and Flow………………….…………………………………………………...43
Catch and Migration Timing…………………………………………………………….43
Trap Efficiency and Production Estimates…………………….………………………...43
Freshwater Survival………………………………….…………………………………..45
Mortality……………………………………….………………………………………...46
Incidental Catch………………………………………….………………………………46
REFERENCES……………………………………….…………………………….…………47
Literature Citations……………………….……………………………………………...47
Personal Communications…………………………….…………………………………48
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Secchi depth and mean daily flow for Puyallup River, 2007……...……………...8
Figure 2. Scatterplot of mean daily flow and secchi depth for the Puyallup River,
2007……………………………………………………………………………......9
Figure 3. Mean daily water temperature recorded on the Puyallup River smolt trap,
2007……………………………………………………………………...………9
Figure 4. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 0+ Chinook captured in
the screw trap, 2007……………………………………………………………11
Figure 5. Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for Chinook smolt releases
Conducted in 2004-2007……………………………………………....…….....12
Figure 6. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases for 2007 ex-
periments (Δ) compared to 2004 – 2006 experiments…………………….……..13
Figure 7. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases 2004 –
2007………………………………………………………………………………14
Figure 8. Plot of flow versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases 2004 –
2007………………………………………………………………………………14
Figure 9. Plot of the power model of secchi depth versus capture efficiency (CE) for day-
time releases of Chinook…………………………………………………….…15
Figure 10. Plot of the power model of secchi depth versus capture efficiency (CE) for night-
time releases of Chinook........................................................................................16
Figure 11. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases grouped by
strata……………………………………………………………………………...17
Figure 12. Fork length of hatchery Chinook used in capture efficiency experiments,
2007………..………………………………………...…….…...………………...18
Figure 13. Capture efficiency and mean fork length of hatchery Chinook used for mark-
recapture tests, 2004 - 2007. Tests conducted in 2007 indicated by (Δ)
………………………………………………………………………………..…..19
Figure 14. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook smolts with mean daily
flow, 2007……………………………………………….........................….........21
iii
Figure 15. Percent estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook, 2007………....22
Figure 16. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 1+ coho captured in the
screw trap, 2007……………………………………………………………….…24
Figure 17. Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for coho smolt releases conducted
from 2004 - 2007………………………………………………………….……..26
Figure 18. Plot of estimated capture efficiency of coho salmon versus secchi depth for the
Puyallup River smolt trap data from 2004 - 2007…….………………………..26
Figure 19. Plot of estimated capture efficiency of coho salmon versus flow for the Puyallup
River smolt trap data from 2004 - 2007.................................................................27
Figure 20. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 1+ coho with mean daily flows,
2007……………………………………………………………………………....29
Figure 21. Percent migration of unmarked age 1+ coho, 2007………………………...........29
Figure 22. Mean weekly fork length and size range of chum captured in the screw trap,
2007........................................................................................................................31
Figure 23. Mean capture efficiency, and 95% confidence interval, for the original three pos-
sible strata defined for chum e x p e r i me n t s c o n d u c t e d f r o m 2 0 0 4 -
2007……………………………………………………………….……………...33
Figure 24. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for all chum experiments
conducted from 2004 - 2007. 2007 data indicated by arrows.
…………………………………………………………………………………....34
Figure 25. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for all chum experiments conducted
from 2004 - 2007. 2007 data indicated by arrows………………………..……..34
Figure 26. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for wild chum
experiments conducted from 2004 - 2007 on the Puyallup River screw
trap…………………………………………………………………………….....35
Figure 27. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for wild chum experiments
conducted from 2004 - 2007 on the Puyallup River screw trap………………....35
Figure 28. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for hatchery chum experi-
ments on the Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 - 2007……………..………...…..36
Figure 29. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for hatchery chum experiements on
the Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 - 2007………………………..………...…..36
iv
Figure 30. Correlation of adult chum counted on South Prairie Creek and the Carbon
River with estimated number of chum migrants, brood year 2003-
2006........................................................................................................................37
Figure 31. Daily estimated migration of chum fry with mean daily flows, 2007...................37
Figure 32. Percent estimated migration of chum fry, 2007…………………………….......38
Figure 33. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked steelhead captured
in the screw trap, 2007……………………………………………..……….…....39
Figure 34. Daily catch of steelhead migrants with mean daily flows,
2007........................................................................................................................40
Figure 35. Correlation between peak incubation flow on South Prairie Creek and
freshwater survival estimates on the Puyallup River, brood years 2003 -
2006………………………………………………………………………...….....46
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments, by the
four original glacial time-of-day stratum, for 2004-2007
Releases………………………………………………………………………......17
Table 2. Summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments by the
three glacial time-of-day stratum, for 2004-2007 releases……………………....18
Table 3. Chinook production estimate for the 2007 screw trap season using capture effi-
ciency data from 2004-2007……………………………………………..………19
Table 4. Total unmarked Chinook production for pre-glacial and glacial melt periods,
2 0 0 7 …………………………………………………………………………… . 2 0
Table 5. Total unmarked Chinook catch for pre-glacial and glacial melt periods,
2007……………………………………………………………………………....20
Table 6. In-river mortality of marked Chinook from the Puyallup River, 2007
…………………………………………………………………………………....22
Table 7. Freshwater survival of unmarked Chinook from the Puyallup River,

