History  Need to mark fish to get survival & exploitation rates for Treaty negotiations, to determine differential survival of various release strategies.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
November 13, 2013 Comparison of methods for Chinook abundances using CWT Run Reconstruction, PSC Chinook Model, and FRAM Larrie La Voy--Northwest Region,
Advertisements

COMPARATIVE SURVIVAL STUDY (CSS) of PIT-tagged Spring/Summer Chinook and PIT-tagged Summer Steelhead CBFWA Implementation Review Mainstem/Systemwide.
Salmonid Natural Production Monitoring & Evaluation Project Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation BPA Project #
Evaluate recreational and commercial mark-selective fisheries. (35018) Geraldine Vander Haegen, WDFW Charmane Ashbrook, WDFW Chris Peery, U. Idaho Annette.
Workshop: Monitoring and Evaluation of Harvest on Columbia River Salmonids July 31- August 1, 2007.
Annual Stock Assessment – Coded Wire Tag Program (ODFW & WDFW) BPA Project Numbers: and
SELECT AREA FISHERY EVALUATION BPA Project # CEDC, ODFW, WDFW.
Monitoring and Evaluation of Yearling Fall Chinook Salmon Released Upstream of Lower Granite Dam Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management.
WRIA 8 Fish in/Fish out Monitoring Summary
Frank Leonetti, Snohomish County
Summary of Recommendations: Peer Review of FY 13 Science Workplan Trinity River Restoration Program Preliminary Fiscal Year 2013 Science Workplan.
Looking for Pieces of the Puzzle: LIFE HISTORY OF SPRING CHINOOK IN THE WILLAMETTE BASIN Kirk Schroeder Brian Cannon Luke Whitman Paul Olmsted Oregon Department.
  Multiple years of sampling to mark and recapture individuals completed between 2006 and 2008   Despite significant effort, population estimates were.
ESCAPEMENT GOALS? WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING ‘SCAPEMENT GOALS! Hal Michael Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Genetic Stock Identification/Parental Based Tagging for Pacific Salmon Molecular Genetics Laboratory (MGL) Pacific Biological Station.
Adult Steelhead Monitoring Challenges in Cedar Creek, WA Josua Holowatz & Dan Rawding.
PIT Technology and Hatchery Mitigation J. Murauskas and J. Miller 0 Use of PIT technology to improve hatchery mitigation in the Columbia Presented by Josh.
Federal Concerns Regarding Hatchery Steelhead Spawning in the Wild NOAA Fisheries Salmon Recovery Division.
Coordination of Tag and Mark Recovery Programs Dan Rawding WDFW.
Environmental Factors Affecting Salmon Production Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Science Division Dave Seiler.
Development of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan: A Brief History Scott Marshall LSRCP Program Administrator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Fecundity Management Strategies. Why Talk About This? As managers, we utilize various methods in managing broodstock collection – we never want to be.
Chinook Management Overview Rishi Sharma Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission University of Washington, Quantitative Ecology & Resource Management.
Research Fishery Biologist NOAA Fisheries Maine Field Station John F. Kocik, Ph.D.
Variation in Straying Patterns and Rates of Snake River Hatchery Steelhead Stocks in the Deschutes River Basin, Oregon Richard W. Carmichael and Tim Hoffnagle.
Columbia River salmon : Who (or what) will save them? John Williams Klarälven meeting in Karlstad 9 May 2011.
New genetic technology for the management of Columbia River salmon and steelhead Proposal : Parentage Based Tagging Matthew Campbell Idaho Department.
Combining PIT Tags with Scale Reading to Better Understand the Life History of Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon Douglas Marsh and William Muir - NOAA Fisheries.
Integrated Status & Trend (ISTM) Project: An overview of establishing, evaluating and modifying monitoring priorities for LCR Steelhead Jeff Rodgers (ODFW)
Charles R. Bronte, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California-Nevada Chapter Meeting American Fisheries Society April 2009 A Coordinated Mass Marking Program.
Mass Marking and Mark- Selective Fisheries Black and White Choice, or Complex Shades of Grey? David Hankin Department of Fisheries Biology Humboldt State.
Alternative Gear Implementation Project Pat Frazier WDFW Region 5 Fish Program Manager Photo by Wild Fish Conservancy.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Evaluation of Alternative Commercial Fishing Gear in the Lower Columbia River, 2013: Behavior and.
Development and Implementation of a Monitoring Program for Mark-selective Chinook Salmon Fisheries in Puget Sound, Washington Washington Department of.
