& 2016 Forecast.  Hidden Falls: Extremely Poor returns for all species  Medvejie: Very Strong chum; Good Chinook; Average coho  Deer Lake: Average.

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

McNary Dam The Dalles DamBonneville Dam John Day Dam Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Below the Four Lower-most Columbia River Mainstem.
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.
Selective Fish Collection & Harvesting Gear P roposal #29042 Sponsored By: Colville Confederated Tribes Presented By: Stephen Smith.
Annual Stock Assessment – Coded Wire Tag Program (ODFW & WDFW) BPA Project Numbers: and
SELECT AREA FISHERY EVALUATION BPA Project # CEDC, ODFW, WDFW.
Frank Leonetti, Snohomish County
Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)
Supplementation with local, natural-origin broodstock may minimize negative fitness impacts in the wild Initial results of this study were published in.
Science Behind Sustainable Seafood Age Matters! Alaska Fisheries Science Center.
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.
Overview of Current Production Programs Across the Columbia River Basin.
Adult Steelhead Monitoring Challenges in Cedar Creek, WA Josua Holowatz & Dan Rawding.
Stock Status of Steelhead in Alaska By Steve Hoffman ADF&G Sport Fish Ketchikan, Alaska.
Coordination of Tag and Mark Recovery Programs Dan Rawding WDFW.
Environmental Factors Affecting Salmon Production Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Science Division Dave Seiler.
NPAFC international cooperative research designates the distribution of Asian and North American chum salmon stocks in the Bering Sea and North Pacific.
Development of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan: A Brief History Scott Marshall LSRCP Program Administrator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Searching for a good stocking policy for Lake Michigan salmonines Michael L. Jones and Iyob Tsehaye Quantitative Fisheries Center, Fisheries and Wildlife.
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF SIZE- SELECTIVE FISHERIES & HATCHERY MATING PRACTICES ON AGE & SEX COMPOSITION OF CHINOOK SALMON RETURNING TO HATCHERIES David Hankin.
Fecundity Management Strategies. Why Talk About This? As managers, we utilize various methods in managing broodstock collection – we never want to be.
Overview of PNP Salmon Production In Alaska. The PNP Program Began in the Late 70’s.
History  Need to mark fish to get survival & exploitation rates for Treaty negotiations, to determine differential survival of various release strategies.
Quantifying reader accuracy for thermal mark identification of Pacific salmon through the use of single- blind pre-season test samples. Krysta D. Williams.
Research Fishery Biologist NOAA Fisheries Maine Field Station John F. Kocik, Ph.D.
Buy-Back Programs in the British Columbia Salmon Fishery By R. Quentin Grafton and Harry W. Nelson International Workshop on Fishing Vessel and License.
R. Sharma*, A. Langley ** M. Herrera*, J. Geehan*
Development and Implementation of a Monitoring Program for Mark-selective Chinook Salmon Fisheries in Puget Sound, Washington Washington Department of.
Documenting O. mykiss life histories in the White Salmon River prior to the reintroduction of anadromous fish above Condit Dam. Brady Allen and Patrick.
By: Scott Rakes February 18, 2010 Endangered Species.
May 10, 2012 Presented by Micki Varney Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Adult Entry to Summer Juvenile Rearing of Klamath River Coho Randolph Ericksen Steven Cramer Ian Courter Kathryn Arendt Funded by.
Life History of Western Washington Winter Steelhead, a 30 Year Perspective Hal Michael Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