2007………………………………………………………………………….…...23
v
Table 8. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for day-time and
night-time experiments for coho salmon releases conducted in 2004-2007.
……………………………………………………………………………..….….26
Table 9. Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression of
secchi depth (X) and capture efficiency (Y)…............................................….......28
Table 10. Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression of
flow (X) and capture efficiency (Y)……………………………………………....28
Table 11. Summary statistics for the mean capture efficiency for all coho salmon
release experiments conducted in 2004-2007..............................................…......28
Table 12. In-river mortality of coho 1+ mark groups for the Puyallup River,
2007………………………………………………………………………..……..30
Table 13. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for hatchery
day-time, hatchery night-time, and wild night-time experiments for
chum salmon releases conducted in 2004-2007……………………………...…..32
Table 14. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for hatchery
and wild experiments for chum salmon releases conducted in 2004-
2007……………………………………………………………………………....33
Table 15. Length data of wild and hatchery steelhead captured in the Puyallup River
screw trap, 2007………………………………………………...…..………….39
Table 16. Capture Percentage of Marked Steelhead from Voights Creek Hatchery,
2004-2007…………………………..…………………………………….……...39
vi
APPENDICES
Figure A1. The Puyallup River Watershed.……………… ………………………………...A1
Figure A2. Diagram of a rotary screwtrap.…………………………………………….….A2
Figure A3. Orientation of the screw trap in the lower Puyallup River channel at R.M.
10.6………………………………………………………………………………A3
Table B1. Fork length data for unmarked age 0+ Chinook migrants, 2007………….…….B1
Table B2. Fork length data for unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2007……..…………..…B2
Table B3 Fork length data for unmarked age 0+ chum migrants, 2007……….…………..B3
Table B4. Fork length data for unmarked steelhead, 2007……………...…………….....…B4
Table C1. Hatchery Chinook mark and recapture data for the Puyallup River,
2004-2007………...………………………………………………………....…...C1
Table C2. Hatchery coho mark and recapture data for the Puyallup River,
2004-2007……………………………………………………….…………….....C2
Table C3. Hatchery and wild chum mark and recapture data for the Puyallup
River, 2004-2007………………………………………………………………...C3
vii
INTRODUCTION
The Puyallup River watershed encompasses 438 square miles and includes three major
tributaries: the Carbon River, Mowich River and South Prairie Creek. The Puyallup River flows
westward more than 54 miles from the southwest slope of Mount Rainier to Commencement
Bay, and had an average annual flow of 1,729 cfs in 2006 near the location of the trap (USGS,
2006). The Puyallup, Carbon and Mowich Rivers originate from glaciers located in Mt. Rainer
National Park and exhibit the classic features of glacial streams: frequently shifting braided
channels, high turbidity, and low temperatures. South Prairie Creek, which is a non-glacial
tributary of the Carbon River, is fed by groundwater and seasonal runoff and offers clear water
and moderate temperatures. The Puyallup-White River watershed is identified as Watershed
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10 by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
The watershed supports eight species of anadromous fishes including six species of Pacific
Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), coastal Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and Bull trout
(Salvelinus confluentus). Prior to the construction of the Electron Diversion Dam at river mile
(R.M.) 41.5 in 1904 natural production occurred throughout the entire Puyallup River Basin.
However, the dam eliminated access to 21.5 miles of spawning habitat. In the fall of 2000, the
Puyallup Tribe reopened this habitat for fish use by installing a fish ladder at the Electron Dam.
The State of Washington began hatchery production within the watershed in 1914 at Voights
Creek State Salmon Hatchery. The confluence of Voights Creek enters the Carbon River at R.M.
21.9 (Appendix A1). Currently, Voights Creek Hatchery rears fall coho, winter steelhead and
fall Chinook. In 1998, the Puyallup Tribe began planting hatchery-reared fall Chinook and coho
into three acclimation ponds in the upper Puyallup watershed. Cowskull pond drains directly into
the Puyallup River at R.M. 45.5. The Rushingwater and Mowich ponds drain into the Mowich
River, which enters the Puyallup at R.M. 42.3. In addition, surplus Chinook and coho from
Voights Creek Hatchery are released above Electron Dam and allowed to spawn naturally in an
attempt to repopulate available habitat.
Puyallup River fall Chinook were classified as a distinct stock by the 1992 State Salmon and
Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) on the basis of geographic distribution. In 1999, the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed Puget Sound Chinook as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Also in 1999, the Puyallup Tribe (PTF) and the Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) created a joint fall Chinook recovery plan with a
goal of maintaining natural fall Chinook production while evaluating the production potential of
the Puyallup River system and current stock status (WDFW and PTF, 2000). Estimating smolt
production is a necessary step towards evaluating stock productivity and the production potential
of the Puyallup River system.
In 2000, the Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department started the Puyallup River Smolt Production
Assessment Project to estimate: (1) juvenile production of native salmonids, with an emphasis on
natural fall Chinook salmon production, and (2) survival of hatchery and acclimation pond
Chinook. Beginning in 2000, an E. G. Solutions 5-ft diameter rotary screw trap has been
operated annually located on the lower Puyallup at R.M. 10.6, just upstream of the confluence
with the White River, and has been used to monitor the out-migration of juvenile salmonids.
1
Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid Production Assessment Project 2007
As more data become available, juvenile production estimates may provide baseline information
allowing managers to re-evaluate escapement objectives in the watershed, create a production
potential-based management strategy, and accurately forecast future returns of hatchery and
naturally produced adults. In addition, a basin spawner/recruit analysis will help: (1) indicate
stock productivity, (2) determine the overall health of the watershed, and (3) evaluate the
contribution of enhancement projects.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of this project is to estimate the production of juvenile salmonids, characterize juvenile
migration timing, describe the length distribution for all wild salmonid out-migrants, and fulfill
the objectives of the Puyallup River Fall Chinook Recovery Plan.
To achieve these goals, this study will produce population estimates of out-migrating smolts,
estimate species specific migration timing, compare natural versus hatchery production and run
timing, analyze mean fork length of wild smolts, and detail species composition of the sampled
population. The objectives of this project are to:
1. Estimate juvenile production for all salmonids in the Puyallup River and estimate
freshwater survival for unmarked juvenile Chinook.
2. Estimate in-river mortality of hatchery and acclimation pond Chinook.
3. Investigate physical factors such as light (day vs. night), river flow, and river
turbidity and their importance to trap capture efficiency.
In this report, all stated objectives will be met for Chinook and coho salmon for the 2007 smolt
out-migration season. Non-target species such as chum and steelhead will be addressed to a
lesser extent.
2
METHODS
Trapping Gear and Operations
The rotary screw-trap used in this study consists of a rotary cone suspended within a steel
structure on top of twin, 30-foot pontoons. The opening of the rotary cone is 5 feet in diameter,
and has a sampling depth of 2.5 feet. The cone and live box assembly are attached to a steel
frame that may be raised or lowered by hand winches located at the front and rear of the
assembly (Appendix A2).
Two five-ton, bow-mounted anchor winches with 3/8’’ steel cables are used to secure and adjust
the direction of the trap and keep it in the thalweg (Appendix A3). The cables are secured to trees
on opposite banks. Additional rear cables were secured to trees located on the banks to further
stabilize the trap. Four 55-gallon containers filled with water are secured on the deck at the rear
of the trap to compensate for the generation of force at the front of the trap during operation.
The 5-ft diameter rotary screw trap was installed in the lower Puyallup River (R.M. 10.6) just
above the confluence with the White River. This year the trap was positioned approximately 300
meters downstream of its previous location, where it had been positioned the previous six years.
A high flow event in late 2006 changed the channel morphology preventing us from installing the
trap in its normal position.
Trap operation began on February 24th and continued, when possible, 24 hours a day, seven days
a week until August 27th. The trap was not fished during some high flow events and hatchery
fish release schedules in order to avoid damage to the screw and stress to fish. These dates are
described in the catch expansion section of the report. The trap was checked for fish twice each
day: at dawn and at dusk periods. Civil twilight, and sunrise and sunset hours, were used to
separate catch into day and night periods. During hatchery releases and high flow events
personnel remained onsite throughout the night to clear the trap of debris and to prevent the fish
in the live box from overcrowding.
Revolutions per minute (rpm), water temperature, secchi depth (cm), weather conditions, and
stream flow (cfs) were recorded during each trap check.
Sampling Procedures
Smolts were anesthetized with MS-222 (tricaine methanesulfonate) for handling purposes and
subsequently placed in a recovery bin of river water before release back to the river. Juveniles
were identified as natural or hatchery-origin. All hatchery fish in the Puyallup system are
marked with an adipose fin clip or adipose fin clip plus a coded wire tag. Therefore, unmarked
fish are identified as natural and marked fish are identified as hatchery origin.
Hatchery-origin fish were identified in three ways: (1) by visual inspection for adipose fin (Ad)
clips, (2) with a Northwest Marine Technology “wand” detector used for coded wire tag (CWT)
detection, and (3) with a Destron Fearing Portable Transceiver system for Passive Integrated
Transponder (PIT) tagged fish.
3
Fork length (mm) was measured and recorded for unmarked fish. When possible, 50 chum, 50
age 1+ coho, 25 age 0+ coho, 25 age 0+ Chinook, and 25 steelhead were measured each day.
Scale and DNA samples were taken from most wild steelhead smolts.
Species were separated by size/age class. Coho were identified as fry, age 0+ (<70mm) or
smolts, age 1+ (>70mm). In some instances coho were recorded as either 0+ or 1+ depending on
morphological characteristics and time of season rather than a rigid measuring scale. Chinook
smolts were recorded as age 0+ (<150mm) or age 1+ (>150mm). All chum and pinks were
identified as age 0+. Trout fry age 0+ (<60mm) were not differentiated to species.
Measuring Flow, Turbidity and Temperature
Stream flow measurements were obtained from the United States Geological Surveys (USGS)
Alderton gauge, number 12096500 (USGS, 2007), located approximately 1.5 miles above the
screw trap. Mean daily flow was recorded throughout the sample season and stream flow was
noted during each capture efficiency experiment.
Turbidity was measured by a taking secchi depth (cm) measurement off the front of the trap
during each trap check. Each secchi measurement was applied to its respective day or night catch
period. In order to expand secchi readings during unfished intervals, averages were taken and
applied where appropriate, i.e., if fish were migrating and secchi depth was used as a measure of
capture efficiency.
Surface water temperature was measured using an Onset Hobo U22 water temperature data
logger. The logger was placed in a live-box located on the smolt trap. Temperature was
recorded every hour, twenty-four hours a day for the entire migration season. Daily temperature
is the average of the hourly readings for the twenty-four hour period.
Capture Efficiency
For the 2007 trapping season marked Chinook and coho were released at the same site 0.4 miles
above the smolt trap. Marked chum were released at two locations, the first at the same location
for Chinook and coho and the other just downstream but closer to the trap. The time of release
varied for each species and is described below.
Chinook – Chinook reared at Clarks Creek Tribal Hatchery were used for the first four capture
efficiency experiments and Chinook captured in the trap were used for the last three capture
efficiency experiments. The first three release groups were not given an additional clip for
identification because of the absence of ad-clipped fish in the river. Fish that were given an
additional clip were anesthetized with MS-222 and clipped with either an upper or lower caudal
clip. Fish were then transferred to one large aerated container and immediately moved upstream
and released 0.4 miles from the screw trap. The marked fish were released at either day or night
times in order to examine differences in capture efficiency as a result of daylight. Day and night
release groups were classified as either day or night by the majority of the first 10 hours after
release being in light or dark. Sunrise and sunset times, as well as civil twilight, were used to
4
determine the amount of light for each hour. No control groups were held for releases but all fish
were vigorous at release.
Coho – Coho releases were conducted using hatchery fish reared at Voights Creek State
Hatchery. Fish were anesthetized with MS-222 and clipped with either an upper or lower caudal
clip. The fish were then transferred to an aerated container and immediately moved and released
0.4 miles upstream from the smolt trap. All experiments with marked coho occurred at night.
No control groups were held for releases but all fish were vigorous at release.
Chum –Wild chum captured in the screw trap and hatchery chum obtained from Diru Creek
Tribal Hatchery were used to conduct capture efficiency experiments. All fish were marked with
Bismarck Brown Y Biological Stain solution. Fish were placed in an aerated stain solution of 0.4
grams Bismark Brown per 5 gallons of water and held in the solution for 40-45 minutes. After
marking, hatchery fish were placed back into juvenile raceways until release. Wild chum were
marked and held in the newly constructed live-box on the screw trap until release. Marked fish
were released at day and evening times in order to examine the effect of daylight on capture
efficiency. Evening release groups were released at dusk and day groups were released with
several hours of daylight until dusk. All fish were captured, marked, and released within 24
hours to reduce stress.
Catch Expansion
Due to high flows, hatchery releases, and screw stoppers, the trap was not fished continuously
throughout the out-migration season. There were a total of 25 days out 184 days when the trap
was not fishing. Nine of these days the trap was pulled due to extremely high flows in March.
There were other day or night periods when the trap was not fishing either due to debris, lack of
personnel or a new phenomenon this year - algae, which clogged the perforated screen on the
screw and prevented the trap from spinning. On these days, the average catch per day/night
period was used to estimate the number of missed fish. The average was calculated by taking the
respective catch from the day or night period before and after the un-fished interval, adding them
together and then dividing by the total number of periods. Because this method incorporates the
catch around the un-fished interval it was used for all un-fished periods throughout the migration
season (see assumptions). These dates were: March 11th – 13th, 18th, Night of 19th, March 20th,
March 24th – 27th, Night 28th, Night May 24th and 25th, May 26th – 28th, Night of June 1st, Day
June 2nd, June 3rd, Day June 4th, June 9th, Day June 10th, Night June 15th, June 16th – 18th, June
23rd and 24th, June 30th, Day July 1st, July 3rd – 8th. This year all species were treated the same
with the methods described above and not all days had fish expansion because fish were or were
not present on the listed days.
In addition to the dates above, expansion was used during the Voights Creek hatchery Chinook
release on June 5th. The trap operated for only 10 minutes at night and the catch was expanded
for four hours to assume the missing catch. Sub-samples were taken during the fished interval to
obtain the mark-type ratio. On the following day, June 6th the number of fish was expanded for
three missing hours that were not fished.
5
When the trap was fished for a 24-hour period without being checked, catch was split using the
percent day: night catch ratio for paired day and night catches. Further, day: night catch ratios
were estimated separately for the two time period strata (pre-glacial and glacial).
Production Estimates
Because of differences in the relationship between environmental variables (flow, turbidity, etc.)
and capture efficiency for the species, production estimates for each species were calculated
using different methods. Although the methods used to estimate production were different for
the species, capture efficiency for each capture efficiency trial was calculated similarly for each
species. Capture efficiency (e) of the trap for a species and the total catch by the trap (either for
the season or a defined period of time) was used as follows:
ê = r / m
and
N̂ = C / ê
where ê = estimated capture efficiency, r = number of marked fish recaptured, m = number of
marked fish released, N̂ = total estimated number of unmarked migrants passing the trap, and C
= total number of unmarked fish caught in the screw trap.
Since our trap was checked twice in a 24-hour period (once in the morning and once in the
evening) each morning check roughly reflects the number of fish caught during the previous
night and each evening check reflects the number of fish caught during the day. When
calculating the total number of migrants passing the trap (N), the number of unmarked fish
caught in the smolt trap (C) is the number of fish caught during each date’s respective day or
night period and is not the total number of fish counted on the date the trap was checked. In this
report, one day will reflect the total number of fish caught in a combined day and night period.
For some species, the number of unmarked fish caught in the trap (C) is the sum over some
specified amount of time, e.g., a week, season, or glacial turbidity period.
SPSS statistical software was used to analyze data and provide predictive modeling for capture
efficiency experiments for most species (SPSS, 2003).
Chinook – The capture efficiency experiment data from 2004 - 2006 indicated that there was a
significant relationship between capture efficiency and secchi depth measured during the
recovery period and between capture efficiency and river flow at the time of release. For the
2007 data, we wanted to further examine the differences between day and night capture
efficiency and pre-glacial and glacial period capture efficiency, similar to what was done in
previous years. Capture efficiency tests were completed in three of the four separate groupings
in 2007. Further, we wanted to examine whether it was appropriate to combine the data from the
past four years.
A total of 37 capture efficiency experiments for Chinook salmon were conducted from 2004-
2007. There were no recaptures from one experiment in 2004 (06/12/2004). The data from this
experiment was not used in the 2007 analysis.
6
Capture efficiency trials were classified as either daytime or nighttime trials depending upon
whether the majority of the first 10 hours after release of the marked smolts was in light or dark.
In previous years we defined a period of pre-glacial and glacial turbidity, where after a certain
date secchi depth measurements were low (<60 cm) and remained low. In this way, capture
efficiency experiments were conducted in either a pre-glacial period or a glacial period. In
contrast to previous years, we stratified all tests on a 50 cm threshold. If tests were conducted
with secchi depth readings of 50 cm or less they belonged to the glacial strata, if 51 cm or above
they belonged to the pre-glacial strata. This results in similar stratification that was used in
previous years.
Coho – Coho capture efficiency for 2007 was tested using all capture efficiency experiments
performed during the last four years (2004-2007). Ordinary least squares linear regression was
used to examine the relationship between capture efficiency and two independent variables: flow
and secchi depth.
Chum – To estimate capture efficiency of the trap for the 2007 season we examined the
relationship between both wild and hatchery chum capture efficiency experiments and
environmental variables, flow and secchi depth. Capture efficiency trials from 2004-2007 for
both hatchery and wild releases were used in analysis.
7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Flow and Turbidity
During the 2007 trapping season, there were two large peaks in mean daily flow. On March 12th
mean daily flow reached 8,374 cfs and on March 25th flow reached 10,798 cfs (Figure 1). These
two peaks in flow were larger and earlier than any other flow during the trapping season in the
past three years. With such an early, large flow event we experienced a smaller than normal flow
event in late May or early June that is usually present. The average daily flow for the trapping
season, February 24th to August 27th, was 1,880 cfs.
For the entire trapping season, flow did not significantly explain the variation of turbidity as
measured by secchi depth (Figure 2). Flow may not explain turbidity due to the presence of
overlapping flow types (e.g. snow melt, overland flow and glacial runoff). If different flow types
contribute varying concentrations of suspended sediments then the lack of correlation seems
reasonable.
12000 300
Flo w
Secchi
10000 250
Secchi Depth (cm)