NON-NATIVE SALMOINDS IN LAKE SUPERIOR Don Schreiner, MNDNR Steve Schram, WIDNR Shawn Sitar, MIDNR Mike Petzold, OMNR.
QUESTIONS ABOUT MARINE- DERIVED NUTRIENTS AND C&R FISHERIES TO BE ANSWERED IN THE DISCUSSION Hal Michael Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Monitor and Evaluate Salmonid Production in the Asotin Creek Subbasin - LSRCP (ID #200116)
May 10, 2012 Presented by Micki Varney Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Smolt Monitoring Program: Overview and Data Collection (SMP Traps) Brandon R. Chockley SMP Pre-Season Meeting Feb. 11,
Life History of Western Washington Winter Steelhead, a 30 Year Perspective Hal Michael Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Lewis River Fish Passage Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (draft)
Estimating the Age and Origin of Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon at Lower Granite Dam Christian Smith USFWS Abernathy Lab, Longview, WA Jody White Quantitative.
RMIS Overview & Infomap Service PSMFC Regional Mark Processing Center (RMPC) Overview of RMPC & CWT Database Since 1977 the RMPC has provided essential.
Pacific Coast Steelhead Management Meeting What Are Managers Required to Provide Their Constituents? March 9-11, 2004 Bob Leland.
Mass Marking and Electronic Recovery of CWTs In the Pacific Northwest Ron Olson Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Olympia Washington.
Kristen Ryding WA Department of Fish and Wildlife May 10, 2012.
Management & Recovery Implications Of Wild/Hatchery Steelhead Interactions Within A Large, Complex Watershed Research Partners: WDFW Skagit River System.
Status of Steelhead in Alaska Brian Marston Area Fisheries Biologist Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fisheries, Yakutat, Alaska.
Smolt Monitoring Program: Overview and Data Collection Brandon R. Chockley SMP Pre-Season Meeting February 20,
By Richard Hinrichsen Rishi Sharma Tim Fisher
G5: Population Ecology.
The Status of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon What do we know? and How do we know it? Kit Rawson Tulalip Tribes.
February 5, 2003 Integrating Fisheries Management Into Comprehensive Recovery Planning Jeff Koenings, Randy Kinley Mike Grayum, Curt Kraemer, Kit Rawson.
Using PIT tags to evaluate the post- release survival of spring chinook salmon following their release from commercial nets C. E. Ashbrook, J. R. Skalski,
Chinook Salmon Supplementation in the Imnaha River Basin- A Comparative Look at Changes in Abundance and Productivity Chinook Salmon Supplementation in.
Recovery Patterns of Coded-Wire Tagged Spring Chinook Salmon in the Upper Willamette River Basin David S. Hewlett Cameron S. Sharpe Oregon Department of.
October 20 & 21, 2009 Stevenson, WA Columbia Basin Coordinated Anadromous Monitoring Strategy Workshop Lower Columbia Sub-Basin.
Joe Bumgarner Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Banks Lake Fishery Evaluation Project (Project ) Matt Polacek, Project Manager Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
& 2016 Forecast.  Hidden Falls: Extremely Poor returns for all species  Medvejie: Very Strong chum; Good Chinook; Average coho  Deer Lake: Average.
Ocean rivers SARs LGR-LGR SARs LGR-LGR Harvest Mouth of Columbia predicted returns Mouth of Columbia predicted returns Juvenile travel time and survival.
Age and Growth Estimating age and growth –Using hard structures ~ Otolith Lab How do we “read” these structures and why? –Reading lab –Back calculation.
November 3-5, 2009 Stevenson, WA Columbia Basin Coordinated Anadromous Monitoring Strategy Workshop Upper Columbia Sub-Region 2 Listed ESU/DPS Steelhead-
Fish Marking Not in your textbook!. Reasons for marking fishes n To identify stocks n To assess stock size n To assess growth and mortality rates Mark.
Potential Effects of Mark-Selective Fisheries on Central Valley Salmon Brian Pyper and Steve Cramer Cramer Fish Sciences.
Fish Marking Not in your textbook!. Reasons for marking fishes To identify stocks To assess stock size To assess growth and mortality rates Mark must.
Douglas Island Pink & Chum Juneau Area Chinook Enhancement
The Data Wars Of the Columbia Basin.
Brett Kormos, MR Melodie Palmer-Zwahlen, MR Alice Low, FB
Eagle Fish Genetics Lab (IDFG): Craig Steele Mike Ackerman
Presentation transcript:

History  Need to mark fish to get survival & exploitation rates for Treaty negotiations, to determine differential survival of various release strategies & to determine distribution in fisheries  Started marking in BC with 1967 brood  Use alpha-numeric tags, mainly on chinook and coho  Use fin clips, mainly on other species except adipose clips on coho