RMIS Overview & Infomap Service PSMFC Regional Mark Processing Center (RMPC) Overview of RMPC & CWT Database Since 1977 the RMPC has provided essential.
Steelhead and Snow Linkages to Climate Change ?. Recruitment Curves Fact or Fiction?
Chum and Coho Salmon Spawning Distribution and Abundance in the Susitna River, Alaska Pete Cleary Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport.
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 Strategies for Columbia River Recreational and Commercial Fisheries and Beyond Oregon and Washington Staff Options for Initial Analysis.
The Restoration of the River What Happens After the Dams Are Out?
Management & Recovery Implications Of Wild/Hatchery Steelhead Interactions Within A Large, Complex Watershed Research Partners: WDFW Skagit River System.
STATE OF CHINOOK SALMON IN LAKE HURON in 1999 BY: Jim Johnson, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Lloyd Mohr, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Status of Steelhead in Alaska Brian Marston Area Fisheries Biologist Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fisheries, Yakutat, Alaska.
Is there evidence for stock segregation in Chinook salmon during ocean residence? Indicators of survival: reconstruction of juvenile size-at-emigration.
February 5, 2003 Integrating Fisheries Management Into Comprehensive Recovery Planning Jeff Koenings, Randy Kinley Mike Grayum, Curt Kraemer, Kit Rawson.
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.
Summary ADF&G is implementing a radio telemetry study on Yukon summer chum salmon Use drift gillnets to catch and tag 1200 chum salmon near Russian Mission.
COOPERATIVE NURSERY UNIT PA. Fish & Boat Commission Bureau of Fisheries Division of Trout Production.
Banks Lake Fishery Evaluation Project (Project ) Matt Polacek, Project Manager Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Effects of Domestication on Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook Phenotypic and Demographic Traits: What Have We Observed So Far? Curtis M. Knudsen 1, Steve.
Release Strategies to Improve Post-Release Performance of Hatchery Summer Steelhead in Northeast Oregon. Lance Clarke, Michael Flesher, Shelby Warren,
Alsea Steelhead Acoustic Tagging Project. ODFW -Salmonid Life Cycle Monitoring Project Alsea Steelhead Acoustic Tagging Project EPA – Estuarine Habitat.
Scale Analysis Lisa Borgerson Kanani Bowden Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Hwy 34 Corvallis, OR (541) x232.
California Department of Fish and Game Klamath-Trinity Project Klamath Basin Chinook Salmon Spawning Escapement, Harvest and Age Composition Fish and Game.
1 Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough Division of Subsistence Alaska Department of Fish and Game Chignik Management Area Subsistence Salmon Fisheries Overview Chignik.
Return Information 2016 Forecast. SSRAA RETURNS CONTRIBUTION ESTIMATES 2015 Coho Common Property Special Harvest AreaSSRAACost Release.
GILLNET TASK FORCE MEETING DECEMBER 2, 2015 SITKA, AK.
Commercial Fisheries Bycatch Monitoring on Utah Lake David Tinsley and Jackie Watson Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
BC MoE Burbot Recovery Progress 2007 Kootenai Burbot Conservation Strategy.
Potential Effects of Mark-Selective Fisheries on Central Valley Salmon Brian Pyper and Steve Cramer Cramer Fish Sciences.
Economic Impacts of the Southeast Alaska Regional Aquaculture Associations Presented to: DIPAC, NSRAA and SSRAA Presented by: McDowell Group, Inc. July.
2015 Southeast Alaska Salmon Escapements
Douglas Island Pink & Chum Juneau Area Chinook Enhancement
Agenda Item D.1.a Supplemental NMFS Presentation 2 November 2018
Chinook Harvest Year 2015/2016 Harvest Traditional Common Property Agency SSRAA/KRH.
YRDFA Preseason Planning Meeting May 2, 2018 Anchorage
Presentation transcript:

& 2016 Forecast

 Hidden Falls: Extremely Poor returns for all species  Medvejie: Very Strong chum; Good Chinook; Average coho  Deer Lake: Average coho  Southeast Cove: First Adults; 3-year-old return promising

SiteTrollGillnetSeineSportCRRackTotal Deep Inlet 231,116694,0331,398, ,5052,434,701 Hidden Falls 49,417242,938292,355 Southeast Cove 13,428 Haines 13,52020,28033,800 Total 231,116707,5531,447,43513,467354,4432,774,284 8%26%52%0%14%

Deep Inlet: 182%Hidden Falls: 28%

NSRAA’s chum programs have struggled during the past 7 brood years, especially at Hidden Falls. We are hoping that improved 3-yr-old returns in 2015 and early signs of success in our 4.0 production point to a turn-around. NSRAA’s chum programs have struggled during the past 7 brood years, especially at Hidden Falls. We are hoping that improved 3-yr-old returns in 2015 and early signs of success in our 4.0 production point to a turn-around.

Note: ranges are Brood years

SiteTrollGillnetSeineSportCRRackTotal Medvejie/ Deep Inlet 9,6323,2523,4551,5742,7256,42027,058 Hidden Falls ,784 Total 10,3783,3704,2541,9412,7257,17429,842 35%11%14%7%9%24%

NSRAA contributed 10,321 Chinook to the SE Alaska Troll Fishery which is 3.8% of the total Chinook catch. Estimated Value = $681,000 NSRAA contributed 10,321 Chinook to the SE Alaska Troll Fishery which is 3.8% of the total Chinook catch. Estimated Value = $681,000

Deep Inlet harvest was 6,919 Chinook in Estimated Value = $433,000 Deep Inlet harvest was 6,919 Chinook in Estimated Value = $433,000

Hidden Falls seine harvest was 678 Chinook in Estimated Value = $53,000 Hidden Falls seine harvest was 678 Chinook in Estimated Value = $53,000

SiteTrollGillnetSeineSportCRRackTotal Deer Lake Cliff Lake 69, ,2932,63656,85312,373143,216 Hidden Falls 15, ,59514,33645,455 Medvejie / Deep Inlet 9, , ,07514,354 Total 94, ,2174,50870,44827,784203,521 47%0.4%3%2%35%14%

2015 Value – includes cooperative chum projects $10.25 million ($8.25 million in 2014) pre- HF assessment adjustment

2015 Value – includes cooperative chum projects $10.25 million ($8.25 million in 2014) pre- HF assessment adjustment

History by gear – includes cooperative chum projects $10.25 million ($8.25 million in 2014) pre- HF assessment adjustment

CR = Regular cost recovery (fish sales only). Assess = Hidden Falls assessment. $102,000 in 2012 / $1,793,000 in 2013 / $364,500 in 2014 / $0.00 in NSE FUND (DIPAC FUNDING) reduced CR significantly for the third year in a row: $1.5 M in 2013 / $2.5 M in 2014 / $2.0 M in 2015

Regular cost recovery (fish sales only) : $714,524 Initial cost recovery harvest at Southeast Cove...Mixed NSRAA and Gunnuk Creek Hatchery Production… We split revenue with State of Alaska Division of Economic Development (DED) based on otolith sampling… NSRAA portion = 21% of total.

Deep Inlet chum – 1,782,000 projection is about 75% of the 2015 return Hidden Falls chum – 1,433,000 projection is about 490% of the 2015 return. Let’s hope the 4.0 data and 3-year-old numbers equate to a large 4- yr-old return in Southeast Cove chum – 165,700 projection. All fry were 4.0’s; strong 3- yr-old return. Haines chum – 31,000 (est. 33,800 in 2015)

Medvejie Chinook – 31,200 projection is about 4,000 fish above 2015 return Hidden Falls Chinook – 5,400 projection is about 2,800 fish above 2015 return

Deer Lake Coho – 150,000 - projection is about 103% of 2015 return Hidden Falls Coho – 194,000 - projection is about 425% of 2015 return Medvejie/Deep Inlet Coho – 62,000 - projection is about 280% of 2015 return Banner Lake (BY 13) fry stocking - 2,000 Cliff Lake (BY12) fry stocking - 2,000 (500 in 2015)

3,3,3H

This otolith mark was on 49% of the chum in the 2015 Deep Inlet/ Bear Cove return. It is the mark put on the DIMV11 group: DI – Medvejie stock – BY This otolith mark was on 49% of the chum in the 2015 Deep Inlet/ Bear Cove return. It is the mark put on the DIMV11 group: DI – Medvejie stock – BY 2011.

Each rearing group is given a unique mark. We found marks from 18 NSRAA release groups in 2015 sampling. Mark ID > 2015 Age Class>

Each rearing group is given a unique mark. We found marks from 18 NSRAA release groups in 2015 sampling. Mark ID > 2015 Age Class> HF stock rel. at DIMed stock rel. at Bear Cove Med stock rel. at DI

?? Questions, Questions ?? 1.What is the contribution of the Hidden Falls stock? 2. What is the contribution of the Medvejie stock at Deep Inlet? Bear Cove? 3. How do survival rates compare for the 4.0 groups vs. the regular groups so far? Is the 4.0 program working? 4. Do any Deep Inlet fish return to the Medvejie Rack? 5. How many Bear Cove released fish are intercepted in the Deep Inlet and Troll fisheries? ?? Questions, Questions ?? 1.What is the contribution of the Hidden Falls stock? 2. What is the contribution of the Medvejie stock at Deep Inlet? Bear Cove? 3. How do survival rates compare for the 4.0 groups vs. the regular groups so far? Is the 4.0 program working? 4. Do any Deep Inlet fish return to the Medvejie Rack? 5. How many Bear Cove released fish are intercepted in the Deep Inlet and Troll fisheries?