8000 200
Flow (cfs)
6000 150
4000 100
2000 50
0 0
2/24 3/24 4/24 5/24 6/24 7/24 8/24
Date
Figure 1. Secchi depth and mean daily flow for the Puyallup River, 2007.
Although no relationship exists between mean daily flow and secchi depth, timing of large
fluctuations in turbidity and flow reflect one another (Figure 1). Since flow does not explain
secchi depth, but large-scale changes in turbidity and flow coincide, then other environmental
variables must contribute to daily fluctuations in turbidity (e.g. glacial melt).
8
300
250
Secchi Depth (cm)
200
150
100
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Flow (cfs)
Figure 2. Scatterplot of mean daily flow and secchi depth for the Puyallup River, 2007.
Temperature
Mean daily water temperatures are shown for the dates February 27th to August 27th. The graph
does not reflect temperatures for March 11th-14th and 18th-20th. On these dates high flows
precluded us from sampling.
On three dates, July 4th, 5th and 11th daily average surface water temperature exceeded 16o (F).
Further, for a consecutive fourteen-day period (July 4th -17th) 7-DADMax temperature exceeded
16o (F) the limit for Washington Department of Ecology Surface Water Quality Standards for
Core Summer Salmonid Habitat (WDOE, 2006). Mean hourly temperature reached a maximum
of 18.03o(F) on July 11th.
20
16
Temperature (C)
12
0
2/27 3/14 3/29 4/13 4/28 5/13 5/28 6/12 6/27 7/12 7/27 8/11 8/26
Date
Figure 3. Mean daily water temperature recorded on the Puyallup River smolt trap, 2007.
9
CHINOOK
Catch
Unmarked Chinook
A total of 243 unmarked Chinook migrants were captured in the screw trap between February
24th and August 8th. This was the lowest number of unmarked Chinook caught during the seven
years since the smolt sampling program began on the Puyallup River in 2000. An unmarked
Chinook was captured on the first day of trap operation on February 24th, which leads to the
possibility of some missed catch prior to the trap’s installation. More importantly, a significant
flow event occurred during the incubation period of wild Chinook in early November of 2006.
Flows in excess of 5,500 cfs occurred on South Prairie Creek, the major Chinook spawning
ground for the Puyallup River (USGS, 2007). It is likely that redd scouring occurred which
would reduce the number of migrants produced in 2007.
In general, catch was sporadic from the beginning of trapping to the first small peak in catch on
March 14th (five fish). Prior to March 14th, the trap was pulled on March 11th – 13th due to high
flows and debris. Expansion was used to estimate for the missed catch. The peak for the season
occurred on June 5th with 31 unmarked Chinook. During this time, hourly trap expansion was
used to estimate the number of unmarked Chinook outmigrating due to the large volumes of
hatchery Chinook released from Voight’s Creek Hatchery.
As discussed previously, catch on the days when the trap was not fishing might not reflect the
actual catch had the trap been operating.
Marked Chinook
We captured a total of 28,167 hatchery Chinook migrants between May 31st and August 27th.
The hatchery catches were broken down into 22,247 Ad-clipped Chinook and 5,920 Ad/CWT
Chinook. Of the 28,167 Chinook, 86% (24,240) were captured on a single night on June 5th
during the peak outmigration from Voight’s Creek Hatchery. Expansion was used to estimate the
number of outmigrants during this peak event. During the night of June 5th, ten minutes of
trapping captured 1,010 fish. Table 7 shows the numbers of Chinook released for each mark
group.
Size
Throughout the trapping season, the mean length of unmarked age 0+ Chinook sampled in the
screw trap generally increased and began to vary during stat week 17 (late May) (Figure 4).
Weekly mean fork length increased from 49mm to 73mm between the last of week of April and
the first week of May, and from 71mm to 90mm between the last week in May and the first week
in June.
The largest range in length occurred during stat week 23 (beginning of June), the same week as
hatchery Chinook were released from Voight’s Creek Hatchery (Appendix B1). The minimum
10
length of the weekly size range remained small (<50mm) and did not exceed 50mm until stat
week 17 (end of April).
120
Mean Fork Length (mm) 100
80
60
40
20
0
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Statistical Week
Figure 4. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked age 0+ Chinook captured in the
screw trap, 2007.
Capture Efficiency
During the 2007 season, seven capture efficiency experiments using hatchery Chinook salmon
were conducted at the new screw trap location. There were two day-time releases and five night-
time releases. From 265 to 522 fish were used in each release (Appendix C1). A total of 3,184
hatchery Chinook were released during the seven experiments.
Because of the change in the location of the screw trap, the 2007 capture efficiency data were
compared to the previous years’ data to see if the relationships observed and conclusions
concerning stratification of the data from previous years (2004 - 2006) had changed.
All Chinook capture efficiency experiments conducted from 2004-2007 were included in the
analyses. We examined capture efficiency as it related to several different parameters. These
included:
• the relationship between capture efficiency and river flow measured in cubic feet
per second (cfs),
• the relationship between capture efficiency and secchi depth (cm) measurements
made at the trap at the start of each experiment,
• the difference in capture efficiency between day-time and night-time releases, and
• the difference in capture efficiency between releases made during the pre-glacial
(clear water) period and glacial (turbid water) periods.
A total of 37 separate releases of Chinook were made during the four years (Appendix C1).
Capture efficiency estimates ranged from 0.098% to 6.4%.
11
Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates in 2007 to Previous Years’ Estimates
The range of capture efficiency estimates from the experiments conducted in 2007 did not have
as broad a range as previous years’ estimates (Figure 5): capture efficiency estimates in 2007
ranged from 0.75% to 3.1%. The results of the 2007 capture efficiency experiments appear to
be similar to previous years’ experiments. Previous year’s analyses have demonstrated that
there is a significant (P for the slope parameter < 0.05) relationship between secchi depth and
capture efficiency. Although statistically significant, this relationship has explained 65% or less
of the variability in the capture efficiency estimates. Figure 6 shows the relationship between
capture efficiency and secchi depth for the 2007 experiments relative to the previous years.
7.0%
6.0%
Capture Efficiency Percentage
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Figure 5. Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for Chinook smolt releases conducted in 2004 –
2007.
With a limited number of experiments (7 in 2007), it is not possible to conduct rigorous and
meaningful statistical tests to determine if the capture efficiencies at the new trap location are
comparable to previous years. Based on a visual comparison using Figures 5 and 6, there is no
clear evidence for a difference between the 2007 capture efficiency results compared to previous
years. Additional capture efficiency estimates at the new trap location are needed to continue
these analyses. For the 2007 analyses, the capture efficiency data from 2007 are treated as being
similar to the previous years and combined with that data for analysis.
12
7.0%
6.0%

5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Secchi Depth (cm)
Figure 6. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases for 2007
experiments (∆) compared to 2004 – 2006 experiments (●).
Figures 7 and 8 show the relationship for capture efficiency with secchi depth and flow,
respectively (day-time and night-time experiments are indicated in each graph). For the entire
data set (37 observations), there was a significant correlation between secchi depth and capture
efficiency (r = -0.342, P = 0.038). Similarly, there was a marginally significant correlation
between flow and capture efficiency (r = -0.320, P = 0.053). An analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) was conducted to examine the relationship between secchi depth and the natural
logarithm of capture efficiency 1 and test whether there were differences in this relationship
between day-time and night-time releases. The ANCOVA indicated that there was a significant
relationship between secchi depth and capture efficiency and that this relationship was different
between day-time and night-time releases.
1
The natural logarithm of capture efficiency was used to linearize the relationship and equalize group variances.
13
7.0%
Day Night
6.0%

5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Secchi Depth (cm)
Figure 7. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases, 2004-2007.
7.0%
Day Night
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Flow(cfs)
Figure 8. Plot of flow versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases, 2004-2007.
Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth
Because of the stronger relationship between secchi depth and capture efficiency we focused on
this relationship. The relationship between secchi depth and capture efficiency was analyzed
separately for day-time and night-time releases based on the results of the ANCOVA. Four
different secchi depth versus capture efficiency models were examined: linear, exponential,
logarithmic, and power. Models were evaluated using the adjusted R2 for the complete model
and a jackknife procedure, which provided three model evaluation statistics: mean percent
error, mean squared error, and mean absolute percent error. Based on these analyses, a “best”
secchi depth versus capture efficiency model was selected for each set of data.
14
The power model was selected as the model that “best” fit the day-time release experiments for
Chinook (Figure 9). The model constant was not significant (P = 0.613) so a model without a
constant was selected as the final model. The parameters for the linearized 2 version of this
model were:
Parameter Coefficient St. Error Rel. SE 3 Significance 95% Confidence Interval
Slope -1.124104 0.039258 3.5% <0.001 -1.208 - -1.040
The power model was also selected as the model that “best” fit the night-time release
experiments for Chinook (Figure 10). The parameters for the linearized version of this model,
with a constant, were:
Parameter Coefficient St. Error Rel. SE Significance 95% Confidence Interval
Slope -0.435854 0.198356 45.5% 0.041 - 0.851 - - 0.021
Intercept -1.948990 0.855259 43.9% 0.034 - 3.379 - - 0.159
3.5%
Pre-glacial Glacial
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Secchi Depth (cm)
Figure 9. Plot of the power model of secchi depth versus capture efficiency (CE) for day-time
releases of Chinook.
2
The linearized power model is: Capture Efficiency = Secchi Depth (slope)
3
Relative Standard Error = Standard Error of Slope / Estimated Slope
15
7.0%
Pre-glacial Glacial
6.0%

5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Secchi Depth (cm)
Figure 10. Plot of the power model of secchi depth versus capture efficiency (CE) for night-
time releases of Chinook.
The mean night-time capture efficiency was more than twice the mean day-time capture
efficiency (see below). There is a significant difference between the two means (t-test equal
variances assumed, P = 0.003).
Release Mean N St. Error Median 95% Confidence Interval
Day Time 1.29% 16 0.2623% 0.820% 0.734% - 1.852%
Night Time 2.85% 21 0.3798% 2.572% 2.057% - 3.641%
Both of the secchi depth versus capture efficiency relationships (day-time and night-time) are
heavily influenced by a small cluster of points during glacial water periods (secchi depths ≤ 50
cm) that have relatively high capture efficiencies (> 2.0%). If the cluster of glacially-influenced
points with secchi depths ≤ 50 cm are removed from Figures 9 and 10, there does not appear to
be a relationship between secchi depth and capture efficiency for the remaining points. Because
of this uncertainty an alternative method of estimating trap capture efficiency on a daily basis
was examined similarly to what was done in 2005 and 2006.
Similarly to 2006, strata were defined based on the turbidity of the water. In previous years this
stratum was defined by a date after which all releases were classified as occurring during a
period of glacially-influenced water. In 2007, the secchi depth measurements for the last two
experiments were nearly twice that of the previous experiment on June 6th (see Appendix C1).
Therefore, we defined the strata by the secchi depth measurement (≤ 50 cm and > 50 cm). This
results in a similar stratification to that used in previous years, i.e., a stratum when water clarity
was generally clear and secchi depths for tests ranged from 65 cm to 206 cm, and a stratum
when water conditions were generally turbid and secchi depth measurements ranged from 13 to
43 cm. We also retained the day versus night stratification since the previous analyses indicated
that there were differences in capture efficiency between day-time and night-time experiments.
16
The data for these strata are shown in the figure below. There is generally little mixing of the
data between the stratum as plotted.
7.0%
Pre-Glacial Day time
Glacial Day Time
Capture Efficiency Percentage 6.0%
Pre-Glacial Night time
Glacial Night Time
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Secchi Depth (cm)
Figure 11. Plot of secchi depth versus capture efficiency for Chinook releases grouped by strata.
Capture Efficiency Estimates for Chinook
Table 1 summarizes the mean capture efficiency for each stratum and shows the mean and 95%
confidence interval for the mean capture efficiency for each stratum. Analysis of variance
indicated that there was a significant difference among the group means for these strata (P <
0.001). The S-N-K multiple comparison procedure indicated that the non-glacial night-time
experiments and the glacial day-time experiments were not significantly different from one
another (P > 0.05) but that the other two groups (non-glacial day-time and glacial night-time)
were significantly different from both these groups and each other. Therefore, we combined the
non-glacial night-time and glacial day-time experiments into a single stratum. Summary
statistics for this new stratification are presented in Table 2. We used these estimates of capture
efficiency in our production expansion analysis.
Table 1. Summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments, by the four
original glacial, time-of-day stratum, for 2004-2007 releases.
Pre-glacial Day 0.627% 9 0.0953% 0.789% 0.407% - 0.847%
Pre-glacial Night 1.901% 14 0.2705% 1.993% 1.316% - 2.486%
Glacial Day 2.149% 7 0.4004% 2.492% 1.170% - 3.129%
Glacial Night 4.745% 7 0.4756% 4.878% 3.582% - 5.909%
17
Table 2. Summary statistics for capture efficiency of Chinook release experiments, by the three
glacial, time-of-day stratum, for 2004-2007 releases.
Pre-glacial Day 0.627% 9 0.0953% 0.789% 0.407% - 0.847%

