Differential Estimates of “Survival” for PIT Tagged Fish – Evidence and Causes Jason Vogel Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Smolt Monitoring Program 1982-Present BPA project#
Advertisements

COMPARATIVE SURVIVAL STUDY (CSS) of PIT-tagged Spring/Summer Chinook and PIT-tagged Summer Steelhead CBFWA Implementation Review Mainstem/Systemwide.
Investigate the Life History of Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead in the Grande Ronde River Basin Project Brian Jonasson Oregon Department.
Grande Ronde Supplementation Lostine River: Operation and Maintenance and Monitoring and Evaluation Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Project Number:
Comparative Survival Study Smolt Monitoring Program 2010 PIT Tag Mark Groups.
Survival Estimates for the Passage of Juvenile Salmonids Through Dams and Reservoirs of the Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers (Project ) CBFWA March.
Assessment of A-run Steelhead population in the Clearwater Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management.
Imnaha River Smolt Survival and Smolt to Adult Return Rate Quantification (Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Program) BPA Project Number Nez Perce.
Monitoring and Evaluation of Yearling Fall Chinook Salmon Released Upstream of Lower Granite Dam Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management.
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Hatchery Evaluations – Salmon River Project No Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management.
Rebecca A. Buchanan Columbia Basin Research School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington Seattle, WA INVESTIGATING MIGRATORY PROCESSES.
Supplementation with local, natural-origin broodstock may minimize negative fitness impacts in the wild Initial results of this study were published in.
Examining the Effects of Juvenile Migration Timing on Adult Age of Columbia River Salmon Benjamin P. Sandford Fish Ecology Division Fish Ecology Division.
Experiences Handling PTAGIS Data in Comparative Survival Study By Tom Berggren Fish Passage Center Portland OR.
Overview of Current Production Programs Across the Columbia River Basin.
Crystal Springs Hatchery Facilities
Assessing the use of PIT Tags as a Tool to Monitor Adult Chinook Salmon Returns to Idaho John Cassinelli Regional Fisheries Biologist Idaho Department.
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.
Coordination of Tag and Mark Recovery Programs Dan Rawding WDFW.
Development of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan: A Brief History Scott Marshall LSRCP Program Administrator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Tucannon Endemic Steelhead – An Integrated Program picture.
Fecundity Management Strategies. Why Talk About This? As managers, we utilize various methods in managing broodstock collection – we never want to be.
Recovery and Management Options for Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon in the Columbia River Basin Kareiva, P., M. Marvier and M. McClure Science 290:
COLUMBIA RIVER SALMON AND STEELHEAD RETURNS FPAC and TMT – March 2013 Presented by: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
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.
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.
COMPARATIVE SURVIVAL STUDY (CSS) of PIT-tagged Spring/Summer Chinook and PIT-tagged Summer Steelhead 2005 Annual Report Presentation to the ISAB January.
ESA-listed Snake River Salmon: What’s the link to Snake River dams? John G. Williams NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center Seattle
ISAB Snake River Spill-Transport Review ISAB – Presentation to Council September 17, 2008.
In Search of the Lost Legions Attempting to account for Hatchery-origin steelhead returns to the Snake River Herb Pollard – NOAA –National Marine Fisheries.
ISAB Snake River 2010 Spill-Transport Review ISAB – Presentation to Council April 14, 2010.
May 10, 2012 Presented by Micki Varney Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook: Relative Reproductive Success in Captive Chinook Salmon Melissa Baird 1, Ewann Berntson 1, Timothy Hoffnagle 2, Steve.
Pacific Coast Steelhead Management Meeting What Are Managers Required to Provide Their Constituents? March 9-11, 2004 Bob Leland.
COMPARATIVE SURVIVAL STUDY Chapter 3: Annual SAR by study category and ratios of SARs Comparisons of SARs Transport to In-River By hatchery group Hatchery.