Types of Marking  Coded-wire tags (CWT)  Fin clips: adipose (Ad), right or left ventral (RV/LV), right or left maxillary (RM/LM)  Otoliths (has rings like a scale)  Calcein- fluorescent dye in fins  Passive-induced transponder (PIT) tags

Tagging Pros & Cons  Lots of codes available- can identify different stocks or release strategies  Can get survival and exploitation rates for individual stocks or release strategies  Application is expensive  Recovery may be expensive Fishery sampling is expensive Fishery sampling is expensive Escapement sampling may not be very expensive if at fence or hatchery rack Escapement sampling may not be very expensive if at fence or hatchery rack

Finclipping Pros and Cons  Can use as visual I.D.- for mass marking  Application less expensive than CWT  Few options for distinguishable codes  Can’t get survival & exploitation rates  Higher mortality from ventral/maxillary clips than from tagging  Can’t determine age class if use same clip every year - need scales too

Otolith Pros and Cons  Very inexpensive to apply  No external visual I.D.  Few options for distinguishable codes  Sampling and reading of otoliths is expensive  Can’t determine age class if use same mark every year - need scales too

Magnified Otolith

Number to Tag/Mark  For coho fry, need to tag at least 40K for distribution, 80K for survival & exploitation rates (lower survival on fry release)  Tag minimum 20K coho smolts or 75K chinook smolts for distribution in fisheries  Tag 40K coho or 200K chinook smolts for survival & exploitation  For chum fry need minimum 100K finclips

Costs of Marking  Tags cost $.09 per fish  Contractor AdCWT application costs about $.12 per fish  Adipose clip costs about $.05 per fish  Tagging machines cost about $24,000 for the tag injector and $14,000 for the QCD (checks tag retention)

CWT Recovery Data Availability  Mark Recovery Program (MRP) reports- can get details down to exact sport catch locations and recoveries by week and statistical area for commercial fisheries  SEP1 reports- Summary of fishery recoveries with escapement data added; includes survival & exploitation rates

Tag Recovery Data # Observed  Observed is the number of a particular tag code actually found in a sample of fish in the catch or escapement  # observed in sport catch is # turned in or # found in creel survey  Mark rate is the % tagged in the total sampled

Tag Recovery Data # Estimated  The # estimated accounts for tags in the unsampled part of catch or escapement  Calculated as # observed / sample rate  Sample rate is % sampled of total catch or escapement (100% if all sampled)  Aim for 20% sample rate in commercial fisheries  Use sport awareness factor (creel survey)

Tag Recovery Data # Expanded  The number expanded accounts for the unmarked fish released with a given tag group  It is calculated from the number estimated / number released with tags * total number released (in a given release group)

Example of Estimation and Expansion of Observed Tags  Tag Code (2000 brood Cowichan R chinook): 25,175 tagged of 99,829 total release  Observed in 2003 escapement: 3 tags in dead pitch sample of 527 and total river spawners= 2,494  Estimated= 3/527*2,494= 14  Expanded= 14/25,175*99,829= 56

Information from Tagging/Marking  Identification of hatchery fish  Distribution in fisheries  Enhanced contribution  Harvest or exploitation rate  Survival rate

Identification of Hatchery Fish  For use in brood stock collection  For use in hatchery mark-selective fisheries

Distribution in Fisheries  For interest- to see where a particular stock is caught  Determine what fisheries to close or reduce to help preserve stocks of concern  Determine what stocks are caught in mixed stock fisheries

Chinook Distribution in Fisheries and Escapement,

Coho Distribution in Fisheries and Escapement,

Enhanced Contribution  Determine whether the hatchery component in a river has exceeded some target (50%)  Determine how well the hatchery stock is performing (in conjunction with survival rate)

Harvest/Exploitation Rate  Harvest rate is the % of fish surviving to adulthood caught in one fishery  Exploitation rate is the overall % of fish surviving to adulthood caught in all fisheries  Determine harvest rates in individual fisheries for each stock  Track harvest & exploitation rates to make sure we’re not over-fishing

Survival Rate  Determine differential survival for different release strategies  Determine differential survival for wild versus hatchery releases  Track the trend in survival for warning of any problems developing

Quinsam River Survivals Smolt 0+ and Seapen 0+ (median seapen/smolt = 1.1) Smolt 0+ Seapen 0+

Cowichan Chinook Survival Survival Smolt 0+ and Seapen Brood Year 2 late river 5 seapen