Pre-glacial Night
1.984% 21 0.2201% 1.998% 1.525% - 2.443%
and Glacial Day
Glacial Night 4.745% 7 0.4756% 4.878% 3.582% - 5.909%
Hatchery Chinook Length
Fork length data was collected for all mark-recapture tests conducted in 2007, except for three
tests (one each in a paired day/night group and the last test on June 11th). Average fork length of
the hatchery Chinook used for mark-recapture tests increased over the course of the testing
period (Figure 12).
In previous years, we found a weak but positive correlation between capture efficiency and fork
length at the time of release. With the addition of this years’ data the relationship became less
associated (Figure 13). In contrast, Conrad and MacKay (2000) found a strong, negative
correlation between mean length of Chinook used for mark-recapture tests and estimated capture
efficiency. We would have expected to observe a similar trend in our data but observed no
apparent relationship. It is likely that during the glacial period, when Chinook are normally
larger at release, the positive affect of turbidity on capture efficiency negates any relationship
between the size of Chinook and capture efficiency. There is a significant difference between the
mean lengths of hatchery Chinook released during glacial and pre-glacial periods (P < .001).
100
80
Fork Length (cm)
60
40
20
0
2/27 3/19 4/8 4/28 5/18 6/7 6/27
Date
Figure 12. Fork length of hatchery Chinook used in capture efficiency experiments, 2007.
18
Pre-glacial Glacial
6.00%
Estimated Capture Efficiency

4.50%
3.00%
1.50%
0.00%
40 60 80 100 120
Mean Fork Length (mm)
Figure 13. Capture efficiency and mean fork length of hatchery Chinook used for mark-recapture
tests, 2004 - 2007. Tests conducted in 2007 indicated by (Δ).
Estimated Production
An estimated total of 12,257 unmarked Chinook passed the screw trap between February 24th and
August 8th. With 95% confidence intervals this estimate has a range of 10,379 to 14,135 Chinook
migrants (Table 3).
NOTE: Catch used to estimate production for each stratum does not necessarily correspond
directly to the number of fish captured in each stratum. Some days within each stratum have
secchi depths (used to determine capture efficiency) that are more similar to other strata,
therefore there may be more than one capture efficiency used within each strata. Actual catch
and production for each time period strata is provided in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 3. Chinook production estimate for the 2007 screw trap season using capture efficiency data
from 2004 – 2007. Delta method used to approximate variance.
Mean Total Number of 95%
Capture Chinook Smolts Production Approximate Confidence
Stratum Efficiency Captured Estimate Variance Interval
Pre-glacial day 0.627% 31 4,944 958,049.20 3,471 - 6,417
Pre-glacial night
and Glacial day 1.984% 97 4,889 307,076.80 3,826 - 5,952
Glacial night 4.745% 115 2,424 61,071.10 1,948 - 2,900
Total 12,257 1,326,197.10 10,379 - 14,135
Glacial and Non-Glacial Catch/Production
Glacial melting and its relevance to migration timing and capture efficiency are an important
aspect of catch and production estimates in the Puyallup River. Tables 4 and 5 show the total
catch and production of Chinook for the pre-glacial melt period (< June 29th) and the glacial melt
19
period (≥ June 29th). The glacial period here is defined as the date at which secchi depth
measurements were less than 51 cm for the remainder of the trapping season. A majority of
unmarked Chinook, 92% of total catch and 96% of total outmigration, migrated past the trap
during the pre-glacial melt period. Although a majority of Chinook migrated before the glacial
period there were days when glacial like conditions occurred during the pre-glacial period,
signifying the importance of monitoring turbidity and its relevance to capture efficiency.
Day and Night Catch/Production
Day and night migration is an important aspect of juvenile migration patterns and has been an
important component of smolt trap operation in the Puget Sound region. On the Skagit River,
daytime migration rates of age 0+ Chinook were found to be affected by turbidity (Seiler et al.,
2004). This year, and in previous years, we were able to establish a significant relationship
between turbidity and its effects on capture efficiency in day-time and night-time conditions,
where the trap is less efficient at capturing migrants during the day in pre-glacial conditions and
the most efficient at catching fish during the night in glacial conditions. This year, similar to last
year, results indicated that pre-glacial night and glacial day conditions were not significantly
different enough to be considered separate strata.
As in the two previous years, summation of production and catch for day and night periods
indicated that even though total day catch accounted for less than half of catch, 30% in 2007, it
made up more than half of production, 52% in 2007 (Tables 4 and 5). This is opposite of what
was found in 2004. These findings may be a result of the difference between the number of
migrants passing the trap during day-time and night-time hours. In 2004, the difference between
total night and day catch was 463 fish, while in 2005, 2006 and 2007 it was 181, 353 and 97,
respectively. We will continue to monitor this aspect of migration timing and evaluate its
relevance to capture efficiency and therefore production estimates.
On the Green River, Seiler et al. (2004) found a wide range of day/night catch ratios for similar
months as our pre-glacial period (February to June). They reported a day/night catch ratio range
of 25% (January to March-fry period) to 46% (May to June-smolt period). Our catch ratio in
2007 indicated a high day/night catch for the pre-glacial period, 47%, and a low day/night catch
ratio for the glacial period, 5%.
Table 4. Total unmarked Chinook production for pre-glacial and glacial melt period, 2007.
Date Day Night Total
Pre-Glacial 7,011 4,795 11,806 (96%)
Glacial 50 401 451 (4%)
Total 7,061 (52%) 5,196 (48%) 12,257 (100%)
Table 5. Total unmarked Chinook catch for pre-glacial and glacial melt period, 2007.
Date Day Night Total
Pre-Glacial 72 151 223 (92%)
Glacial 1 19 20 (8%)
Total 73 (30%) 170 (70%) 243 (100%)
20
Migration Timing
Unmarked 0+ Chinook
In contrast to previous years, there were two distinct peaks in daily estimated migration, the first
during the second week of March and the more significant peak during the first week of June
(Figure 14). The largest peak occurred on June 5th with 1,181 migrants passing the trap.
Twenty-five percent of total migration occurred in the two days around the peak (June 4th –6th).
The migration pattern this year was different than the previous two years. In 2005, there were
three peaks of relatively equal amounts of migrating Chinook a couple weeks apart, in 2006 there
was one large peak; however, for all three years, the largest peaks always occurred during late
May/early June and around peaks in flow.
12000 1500
Unmarked Chinook (n=12,257)
Mean Flow (cfs)
10000 1250
Estimated Number of Migrants

8000 1000
Mean Flow (cfs)
6000 750
4000 500
2000 250
0 0
24- 8- 20- 1- 13- 25- 7- 19- 31- 12- 24- 6- 18- 30-
Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr Apr May May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul
Date
Figure 14. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook smolts with mean daily flow,
2007.
Based upon our production estimates, the first 25% of unmarked Chinook migrated by April 8th,
50% by June 3rd, and 75% by June 6th, just after the peak. The last fish was captured on August
8th. This year 25% of the estimated number of Chinook migrated two weeks earlier than any of
the previous three years, but reached 50% migration about one week later than the previous three
years (Figure 15).
21
100%
75% June 6th
Percent Migration
June 2nd
50%
March 26th
25%
0%
24-Feb 13-Mar 30-Mar 16-Apr 3-May 20-May 6-Jun 23-Jun 10-Jul 27-Jul
Date
Figure 15. Percent estimated daily migration of unmarked age 0+ Chinook, 2007.
Freshwater Survival
In-River Mortality of Hatchery Releases
All hatchery-origin Chinook were marked with either an Ad-clip or Ad/CWT, which enabled us
to estimate in-river mortality between Voights Creek Hatchery and the screw trap. Relating
overall production estimates of hatchery Chinook to the known number of hatchery fish released
into the system gives us in-river mortality.
A total of 1,868,477 marked fall Chinook were released into the Puyallup River in 2007,
1,797,777 Chinook were released from Voights Creek Hatchery (R.M. 21.9), and a total of
70,700 Chinook were released from Cowskull acclimation pond (R.M. 44.75). A total of
674,473 marked Chinook were estimated to have passed the smolt trap. Production estimates and
in-river mortality are provided for each release group (Table 6).
In 2007, total in-river mortality for all hatchery Chinook combined was 62%. The Ad-marked
group belonging only to Voight’s Creek Hatchery had greater mortality than did the group
belonging to both Voight’s Creek Hatchery and the acclimation pond in the upper Puyallup
River. On the Skagit River, Vokhardt et. al. (2006) reported the average mortality over the past
several years at around 50%. Over the past four years, mortality rates in the Puyallup River have
been similar, around 60%, except for 2005 where mortality was low, 20%.
22
Table 6. In-river mortality of marked Chinook from the Puyallup River, 2007.
Date Capture Estimated In-River

Number Number Percentage for Production for Mortality for
Mark Type
Released Captured Each Release Each Release Each Release
Start End Group Group Group
AD/CWT
29-May 29-May 70,700
(Cowskull)
5,920 2.1% 141,635 47.8%
AD/CWT
5-June 5-June 200,889
(Voights)*
AD (Voights)* 5-June 5-June 1,596,888 22,247 1.3% 532,838 66.6%

* = Personal communication, WDFW
Freshwater Survival of Wild Smolts
Relating our total unmarked Chinook outmigration estimate to our potential egg deposition gives
us freshwater survival estimate to the screw trap (Table 7). This estimate does not include
mortality that may occur after fish pass the screw trap.
The number of females used to calculate the smolt-to-female ratio and egg production is based on
the estimated total number of fish that spawned in the Puyallup River using a redd count based
methodology (Scharpf, Pers. Comm.). The number of females was calculated from the male-to-
female ratio from South Prairie Creek and fecundity from Voights Creek hatchery fall Chinook
was used to estimate total egg production. A fecundity of 4,738 eggs/female was used for the
2006 brood (Davis, Pers. Comm.). Maximum and minimum flows are from South Prairie Creek.
Table 7. Freshwater survival of unmarked Chinook from the Puyallup River, 2007.
Total Total Potential Maximum and Percent Freshwater
Smolt /
Run Year Outmigration Number of Egg Minimum Flows Survival
Female
Estimate Females Deposition Aug.-Feb.* (#smolts / #eggs)
2006-2007 12,257 679 3,217,102 18 6,540 23 0.38%
*
= Data gathered from USGS Water Resource Division
Survival rate for this year’s brood was the lowest in the past four years. It is likely that the major
high flow event that occurred on November 11th scoured redds reducing the number of migrants
captured in the screw trap. Peak spawning on South Prairie Creek occurred during the last week
of October, just weeks before the flooding event (Marks et al., 2007).
COHO
Catch
Unmarked 1+ Coho
We captured a total of 370 unmarked coho in the 2007 trapping season. The first coho migrant
was caught on March 2nd and the last on July 25th. Although catch rates varied from day to day,
23
overall catch followed a fairly regular progression and peaked on June 4th, when we captured 34
migrants in the trap. This year peak catch occurred with an increase in flow, similar to previous
years, but occurred much later (early June rather than middle May). Mclemore et al. (1989)
states that downstream migration of coho occurs during high streamflow between March and
June so a shift in downstream migration may depend on flows during these months.
Marked 1+ Coho
A total of 847 hatchery coho were captured in the screw trap in 2007. Catch by mark type is
provided in Table 13. The first marked coho was captured on March 24th and the last on August
19th. Peak catch, 87 coho on April 30th, occurred after the volitional release of marked coho from
Voights Creek hatchery on April 26th. Compared to previous years, it took a longer period of
time to catch a smaller percentage of hatchery coho. However, since peak catch occurred just
after volitional release, the data still indicate that a majority of hatchery coho from Voights Creek
move quickly past the smolt trap, although some hatchery coho are captured nearly a month later
than their wild counterpart.
Size
Unmarked, age 1+ coho averaged 81mm to 161mm throughout the 2007 sampling season. We
did not observe any positive trend in mean weekly fork length as the season progressed but rather
a peak and then a slow decline (Figure 16). Similar to previous years, the majority of coho
migrants between 100mm and 120mm moved past the trap between stat week 15 and 23.
Migrant’s measuring 90mm or less were captured at the beginning of the season as well as near
the end. The maximum size of migrants measured increased from the beginning of the season to
the end of June and dropped significantly thereafter (Appendix B2).
200
180
Mean Fork Length (mm)
160
140
120
100
80
60
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Statistical Week
Figure 16. Mean Weekly fork length and size range of unmarked, age 1+ coho captured
in the screw trap, 2007.
24
Capture Efficiency
During the 2007 season, two capture efficiency experiments using hatchery coho from Voights
Creek were conducted at the new screw trap location (Appendix C2). The number of coho
released per test this year was larger than previous years. Both releases occurred at night.
Because of the change in the location of the screw trap, the 2007 capture efficiency data were
concerning stratification of the data from previous years (2004 - 2006) had changed due to the
new location.
All coho capture efficiency experiments conducted from 2004 - 2007 were included in the
analyses. The relationships between capture efficiency and several different parameters were
examined as follows:
• capture efficiency for day-time and night-time releases,