Annual SARs by Study Category, TIR and D: Patterns and Significance Presenter: Charlie Petrosky CSS Annual Meeting Apr 2 nd 2010.
Lower Snake River Comp Plan M & E Program SPY’s thoughts based on 3 weeks.
Washington’s Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Steelhead Program – A retrospective and program adaptive management overview Mark Schuck and Joe Bumgarner.
Migration pathway, age at ocean entry, and SARs for Snake River Basin fall Chinook prior to summer spill at LGR, LGS, and LMN dams.
Status of Columbia River salmon and links to flow: What we do and do not know Presentation to Northwest Power Planning Council December 11, 2002
Effectiveness of alternative broodstock, rearing and release practices at Winthrop NFH William Gale and Matt Cooper -USFWS, Mid-Columbia River Fishery.
Chinook Salmon Supplementation in the Imnaha River Basin- A Comparative Look at Changes in Abundance and Productivity Chinook Salmon Supplementation in.
Howard Schaller PSMFC Annual Meeting September 24, 2013 Comparative Survival Study Outcomes – Experimental Spill Management 1.
CSS Oversight Committee ISAB November 15, 2013 Comparative Survival Study Outcomes – Experimental Spill Management 1.
Adult steelhead evaluations in Imnaha River tributaries William Young, Jocelyn Hatch Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management.
The relationship of Snake River stream-type Chinook survival rates to in-river, ocean and climate conditions Howard Schaller, USFWS * Charlie Petrosky,
Downstream Survival of Juvenile Stream Type Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Through the Snake/Columbia River Hydropower System and Adult Return Rates AFEP.
Chinook Salmon, the Fish Screen, and a Vanishing River. Paddy Murphy Idaho Department of Fish and Game Anadromous Screen Program Salmon, Idaho.
Recovery Patterns of Coded-Wire Tagged Spring Chinook Salmon in the Upper Willamette River Basin David S. Hewlett Cameron S. Sharpe Oregon Department of.
2010 work planned, new operations, and wrap up Presenter: Robin Ehlke CSS Annual Meeting Apr 2 nd 2010.
Adult Steelhead Abundance Estimates Based on PIT Tag Arrays in Idaho Rick Orme, Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management and Chris.
Effects of Domestication on Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook Phenotypic and Demographic Traits: What Have We Observed So Far? Curtis M. Knudsen 1, Steve.
Ocean rivers SARs LGR-LGR SARs LGR-LGR Harvest Mouth of Columbia predicted returns Mouth of Columbia predicted returns Juvenile travel time and survival.
LSRCP Hatchery Steelhead Salmon River Brian Leth and Carl Stiefel LSRCP Steelhead Program Review July 20-21, 2012 Clarkston,WA.
Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Energy Impacts Resulting from Reductions in Summer Bypass Spill July 16, 2003.
1 The Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP) CBFWA – Ken MacDonald ESSA Technologies Ltd. - Marc Porter State Agencies IDFG.
Performance of a New Steelhead Line Derived from Hatchery Parents Collected in Autumn in the Grande Ronde River Lance Clarke, Michael Flesher, Shelby Warren,
Upstream passage success rates and straying of returning adults Presenter: Jack Tuomikoski CSS Annual Meeting Apr 2 nd 2010.
Payette MPG Sockeye Adult Tributary Juvenile Data Tributary Data
Northwest Fisheries Science Center Technical Management Team
Comparative Survival Study Annual Meeting
Age at ocean entry of Snake River Basin fall Chinook and its significance to adult returns prior to summer spill at LGR, LGS, and LMN dams.
MPG Spring-Summer Chinook
Snake River MPG Fall Chinook Adult Tributary Juvenile Data Tributary
Northwest Fisheries Science Center Technical Management Team
Steelhead status in Idaho – 2012 Update
Direct Survival of Migrating Salmonid Smolts in the Snake and Lower Columbia Rivers: Update with 2007 Results Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
Science Policy Exchange
Eagle Fish Genetics Lab (IDFG): Craig Steele Mike Ackerman
Presentation transcript:

Differential Estimates of “Survival” for PIT Tagged Fish – Evidence and Causes Jason Vogel Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management LSRCP Annual Meeting March 4, 2008

Outline Part I –Ensure marking is necessary –Focus on PIT Tag marking –Filling critical research gaps –Benefits vs. risks Part II –Effects of actual PIT tag –What does PIT tag information give us? –Effects of actual PIT tag –Representative or not?

Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Strategic Management Plan Vision  Manage aquatic resources to provide for healthy self-sustaining fish populations of historically present species and for harvest opportunities Guiding Principles  Minimizing intrusive marking and handling of fish supports cultural and spiritual beliefs, respect for the fish, and maximum survival

PIT Tag Marking is it Necessary? Baseline monitoring Fill critical data gaps –Information needed on groups of fish Marking fish comes at a cost –Initial and Delayed Mortality –Information gained needs to outweigh the cost of decrease adult returns How do we determine if marking is necessary and at what level? –Science? –Policy? –Social and Cultural?

Bypassed = 3-10% Undetected = 20 – 40 % Transported = 55-75% Juvenile Passage Routes Through Hydrosystem Percentages vary by species and hydro operations

Choosing Where the Fish Go Bypassed = default action for PIT tags –Survival estimates of fish to and through the hydrosystem Monitor Mode (mimic unmarked) –Representative SARs –Johnson Creek and Imnaha River for NPT Separation by Code –Comparative Survival Studies (CSS) = 70% transported: 30% bypassed –Smolt to adult return rates of bypassed, transported, and undetected juveniles

Differences in Chinook SARs by Passage Route Data from CSS 10-year Retrospective Report

Bypassing Fish Equals Lower Adult Returns for Spring/Summer Chinook N=405

Summary Benefits of PIT tagging fish –Comparison of groups/filling in critical gaps From release to facilities (treatment groups) Within the facilities treatment groups (barged, bypassed, others) Tests of hydro actions (RSW’s, others) Risks/Costs –PIT tagged fish treated differently –Decreases adult returns

Part II – Effects of PIT Tags Current uses of PIT tags –SAR calculations (LGR:LGR, Stream:Stream) –Adult run predictions –In season adjustments of harvest and broodstock take and allocations –Side by side comparisons of groups

John Williams unpublished data

Snake River Chinook Salmon

Y = * X r2 = 0.941, P = Snake River Chinook Salmon

John Williams unpublished data

What information do we have? Lostine River (4 Broodyears) –PIT tagged conventional underestimate SARs by 27% –PIT tagged captive brood underestimate SARs by 48% Captive Program ( ) –Raise fish from parr to adult in captivity –Fish shedding PIT tags Catherine Creek 3.6% loss Grande Ronde 2.3% loss Lostine River 3.4% loss Johnson Creek (2 Broodyears) –Monitor mode PIT tagged fish underestimate SARs by 39%

What information do we have? Knudsen et al. (in review) 5 Broodyears –PIT tagged fish underestimate SARs by 25%. –Average of 18.4% fish lost their PIT tags. –After correcting for PIT tag loss, PIT tagged fish had 10.3% lower SAR than untagged fish (Mortality)

Summary PIT tags are very useful for specific side by side experiments when absolute survival is not necessary PIT tagged fish do not represent an unbiased absolute measure of SARs Need to design specific experiments to look at mechanisms to test for differences –PIT tag loss/shed –Mortality caused by PIT tagging –Malfunction of PIT tag or inability to read

Conclusions Ensure the benefits outweigh costs when using PIT tags –In terms of decreased adult returns PIT tagged fish tend to underestimate SARs compared to untagged fish –Be very careful when utilizing PIT tags for absolute measure of SARs for groups of fish Current methods are conservative Setting and modifying harvest seasons and broodstock management Determine mechanisms for differences in PIT vs. unmarked fish

Acknowledgements John Williams – NOAA Fish Passage Center - CSS Curt Knudsen – Oncorh Consulting NPT Staff

Questions?