?? Questions, Questions ?? 6. What is the age composition of the return? 7. How does the age comp compare with scale aging? 8. Do Bear Cove releases survive at the same rate as Deep Inlet releases for the Medvejie stock? 9. How many non-NSRAA fish are in the fishery? ?? Questions, Questions ?? 6. What is the age composition of the return? 7. How does the age comp compare with scale aging? 8. Do Bear Cove releases survive at the same rate as Deep Inlet releases for the Medvejie stock? 9. How many non-NSRAA fish are in the fishery?

?? QUESTIONS ?? Prior to otolith marking, we could only make educated guesses at best for many of these questions. In most cases we could only speculate. Otolith sampling gives us a much better grasp on what is happening with different stocks, release sites, and rearing strategies as well as insight into the makeup of the fisheries. ?? QUESTIONS ?? Prior to otolith marking, we could only make educated guesses at best for many of these questions. In most cases we could only speculate. Otolith sampling gives us a much better grasp on what is happening with different stocks, release sites, and rearing strategies as well as insight into the makeup of the fisheries.

2015 Hidden Falls stock contribution at Deep Inlet.

2015 Medvejie stock contribution: Bear Cove and Deep Inlet release groups. Note “LL” designates Late-Large or what we call the 4.0 program.

2015 Medvejie stock contribution: Deep Inlet release groups. 1.2 million BY11 fours - Medvejie “Regular” rearing! 146,000 BY12 LL 3-year-old return from 8 million release 58,000 BY12 Reg. 3-year-old return from 22 million release DIMV11 - This single group = 51% of DI return; value estimate of $4.2M, or 41% of total 2015 $10.25M commercial value for all species. DIMV11 –Regular rearing 24.2 million fry 1.55g release size Rel. dates (6) from 4/30- 5/9/2012 DIMV11 –Regular rearing 24.2 million fry 1.55g release size Rel. dates (6) from 4/30- 5/9/2012

2015 Medvejie stock contribution: Bear Cove release groups. 120,000 BY11 fours - Medvejie “Regular” rearing. 78,000 BY11 LL 4-year-old return from 4.6 million release 119,000 BY11 Reg. 4-year-old return from 14.4 million release 77,000 BY12 LL 3-year-old return from 4.6 million release 9,600 BY12 Reg. 3-year-old return from 13.5 million release

2015 Compare 4.0 and Regular release groups Age 3 (BY12) Bear Cove: 9:1 Age 3 (BY12) Deep Inlet: 8:1 Age 4 (BY 11) Deep Inlet 2: Compare 4.0 and Regular release groups Age 3 (BY12) Bear Cove: 9:1 Age 3 (BY12) Deep Inlet: 8:1 Age 4 (BY 11) Deep Inlet 2:1

Rough estimate of final marine survival of BY11 Bear Cove chum based on 4-year-old return.

Other insights: 73 % of Bear Cove fish were caught in the fishery 2% of Deep Inlet fish were caught at the rack

2015 Hidden Falls Despite the poor return, we did gain some insight into rearing strategies.

2015 Hidden Falls 4.0 outperformed regular rearing at both sites for both BYs with 4.0 releases.

2015 Hidden Falls 4.0 outperformed regular rearing at both sites for both BYs with 4.0 releases….by a much wider margin at Takatz.

2015 Hidden Falls Rough estimate of final marine survival for BY11 groups.

Other insights: Takatz fish will find their way back to the hatchery: 57% of the rack fish were Takatz fish.

2015 Hidden Falls Comparison between release sites.

SE COVE First 3-yr olds returned in 2015 Outperformed KAKE BY 12 by a wide margin.

2015 CREW Duncan Coltharp Zachery Papovich Ben Adams