• capture efficiency and secchi depth measurements (cm) made at the trap at the start of
each experiment, and
• capture efficiency and river flow measured in cubic feet per second.
A total of 13 separate releases of coho were made during the four years. Capture efficiency
estimates ranged from 0.8% to 2.1%; the average for the 2007 season was 1.06%.
With a limited number of experiments (2 in 2007), it is not possible to conduct rigorous and
meaningful statistical tests to determine if the capture efficiencies at the new trap location are
comparable to previous years. The capture efficiency estimates from the experiments
conducted in 2007 were the two lowest estimates observed for the night-time stratum
(Figure 17). Figure 18 shows the relationship between capture efficiency and secchi depth,
while figure 19 shows the relationship between capture efficiency and flow for the 2007
experiments relative to the previous years.
Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates for Day-Time versus Night Time Releases
There was less than a 0.2% difference between the mean day-time and night-time capture
efficiency estimates (Table 8). The difference between the two means is not significant (t-test
equal variances assumed, P = 0.502). There is no apparent influence of daytime or night time
on the results.
25
2.5%
2004

2005
2.0% 2006
2007
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0 1 2 3
Day (1) or Night (2) experiment
Figure 17. Summary of the capture efficiency estimates for coho smolt releases conducted from
2004 - 2007.
Table 8. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for day-time and night-time
experiments for coho salmon releases conducted in 2004-2007.
Day Time 1.56% 6 0.2155% 1.66% 1.008% - 2.116%
Night Time 1.39% 7 0.1262% 1.35% 1.086% - 1.703%
2.5%
2004 to 2006 Day
2004 to 2006 Night
2007 Night
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Secchi Depth (cm)
Figure 18. Plot of estimated capture efficiency of coho salmon versus secchi depth for Puyallup
River smolt trap data from 2004-2007. OLS line shown.
26
2.5%
2004 to 2006 Day
2004-2006 Night
2007 Night
2.0%
Capture Efficiency 1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Flow (cfs)
Figure 19. Plot of estimated capture efficiency of coho salmon versus flow for Puyallup River
smolt trap data from 2004-2007. OLS line shown.
Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth and Flow
Figures 18 and 19 plot estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth, and capture efficiency and
flow, respectively, for all experiments conducted from 2004 – 2007. Similar to previous years
the ordinary least squares (OLS) was used to determine significance of the relationship between
variables. Results of the OLS linear regressions are summarized in Tables 9 and 10. The
estimated slope for the relationships was not significant: P = 0.559 and P = 0.592 for secchi
depth and flow, respectively. The linear regression models explained only 3% of the variation
in capture efficiency (R2 = 0.032 for secchi depth and R2 = 0.027 for flow). There is no evident
relationship between capture efficiency and either secchi depth or flow.
The relationship between flow and capture efficiency has been more evident in previous years
as compared to this year. In 2006, for all combined data (2004 – 2006), there was a marginally
significant relationship between capture efficiency and flow (P = 0.096), and in 2005 the
combined 2004 and 2005 data was determined to be significant (P = 0.056). With the addition
of this years data the relationship became far less significant (P = 0.559). In addition, the
season average capture efficiency has been slowly declining since 2004: 2004 – 1.67%, 2005 –
1.62%, 2006 – 1.31% and 2007 – 1.06%. Further, 2007 had both the lowest capture efficiency
results for night time experiments over the past four years and the screw trap location was
different than any other year. It is evident that there is a trend from significance to non-
significance over the past several years, although the difference in capture efficiency between
years is marginal. For these reasons, we conclude that this year’s experiments were different
from previous years and therefore the season average capture efficiency should be used to
determine production estimates for all unmarked and marked 1+ coho. Table 11 shows the
difference between combined capture efficiency experiments for all years and results from
2007.
27
Table 9. Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression of secchi depth (X)
and capture efficiency (Y).
Estimated Coefficients 95% Confidence Interval for B
Model t Signifi-
Parameter statistic cance
B Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Constant 0.017195 0.004645 3.702 0.003 0.006971 0.027418
Secchi Depth -0.0000166 0.0000301 -0.553 0.592 -0.0000828 0.0000496
Table 10. Summary statistics for the ordinary least squares linear regression of flow (X) and
capture efficiency (Y).
Estimated Coefficients 95% Confidence Interval for B
Model t Signifi-
Parameter statistic cance
B Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Constant 0.012824 0.003362 3.814 0.003 0.005424 0.020225

Flow 0.00000129 0.00000213 0.603 0.559 -0.00000341 0.0000598
Table 11. Summary statistics for the mean capture efficiency for all coho salmon release
experiments conducted in 2004-2007.
Number Number
Release Mean released recaptured N
All 1.47% 6425 92 13
2007 1.06% 1415 15 2
Using the season average capture efficiency we estimate that 34,906 unmarked 1+ coho passed
the trap from March 2nd to July 25th. This estimate is higher than last year (31,367) but lower
than 2005 (55,972).
Migration Timing
Coho migration followed a regular, unimodal progression, with a peak migration day on June
4th (Figure 20). This is a later peak than seen in previous years, where the peak was in the
middle of May. Based on these production estimates, 25% of migration occurred between
February 26th and May 15th, 50% by May 29th, 75% by June 3rd and the remaining migrants
moved out between June 4th and July 25th (Figure 21).
28
12000 3,600
Unmarked Co ho 1+
(n=34,906)
M ean Flo w (cfs)
10000 3,000
Estimated Number of Coho

Mean Flow (cfs) 8000 2,400
Migrants
6000 1,800
4000 1,200
2000 600
0 0
25- 12- 27- 11- 26- 11- 26- 10- 25- 10-
Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul
Date
Figure 20. Estimated daily migration of unmarked age 1+ coho with mean daily flows,
2007.
100%
June 3rd
75%
Percent Migration
May 29th
50%
May 15th
25%
0%
26-Feb 13-Mar 28-Mar 12-Apr 27-Apr 12-May 27-May 11-Jun 26-Jun 11-Jul
Date
Figure 21. Percent migration of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2007.
In-River Mortality
Table 12 shows the estimated production and in-river mortality for each mark group in 2007.
Comparing the total estimated production for all mark groups combined with the total number
of marked coho released, we estimate a total in-river mortality of 90%. This is the highest
mortality estimate in the past three years (see discussion). In-river mortality of marked coho
was relatively equal among all release groups, with the Ad/CWT group from Voights and the
acclimation ponds showing slightly less mortality.
29
Table 12. In-river mortality of coho 1+ mark groups for the Puyallup River, 2007.
Date Estimated In River
Production Mortality Total Total
Number Number
Mark Type for Each for Each Number Estimated
Start End Released Captured
Release Release Captured Production
Group Group
CWT 26- 30-
41,600 40 3,774 90.93%
(Voights)* Apr Apr
26- 30-
AD (Voights)* 672,300 668 63,019 90.63%
Apr Apr
AD + CWT 847 79,906
8- 8-
(Cowskull/ 80,200
May May
Rushingwater)
139 13,113 89.91%
AD + CWT 26- 30-
49,700
(Voights)* Apr Apr
CHUM
Catch
A total of 2,339 juvenile chum migrants were captured in the screw trap in 2007. The first chum
migrant was caught on February 28th and the last was caught on June 12th. Catch was unimodal
with increasing and decreasing catch after the peak of 196 chum on April 26th.
Size
We found little difference in mean fork length of chum between sample weeks (Figure 22).
However, the size range of chum sampled became progressively larger throughout the season.
The maximum length of the chum sampled increased steadily throughout the migration season
from 41mm to 82mm between the first week of sampling and week 22. The minimum length did
not increase throughout the sample season (Appendix B3).
30
85
80
75
70
Forkl Length (mm)

65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Statistical Week
Figure 22. Mean weekly fork length and size range of chum captured in the screw trap,
2007.
Capture Efficiency
During the 2007 season, three capture efficiency experiments using chum salmon fry were
conducted at the new screw trap site. All three releases occurred during the night time, two of
the releases used hatchery fish and one used wild out-migrating chum (Appendix C3).
Because of the change in the location of the smolt trap, the 2007 capture efficiency data were
concerning stratification of the data from previous years (2004 - 2006) had changed due to the
new location.
All chum capture efficiency experiments conducted from 2004 - 2007 were considered for the
analyses. A total of 35 separate releases of chum were made during the four years of which
seven released less than 100 chum (Appendix C3). Capture efficiency estimates ranged from
0.0% to 5.2%. The seven experiments that released less than 100 outmigrating chum were
removed from the data set analyzed. Three of these experiments were conducted in 2006 and
four were conducted in 2007. Five of these seven experiments resulted in only a single
recapture and for the remaining two experiments no chum released were recaptured. It was felt
that the capture efficiency estimates provided by these experiments were too imprecise to be
useful due to the relatively small numbers of chum released.
31
The relationships between capture efficiency and several different parameters were examined,
these include:
• capture efficiency for releases of hatchery chum compared to releases of wild
chum,
• capture efficiency for day-time and night-time releases,
• capture efficiency and secchi depth measurements (in cm) made at the trap at
the start of each experiment, and
• capture efficiency and river flow measured in cubic feet per second.
With a limited number of experiments (7 in 2007 of which only three released more than 100
fish), it is not possible to conduct rigorous and meaningful statistical tests to determine if the
capture efficiencies at the new trap location are comparable to previous years. The capture
efficiency estimate for the experiment conducted on April 16th, 2007 had the highest capture
efficiency estimate observed during the four years of experiments. Previous years’ analyses had
indicated that the capture efficiency for wild chum might be less than for hatchery chum.
Therefore, we separated the wild chum releases from the hatchery chum releases for analysis.
All wild chum releases occurred during night time hours.
Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates for Day-Time versus Night Time Releases
There was about a 0.5% difference between the mean day-time and night-time capture
efficiency estimates for the hatchery releases (Table 13) while the wild release experiments had
the lowest mean capture efficiency (Figure 23). The differences between the three means are
not significant (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.308), however, because of small sample sizes
definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. There is no apparent influence of daytime or night time
on the results.
Table 13. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for hatchery day-time, hatchery
night-time, and wild night-time experiments for chum salmon releases conducted in 2004-
2007.
Hatchery Day Time 3.48% 7 0.5505% 4.08% 2.137% - 4.831%
Hatchery Night Time 2.97% 13 0.4474% 3.46% 1.996% - 3.945%
Wild Night Time 2.29% 8 0.4527% 2.29% 1.215% - 3.356%
32
5.00%
95% CI for Mean Capture Efficiency

4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0 Day Time Hatchery
1 Night Time
2 Hatchery Night3 Time Wild 4
Group
Figure 23. Mean capture efficiency, and 95% confidence interval, for the original three
possible strata defined for chum experiments conducted from 2004-2007.
There was less then a 1% difference between the mean hatchery (day-time and night-time
releases combined) and wild capture efficiency estimates (Table 14). The differences between
the means is not significant (t-test, P = 0.173), however, because of small sample sizes
definitive conclusions cannot be drawn.
Table 14. Summary statistics comparing the mean capture efficiency for hatchery and wild experiments
for chum salmon releases conducted in 2004-2007.
All Hatchery 3.15% 20 0.3447% 3.63% 2.429% - 3.872%
Wild Night Time 2.29% 8 0.4527% 2.29% 1.215% - 3.356%
Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth and Flow
Figures 24 and 25 show the relationship between capture efficiency and secchi depth and flow,
respectively, for the 2007 experiments relative to the previous years. For the 2007 analyses, the
capture efficiency data from 2007 are treated as being similar to the previous years and
combined with that data for analysis.
For wild chum experiments, there is no relationship evident between capture efficiency and
secchi depth (Figure 26) or flow (Figure 27).
For hatchery chum releases, there is no relationship apparent between capture efficiency and
secchi depth (Figure 28). There is a very broad range of capture efficiencies (from 0.77% to
5.16%) for secchi disk depths ≥ than 150 cm.
33
6.00%
Day-time Hatchery
Night-time Hatchery

5.00% Night-time Wild
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Secchi Depth (cm )
Figure 24. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for all chum experiments conducted
from 2004 – 2007. 2007 data indicated by arrows.
6.00%
Day-time Hatchery
Night-time Hatchery
5.00%
Night-time Wild
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Flow (cfs)
Figure 25. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for all chum experiments conducted from
2004 – 2007. 2007 data indicated by arrows.
34
5.00%

4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Secchi Depth (cm )
Figure 26. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for wild chum experiments
conducted from 2004 – 2007 on the Puyallup River screw trap.
5.00%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Flow (cfs)
Figure 27. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for wild chum experiments conducted
from 2004 – 2007 on the Puyallup River screw trap.
As in previous years, there appears to be a weak negative relationship between capture

efficiency and flow (R2 = .3545 for power model) for hatchery chum releases (Figure 29).
However, the relationship does not exist for wild chum capture efficiency experiments and
flow. If a relationship between flow and capture efficiency is somewhat evident for hatchery
chum, but not for wild chum, then there must be at least some differentiation between
downsteream migration characteristics between these two groups. Because our interest is
mainly in estimating the outmigration of wild chum we used only the result from the one 2007
capture efficiency experiment for wild chum to estimate production.
35
6.00%
Day Night
5.00%

4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Secchi Depth (cm )
Figure 28. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and secchi depth for hatchery chum experiments on the
Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 – 2007.
6.00%
Day Night
5.00%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Flow (cfs)
Figure 29. Plot of estimated capture efficiency and flow for hatchery chum experiements on the
Puyallup River screw trap, 2004 – 2007.
Since there was no relationship between wild chum releases and flow, and the trap was in a
different location this year the one capture efficiency experiment (3.51%) from 2007 was used
to produce a total chum production estimate. We estimate that 66,638 chum passed the trap in
2007. The estimated production this year was higher than 2005 but lower than 2004 and 2006.
The estimated number of chum migrants is heavily influenced by the escapement of adult chum
salmon counted in South Prairie Creek and the Carbon River (Figure 30).
36
250,000
Estimated Number of Chum Migrants

R2 = 0.959
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Total Live/Dead Chum Count on Carbon River and South
Prairie Creek
Figure 30. Correlation between adult chum counted on South Prairie Creek and the Carbon River
with estimated number of chum migrants, brood year 2003 – 2006.
Migration Timing
The first chum was caught on February 28th and the last on June 12th. Using production
estimates, the peak of the migration occurred on April 26th when 5,584, or 8% of the total
run passed the trap (Figure 31). This is a similar trend compared to previous years.
Throughout the season, migration increased and decreased progressively. Fifty percent of
the migration occurred by April 27th (Figure 32).
14,000 6300
M ean Flo w (cfs)
Chum M igrants (n=66,638)
12,000 5400
Estimated Number of Chum
10,000 4500
Mean Flow (cfs)
8,000 3600
Migrants
6,000 2700
4,000 1800
2,000 900
0 0
26-Feb 13-Mar 28-Mar 12-Apr 27-Apr 12-May 27-May 11-Jun
Date
Figure 31. Daily estimated migration of chum fry with mean daily flows, 2007.
37
100%
May 13th
75%
Percent Migration
April 27th
50%
April 19th
25%
0%
Date
Figure 32. Percent estimated migration of chum fry, 2007.
STEELHEAD
Catch
Twenty-five unmarked and 105 marked steelhead were captured in the smolt trap during
the 2007 trapping season, the lowest catch of both unmarked and marked steelhead in the
past seven years. Less than 100 unmarked steelhead have been captured in the smolt trap
for the past five consecutive years.
Size
There is no trend of positive growth during the 14 weeks that unmarked steelhead were
captured in the screw trap (Figure 32). Maximum and minimum fork lengths varied for each
statistical week, with a wide range for weeks 19, 20, and 21 (Appendix B4). On average,
marked steelhead were larger than unmarked steelhead, but unmarked steelhead had higher
standard deviation (Table 15).
38
250
200
Mean Length (mm)

150
100
50
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Statistical Week
Figure 33. Mean weekly fork length and size range of unmarked steelhead captured
in the screw trap, 2007.
Table 15. Length data of unmarked and marked steelhead captured in the Puyallup River
screw trap, 2007.
Steelhead
Attribute Count Mean Min. Max St. dev.
Type
Unmarked Length 17 178 155 235 24.34
Marked Length 44 203 120 237 19.48
Capture Efficiency
No capture efficiency tests were completed for steelhead due to the difficulty of obtaining
and marking steelhead and error associated with tests of large mobile fish. However
capture percentage from Voights Creek Hatchery is supplied for 2004-2007 (Table 16).
Capture efficiency was highest in 2005 and lowest in 2007, 0.23% and 0.08% respectively.
Table 16. Capture Percentage of Marked Steelhead from Voights Creek Hatchery, 2006.
Date Number
Mark Type
Start End Released Number Captured Capture Percentage
AD (Voights)* (2007) 13-Apr 16-Apr 128,100 105 0.08%
AD (Voights)**(2004) 4-Apr 30-Apr 231,859 191 0.08%
* = Data gathered from Voights Creek Hatchery
** = Data gathered from Pacific Stares Marine Fisheries Commission
Migration Timing
The first steelhead was caught on March 10th and the last on June 6th. There was no
defined peak as in previous years; however the trap was pulled during a major high flow
event on March 11th – 13th where flows exceeded 8,000 cfs on March 12th. It is possible
39
fish migrated past the trap when the trap was not fishing. To account for this un-fished
interval, six steelhead were assumed to have been captured had the trap been running.
However, it is possible that greater numbers of steelhead may have left during this event.
In previous years the majority of the migrants were caught on periods of high flows
between mid April and late May, 77% in 2005 (April 18th - May 30th) and 84% in 2006
(April 21st - May 30th). In 2007, only 44% of the catch occurred between April 21st and
May 30th (Figure 33). During this time period, flow remained relatively low and could
have contributed to the low numbers of steelhead captured in the trap. It is also possible
that steelhead moved out earlier during the large flow event that occurred in early March.
12000 12
Unmarked STHD (n=25)
Mean Flow (cfs)
Steelehead Migrants Captured

10000 10
Mean Flow (cfs)
8000 8
6000 6
4000 4
2000 2
0 0
Date
Figure 34. Daily catch of steelhead migrants with mean daily flows, 2007.
40
ASSUMPTIONS
Catch
Catch recorded during morning and evening trap checks is the actual number of fish
outmigrating during night and day periods, respectively.
Catch Expansion
Our data represents actual and observed samples, except during certain instances. Trap
expansion was used on June 5th and 6th for 3.75 hours and 4 hours, respectively, to assume
missed catch during the Voights Creek hatchery release. Sub-sampling was used to
interpolate for un-fished hours. Data for this period is used as actual catch data and is
assumed to be what would have been captured had the trap been operating. Additional
expansion measures were taken on several days (see methods) when the trap was not fishing
do to any number of circumstances: high flows, high volumes of hatchery fish, trap
maintenance, screw stoppers or lack of personnel. During these periods the average capture
rate was applied to the dates where fish were missed. We assume these rates would have
been the actual catch that was missed, although the “actual” catch rate may or may not be
similar to the average.
• The entire outmigration season for all species was sampled (February 24th to August
27th). Complete migration curves were generated for Chinook, coho, chum and
steelhead.
• The trap was fished twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week with the exception of
several periods noted above. During these periods catch numbers were extrapolated
to adequately reflect the periods of migration missed.
Trap Efficiency
• All marked fish are identified and recorded.
• The number of marked fish passing the trap is known. Survival from release site to
trap is 100%.
• Release strata are contained within the measured period (i.e., marked fish pass the
trap within a week and have no chance of being counted in the following week’s
release group).
• All fish in a release group have an equal chance of being captured.
Chinook
• Marked hatchery Chinook are captured at the same rate as wild Chinook.
• Chinook capture efficiency is a function of daylight and water clarity.
• There was no difference in capture efficiency between years for the three stratum
used to estimate capture efficiency for the 2004 - 2007 trapping seasons.
• Daily production estimates were based upon three capture efficiency groups:
1. Pre-glacial day = 0.627% Capture Efficiency
2. Pre-glacial night and glacial day = 1.984% Capture Efficiency
3. Glacial Night = 4.745% Capture Efficiency
41
Coho
• Marked hatchery coho are captured at the same rate as wild coho.
• Coho capture rate is not a function of mean daily flow or water clarity.
• There was no statistical difference between night and day capture efficiency tests for
the 2004 - 2006 trapping seasons.
Chum
• Marked hatchery chum and marked wild chum are not captured at the same rate.
Only wild chum mark-recapture tests were used to estimate trap efficiency.
• Environmental conditions (i.e., flow and turbidity) were not significant factors
influencing trap efficiency during the chum migration period.
• There was no significant difference between individual wild chum mark-recapture
trials conducted from 2004 – 2006.
• The one capture efficiency experiment conducted in 2007 reflects the actual capture
efficiency for the entire migration period.
Turbidity, Flow and Temperature

• Ambient light at each secchi measurement remained similar throughout the sampling
period, regardless of the time of day.
• Secchi measurements taken in day and night time actually reflect the clarity of water
during the entirety of that time period strata.
• Flows obtained from USGS website are actual and true flows that are represented at
the trap site.
• Water temperature recorded in the livebox at the screw trap site is the true river water
temperature.
42
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Turbidity and Flow
Although there is no strong evidence that flow effects turbidity, a large-scale shift in
turbidity and flow exists during the juvenile migration period of some salmonids. Since we
know glacial melting is a seasonal phenomenon in the Puyallup River system, the large-scale
shift in turbidity is a result of glacial melt and was reported as so in our report. Turbidity
should continue to be measured by secchi depth at each trap check and each capture
efficiency test.
The importance of other environmental factors such as, air temperature and freezing levels at
glacial elevations are being monitored since these factors may dictate the timing of migration
and ultimately the life history patterns of juvenile salmonids.
Catch and Migration Timing
Using smolt trap catches to monitor migration timing does not take into account the
influence of a dynamic river system on the capture efficiency of the screw trap. We found
differences between the migration timing of juvenile Chinook and coho using screw trap
catches as opposed to daily production estimates. Due to the increase of capture efficiency of
the screw trap in turbid environments and at night for Chinook, we believe the best way to
quantify migration is to use daily estimated production because it attempts to normalize all
catch days. Evaluation of timing and numbers of outmigrating fish using estimated daily
production should continue in future years.
Trap Efficiency and Production Estimates
Chinook
Due to the availability of four years worth of capture efficiency data, we were able to
generate a strong relationship between the capture efficiency of the screw trap and three
strata (four separate time/river turbidity periods). Therefore, screw trap catches can be
separated into pre-glacial, glacial and night, and day periods to more accurately estimate
production and migration timing.
There is a discrepancy between the data collected from 2004 – 2007 regarding Chinook
production results that call into question the importance of diel migration. The 2004
production estimates indicated that more Chinook migrants utilize the cover of darkness for
migration under both pre-glacial and glacial conditions of turbidity. The 2005 - 2007
production estimates indicate that more Chinook migrants actually move during the daylight
hours. Diel migration should be monitored through both catch and production estimates in
future years to better examine this relationship, or lack thereof.
43
Coho
Coho mark-recapture tests completed in 2004 - 2006 revealed a relationship between capture
efficiency and flow, where capture efficiency increases with increased flow. With the
inclusion of the 2007 data the relationship between flow and capture efficiency became less
evident. The screw trap was fished at a different site this year due to changes in bathymetry
at the old site. Because capture efficiency was lower for coho this year compared to
previous years there is likely some effect of trap positioning on capture efficiency, so only
capture efficiency tests completed in 2007 were used to estimate migration this year.
Capture efficiency tests should continue to further clarify the relationship between capture
efficiency of the trap and flow as a predictor of overall production.
No mark-recapture tests were completed for subyearling coho captured in the screw trap.
Although there were only 44 0+ age coho captured this year, there is evidence this age
component may be an important aspect of the life history strategy for coho salmon and may
be an indication of factors contributing to the survival of coho salmon (Miller et. al., 2003).
The numbers of 0+ age coho will continue to be monitored on the Puyallup River.
Chum
We were able to find a significant relationship between capture efficiency of hatchery chum
and flow using all mark-recapture tests from 2004 – 2007; however we were unable to find a
relationship between capture efficiency and flow using only wild chum mark-recapture
results from 2004 - 2007. This data indicates some discrepancy in the relationship between
wild and hatchery capture efficiency experiments, although some data indicates they are not
significantly different. Volkhardt et. al. (2006) reported similar data between wild and
hatchery Chinook, where there was no detectable difference (α = .05) between groups and a
lower capture efficiency for wild fish than for hatchery fish.
We found about a 1% difference between the average trap capture efficiency for wild and
hatchery chum during the 2004 - 2007 season. Further, hatchery fish were captured at higher
efficiencies than their wild counter parts. If this finding is true for other species of
salmonids, our reported capture efficiencies using hatchery Chinook and coho are likely
biased high. Since chum are the only species where large numbers of both hatchery and
wild fish are available for testing, future analysis of the relationship between the efficiency
of the trap in capturing wild and hatchery chum should be completed.
Steelhead
Over the past several years, the numbers of unmarked steelhead captured in the screw trap
have dramatically declined. During this same time period capture efficiency of hatchery
steelhead has also declined, indicating perhaps some association between capture efficiency
of the trap and catches of unmarked naturally produced steelhead. Fluctuations in catch of
natural steelhead in the screw trap may be an artifact of this phenomenon. Trends in the
abundance of natural steelhead smolt are continually being monitored.
44
Freshwater Survival
Hatchery In-River Mortality
Chinook
The total estimated mortality rate for 2007 (62%) is lower than 2006 (67%), but higher than
2004 (56%) and 2005 (20%). However, like 2004 and 2006, the mortality rate was greater
than 50% of the migrating fall Chinook. Further, in 2004, 2005 and 2007, acclimation pond
Chinook were released in the upper watershed. In 2004 and 2005, the mark group belonging
to the upper Puyallup River exhibited a higher mortality rate than the mark group belonging
exclusively to the Voight’s Creek hatchery, this was not evident in 2007.
No distinct external mark group exists for acclimation pond Chinook, however a distinct
CWT number does exist, but a thorough evaluation of mortality associated with releases
from the upper watershed is difficult without CWT sacrifice at the screw trap. Increased
mortality of hatchery mark groups including acclimation pond Chinook could be a reflection
of the longer migration route, including the passage through Puget Sound Energy’s Electron
facility, but without a unique identification mark on acclimation pond fish we cannot
accurately compare mortality between stock groups. In recent years, assessing this issue has
been addressed.
Coho
This year there was an increase in mortality (90%) of hatchery released coho compared to
2005 (65%) and 2006 (75%) and a decrease in the number of hatchery migrants captured,
8,010 (2005), 4,182 (2006) and 847 (2007). Whether or not this is an accurate reflection in
survival remains to be seen. The location of the screw trap was different this year compared
to previous years, and this year was the first year we did not use a capture efficiency-flow
model to estimate production. Because of these factors, it is likely that there is some bias in
the production estimate when compared to previous years. Future work will focus on re-
establishing a significant relationship between flow and capture efficiency.
Unlike 2005 and 2006, there seemed to be no difference in mortality of coho mark groups
comprised mostly of acclimation pond fish. Like Chinook, evaluation of smolt survival from
the upper watershed through the Electron diversion dam to the screw trap should be
evaluated more thoroughly to understand the effects of this migration route.
Freshwater Survival of Wild 0+ Age Chinook
The 2007 estimate of freshwater survival for 0+ Chinook is far lower than any of the
previous three years and is probably the result of the scour event that occurred during the
incubation period for Chinook. Low survival rates are explained by high flows on the Skagit
River (Volkhardt et. al. 2006), and appear to be the case with the Puyallup River and its
major spawning tributary, South Prairie Creek (Figure 35).
45
3.00%
R² = 0.7344
2003
2.50%
Percent Freshwater Survival

2.00%
2004 2005
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
2006
0.00%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Peak incubation flow (cfs) on South Prairie Creek
Figure 35. Correlation between peak incubation flow on South Prairie Creek and freshwater
survival estimates on the Puyallup River, brood years 2003 – 2006.
If we ignore this year’s event, estimates of freshwater survival on the Puyallup River are still
on the lower end when compared to other watersheds. Studies completed in several
watersheds by the WDFW show a wide range of freshwater survival rates for Chinook
salmon: 1.7% to 5.0% on Bear Creek, a tributary to Lake Washington (Volkhardt et. al.,
2006), 5.3% to 7.3% on the Green River (Seiler et. al., 2004), and 1.2% to 16.7% on the
Skagit River (Volkhardt et. al., 2006). Maximum and minimum flows in conjunction with
freshwater survival will continue to be monitored on the Puyallup River to better understand
the influence of flow regimes on Chinook freshwater survival.
Mortality
No mortalities were recorded on wild or hatchery steelhead, cutthroat trout, wild Chinook or
wild coho during screw trap operation. However, screw trap mortalities did include: 33 wild
chum, 3 1+ hatchery (Ad) coho, 17 0+ hatchery (Ad) Chinook and 1 lamprey.
Measures were taken to reduce predation on chum fry by steelhead smolts through the
inclusion of artificial, protective habitat, structures in the live box. Last year we found the
inclusion of black, plastic Bio-Rings® strung together and spread over the top of the water
column in the live box was most effective in reducing chum mortality and predation.
Incidental Catch
In addition to the focus species, we also caught 2 cutthroat trout, 44 coho (0+) Ad fry, and 95
wild coho (0+) fry. Non-salmonid species caught in the screw trap included brook lamprey,
pacific lamprey, sculpin, long-nose dace, sticklebacks, sunfish, and pumpkinseeds.
46
REFERENCES
Literature Citations
Conrad, R.and M. T. MacKay 2000. Use of a Rotary Screwtrap to monitor the
Out-migration of Chinook Salmon Smolts from the Nooksack River:1994-1998
Northwest Fishery Resource Bulletin. Proj. Report Series No. 10. NWIFC. Olympia,
Washington.
Marks, E.L., Ladley, R.C., Smith B.E. and Sebastian, T.G. 2007. 2006 – 2007 Annual
Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout Report: Puyallup/White River Watershed—Water
Resource Inventory Area 10. Puyallup Tribal Fisheries, Puyallup, WA.
Miller, B.A., S. Sadro. 2003. Residence Time and Seasonal Movements of Juvenile Coho
Salmon in the Ecotone and Lower Eustuary of Winchester Creek, South Slough,
Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Volume 132:546-559.
McLemore C. E., F. Everest, W. Humphreys, M. Solazzi. A Floating Trap for Sampling

Downstream Migrant Fishes. United States Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. Corvallis, Oregon 1989.
Region 6-Fish Management Division and Puyallup Tribe of Indians. 2000. Puyallup
River Fall Chinook Baseline Report. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2007 Regional Mark Information System.
www.rmis.org
Seiler, D., G, Volkhardt, P. Topping and L. Kishimoto. 2004. Green River Juvenile
Salmonid Production Evaluation. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Annual
Report, Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, Washington
SPSS. 2003. SPSS version 12.0 for windows. SPSS Inc.
United States Geological Survey. USGS Surface-Water Annual Statistics for Washington,
USGS 12096500 Puyallup River at Alderton, WA. December 2006.
<http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/annual/?referred_module=sw&site_no=120965
00&por_12096500_1=1179423,00060,1,1992,2006&start_dt=1992&end_dt=2006
&year_type=W&format=html_table&date_format=YYYY-MM-
DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection_list>
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2006. Water Quality Standards for the Surface
Waters of the State of Washington Chapter 173-201A WAC. Publication number
06-10-091 November 2006.
47
Volkhardt G., D. Seiler, S. Neuhauser, L. Kishimoto and C. Kinsel. 2006. 2005 Skagit River
0+ Chinook Production Evaluation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Fish Program, Science Division. Olympia, WA
Volkhardt G., D. Seiler, L. Fleischer, and K. Kiyohara.. 2006. Evaluation of Downstream

Migrant Salmon Production in 2005 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Science Division.
Olympia, WA
Personal Communications
Davis, S. WDFW Voights Creek Hatchery. August 2007
Sharpf, M. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. WDFW Region 6. August 2007.
Clemens, John. United States Geological Survey. Media Contact USGS. USGS
Washington Water Science Center. August 2007.
48
Appendix A
Puyallup River Screw Trap Location, Design and Position

Voights Creek
Hatchery
Figure A1. The Puyallup River Watershed. Red dot depicts screw trap location at R.M. 10.6, blue dot
depicts Voights Creek State Salmon Hatchery at RM 21.9.
A1
Figure A2. Diagram of a rotary screwtrap.
A2
Figure A1. Position of the screw trap in the lower Puyallup River at R.M. 10.6
A3
Appendix B
Mean Weekly Fork Length Data for Unmarked Chinook, Coho, Chum
and Steelhead, Puyallup River Screw Trap 2007
Table B1. Fork length data of unmarked age 0+ Chinook migrants, 2007.
Average Fork Standard
Dates Stat Week Max Min N
Length (mm) Deviation
2/19/07 - 2/25/07 8 41 - - - 1
2/26/07 - 3/4/07 9 39 41 36 1.83 6
3/5/07 - 3/11/07 10 41 45 38 2.99 4
3/12/07 - 3/18/07 11 41 45 39 2.55 9
3/19/07 - 3/25/07 12 49 49 49 - 1
3/26/07 - 4/1/07 13 45 45 45 - 1
4/2/07 - 4/8/07 14 41 41 41 0.50 2
4/9/07 - 4/15/07 15 - - - - -
4/16/07 - 4/22/07 16 47 47 47 - 1
4/23/07 - 4/29/07 17 49 51 46 3.54 2
4/30/07 - 5/6/07 18 73 73 72 0.71 2
5/7/07 - 5/13/07 19 65 76 53 16.26 2
5/14/07 - 5/20/07 20 74 82 67 5.61 5
5/21/07 - 5/27/07 21 71 85 55 9.77 7
5/28/07 - 6/3/07 22 90 102 80 5.72 23
6/4/07 - 6/10/07 23 88 110 72 7.49 40
6/11/07 - 6/17/07 24 88 94 81 4.95 7
6/18/07 - 6/24/07 25 95 102 91 4.66 5
6/25/07 - 7/1/07 26 95 100 87 5.68 5
7/2/07 - 7/8/07 27 - - - - -
7/9/07 - 7/15/07 28 94 102 86 7.33 4
7/16/07 - 7/22/07 29 78 80 75 2.89 3
7/23/07 - 7/29/07 30 88 90 85 3.54 2
7/30/07 - 8/5/07 31 90 - - - 1
B1
Table B2. Fork length data of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2007
Average
Standard
Dates Stat Week Fork Max Min N
Deviation
Length
2/26/07 - 3/4/07 9 103 103 103 - 1
3/5/07 - 3/11/07 10 103 103 103 - 1
3/12/07 - 3/18/07 11 89 89 89 - 1
3/19/07 - 3/25/07 12 - - - - -
3/26/07 - 4/1/07 13 93 101 85 7.33 4
4/2/07 - 4/8/07 14 108 130 91 16.64 4
4/9/07 - 4/15/07 15 119 130 100 13.49 4
4/16/07 - 4/22/07 16 112 128 87 21.73 3
4/23/07 - 4/29/07 17 114 139 98 16.63 5
4/30/07 - 5/6/07 18 111 130 92 10.26 16
5/7/07 - 5/13/07 19 110 140 74 11.95 43
5/14/07 - 5/20/07 20 108 140 88 8.10 46
5/21/07 - 5/27/07 21 107 120 92 6.41 30
5/28/07 - 6/3/07 22 111 161 81 13.34 38
6/4/07 - 6/10/07 23 105 127 85 9.11 39
6/11/07 - 6/17/07 24 95 102 85 7.80 4
6/18/07 - 6/24/07 25 99 107 90 8.10 4
6/25/07 - 7/1/07 26 100 107 92 10.61 2
7/2/07 - 7/8/07 27 - - - - -
7/9/07 - 7/15/07 28 101 109 96 4.04 7
7/16/07 - 7/22/07 29 110 120 101 9.50 3
B2
Table B3. Fork length data for wild chum migrants, 2007
Average
Standard
Dates Stat Week Fork Length Max Min N
Deviation
(mm)
2/19/07 - 2/25/07 8 - - - - -
2/26/07 - 3/4/07 9 38 41 34 4.95 2
3/5/07 - 3/11/07 10 37 39 35 2.00 3
3/12/07 - 3/18/07 11 37 39 35 1.41 15
3/19/07 - 3/25/07 12 36 39 34 2.07 5
3/26/07 - 4/1/07 13 38 41 36 1.92 19
4/2/07 - 4/8/07 14 38 47 32 2.18 138
4/9/07 - 4/15/07 15 37 40 33 1.78 51
4/16/07 - 4/22/07 16 38 49 30 2.15 150
4/23/07 - 4/29/07 17 37 52 31 2.46 208
4/30/07 - 5/6/07 18 39 52 31 4.37 59
5/7/07 - 5/13/07 19 39 56 33 3.96 186
5/14/07 - 5/20/07 20 44 60 33 6.69 161
5/21/07 - 5/27/07 21 46 82 38 9.90 21
5/28/07 - 6/3/07 22 55 82 41 8.94 43
6/4/07 - 6/10/07 23 55 72 36 11.41 14
6/11/07 - 6/17/07 24 45 49 41 3.05 5
B3
Table B4. Fork length data of unmarked steelhead migrants, 2007
Average Fork Standard

Dates Stat Week Max Min N
Length (mm) Deviation
3/5/07 - 3/11/07 10 156 - - - 1

3/12/07 - 3/18/07 11 230 235 225 7.07 2
3/19/07 - 3/25/07 12 - - - - -
3/26/07 - 4/1/07 13 - - - - -
4/2/07 - 4/8/07 14 - - - - -
4/9/07 - 4/15/07 15 - - - - -
4/16/07 - 4/22/07 16 164 - - - 1
4/23/07 - 4/29/07 17 - - - - -
4/30/07 - 5/6/07 18 161 - - - 1
5/7/07 - 5/13/07 19 176 191 156 13.44 5
5/14/07 - 5/20/07 20 180 205 155 35.36 2
5/21/07 - 5/27/07 21 170 177 162 10.61 2
5/28/07 - 6/3/07 22 190 - - - 1
6/4/07 - 6/10/07 23 160 161 159 1.41 2
B4
Appendix C
Mark Recapture Data for Chinook, Coho and Chum,

Puyallup River Screw Trap, 2004 - 2007
Table C1. Capture efficiency results for hatchery Chinook, 2004 - 2007.
Secchi
Release Day or Glacial Number Number Capture Depth Flow
Release Date Year Time Night Period* Released Recaptured Efficiency (cm) (cfs)
5/19/2004 4 1500 D 1 800 5 0.00625 104 1,480
5/25/2004 4 1530 D 1 601 5 0.008319 150 1,110
6/1/2004 4 1600 D 1 628 5 0.007962 65 2,740
6/4/2004 4 1550 D 1 609 5 0.00821 82 1,980
6/7/2004 4 1615 D 1 610 5 0.008197 66 2,370
6/10/2004 4 2015 N 1 613 2 0.003263 94 2,050
6/15/2004 4 2200 N 1 610 9 0.014754 113 1,750
6/17/2004 4 2230 N 1 595 3 0.005042 130 1,610
6/22/2004 4 1630 D 2 604 5 0.008278 34 1,640
6/23/2004 4 2200 N 2 610 20 0.032787 13 1,880
7/1/2004 4 2115 N 2 608 36 0.059211 28 1,390
7/6/2004 4 1730 D 2 602 15 0.024917 32 1,370
7/7/2004 4 2200 N 2 615 30 0.04878 30 1,310
7/12/2004 4 1745 D 2 609 18 0.029557 30 1,070
7/13/2004 4 2145 N 2 419 23 0.054893 18 1,270
5/2/2005 5 2107 N 1 1,011 26 0.025717 139 1,700
5/3/2005 5 1115 D 1 1,017 1 0.000983 163 1,810
5/17/2005 5 2130 N 1 855 17 0.019883 72 2,440
5/18/2005 5 1145 D 1 1,025 7 0.006829 84 2,310
6/7/2005 5 2115 N 1 806 19 0.023573 144 1,380
6/22/2005 5 2045 N 2 804 27 0.033582 33 1,750
6/23/2005 5 1115 D 2 804 5 0.006219 29 1,740
7/12/2005 5 1145 D 2 812 27 0.033251 29 1,340
7/12/2005 5 2045 N 2 828 53 0.06401 28 1,210
4/18/2006 6 2052 N 1 512 17 0.03320 206 1,630
4/28/2006 6 1000 D 1 556 1 0.00180 175 1,530
5/15/2006 6 2145 N 1 801 16 0.01998 100 1,476
5/25/2006 6 2105 N 1 810 28 0.03457 79 1,879
6/13/2006 6 2130 N 2 591 23 0.03892 40 2,172
6/14/2006 6 945 D 2 605 12 0.01983 43 2,333
3/8/2007 7 1830 N 1 503 11 0.02187 200 2,420
4/10/2007 7 2004 N 1 522 16 0.03065 180 1,890
5/8/2007 7 2130 N 1 511 8 0.01566 135 1,480
5/11/2007 7 1400 D 1 493 14 0.02840 200 1,430
6/6/2007 7 1120 D 2 502 14 0.02789 34 1,850
6/7/2007 7 2130 N 1 265 2 0.00755 61 1,290
6/11/2007 7 2145 N 1 385 4 0.01039 63 1,610
* 1 = non-glacial period, 2 = glacial period
C1
Table C2. Capture efficiency results for hatchery coho, 2004 - 2007.
Secchi
Time of Number Number Depth Flow Capture
Date Year Release Released Recaptured (cm) (cfs) Efficiency
4/14/2004 04 1930 208 3 150 1,010 0.01440
5/3/2004 04 2030 211 4 92 1,230 0.01900
3/21/2005 05 1715 502 4 138 759 0.00800
3/23/2005 05 1145 513 6 138 704 0.01170
3/29/2005 05 1330 516 10 79 2,470 0.01940
3/31/2005 05 1711 513 11 155 1,590 0.02140
4/13/2005 05 1915 511 9 162 1,240 0.01760
4/14/2005 05 1215 516 10 195 1,260 0.01940
4/17/2006 06 1700 506 7 206 1,790 0.01380
4/27/2006 06 2045 520 7 188 1,400 0.01350
5/15/2006 06 2145 494 6 100 1,476 0.01210
3/21/2007 07 1945 804 9 133 2,730 0.01119
4/12/07 07 2030 611 6 203 1,480 0.00982
C2
Table C3. Capture efficiency results for hatchery and wild chum, 2004 - 2007.
Time of Day or Hatchery Number Number Secchi Flow Capture
Date Year Release Night or Wild Released Recaptured Depth (cm) (cfs) Efficiency
3/31/2004 04 800 D H 534 20 150 1340 0.03745
4/1/2004 04 1900 N H 539 26 150 1230 0.04824
4/6/2004 04 2010 N H 518 24 150 832 0.04633
4/7/2004 04 900 D H 461 20 150 832 0.04338
4/9/2004 04 1900 N W 156 2 150 817 0.01282
4/15/2004 04 850 D H 519 23 150 964 0.04432
4/16/2004 04 2000 N H 514 15 150 840 0.02918
4/19/2004 04 1945 N W 233 6 150 683 0.02575
4/28/2004 04 2010 N W 200 4 150 940 0.02000
5/10/2004 04 2000 N W 157 7 150 1000 0.04459
5/18/2004 04 1945 N W 564 15 150 940 0.02660
5/25/2004 04 1745 N W 151 1 150 1100 0.00662
6/1/2004 04 1945 N H 518 7 65 2570 0.01351
3/16/2005 05 1733 N H 540 19 138 704 0.03519
3/19/2005 05 1030 D H 525 26 138 677 0.04952
3/27/2005 05 1710 N H 531 3 23 4480 0.00565
3/28/2005 05 915 D H 515 21 40 3750 0.04102
4/19/2005 05 1115 D H 525 7 192 1810 0.01333
4/20/2005 05 1830 N H 525 20 192 1550 0.03810
5/11/2005 05 2040 N W 526 6 132 2080 0.01154
5/13/2005 05 917 D H 530 8 165 1810 0.01518
5/19/2005 05 2050 N H 535 5 124 2400 0.00943
4/12/2006 06 2030 N H 119 3 201 1410 0.02521
4/19/2006 06 2035 N H 492 17 198 1378 0.03455
4/24/2006 06 2130 N H 518 4 195 1450 0.00772
5/1/2006 06 2130 N W 58 0 198 1537 0.00000
5/10/2006 06 2100 N W 51 1 190 1378 0.01961
5/24/2006 06 2030 N W 51 1 79 2136 0.01961
4/2/2007 07 1945 N H 506 21 154 1940 0.04150
4/4/2007 07 1945 N W 27 0 180 1650 0.00000
4/8/2007 07 2030 N W 53 0 130 1960 0.00000
4/13/2007 07 2100 N W 48 0 200 1430 0.00000
4/16/2007 07 2000 N H 523 27 210 1350 0.05163
4/25/2007 07 2300 N W 114 4 192 1180 0.03509
5/18/2007 07 2100 N W 60 0 200 1270 0.00000
C3

Puyallup Tribe of Indians Smolt Trap Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Puyallup Tribe of Indians Smolt Trap Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Puyallup River Juvenile Salmonid

Production Assessment Project

Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Department

Evaluation of juvenile salmonid production requires a tremendous amount of

Other individuals and agencies contributed efforts to this project. We would

Figure 21. Percent migration of unmarked age 1+ coho, 2007………………………...........29

Figure 32. Percent estimated migration of chum fry, 2007…………………………….......38

Table 7. Freshwater survival of unmarked Chinook from the Puyallup River,

Figure A1. The Puyallup River Watershed.……………… ………………………………...A1

Figure A2. Diagram of a rotary screwtrap.…………………………………………….….A2

Table B4. Fork length data for unmarked steelhead, 2007……………...…………….....…B4

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

2. Estimate in-river mortality of hatchery and acclimation pond Chinook.

Trapping Gear and Operations

Measuring Flow, Turbidity and Temperature

Secchi Depth (cm)

Mean Fork Length (mm) 100

Capture Efficiency Percentage

Capture Efficiency Percentage

Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth

Parameter Coefficient St. Error Rel. SE 3 Significance 95% Confidence Interval

Slope -1.124104 0.039258 3.5% <0.001 -1.208 - -1.040

Parameter Coefficient St. Error Rel. SE Significance 95% Confidence Interval

Slope -0.435854 0.198356 45.5% 0.041 - 0.851 - - 0.021

Intercept -1.948990 0.855259 43.9% 0.034 - 3.379 - - 0.159

Capture Efficiency Percentage

Release Mean N St. Error Median 95% Confidence Interval

Day Time 1.29% 16 0.2623% 0.820% 0.734% - 1.852%

Night Time 2.85% 21 0.3798% 2.572% 2.057% - 3.641%

Capture Efficiency Estimates for Chinook

Pre-glacial Day 0.627% 9 0.0953% 0.789% 0.407% - 0.847%

Pre-glacial Night 1.901% 14 0.2705% 1.993% 1.316% - 2.486%

Glacial Day 2.149% 7 0.4004% 2.492% 1.170% - 3.129%

Glacial Night 4.745% 7 0.4756% 4.878% 3.582% - 5.909%

Pre-glacial Day 0.627% 9 0.0953% 0.789% 0.407% - 0.847%

Hatchery Chinook Length

Estimated Capture Efficiency

Glacial and Non-Glacial Catch/Production

Day and Night Catch/Production

Estimated Number of Migrants

75% June 6th

In-River Mortality of Hatchery Releases

Date Capture Estimated In-River

AD (Voights)* 5-June 5-June 1,596,888 22,247 1.3% 532,838 66.6%

Freshwater Survival of Wild Smolts

• capture efficiency for day-time and night-time releases,

Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates in 2007 to Previous Years’ Estimates

Capture Efficiency Percentage

Day (1) or Night (2) experiment

Release Mean N St. Error Median 95% Confidence Interval

Day Time 1.56% 6 0.2155% 1.66% 1.008% - 2.116%

Night Time 1.39% 7 0.1262% 1.35% 1.086% - 1.703%

Capture Efficiency 1.5%

Capture Efficiency versus Secchi Depth and Flow

Constant 0.012824 0.003362 3.814 0.003 0.005424 0.020225

Estimated Number of Coho

Figure 21. Percent migration of unmarked age 1+ coho migrants, 2007.

Forkl Length (mm)

Comparison of Capture Efficiency Estimates in 2007 to Previous Years’ Estimates

Hatchery Day Time 3.48% 7 0.5505% 4.08% 2.137% - 4.831%

Hatchery Night Time 2.97% 13 0.4474% 3.46% 1.996% - 3.945%

Wild Night Time 2.29% 8 0.4527% 2.29% 1.215% - 3.356%

95% CI for Mean Capture Efficiency

All Hatchery 3.15% 20 0.3447% 3.63% 2.429% - 3.872%