Transcript Coordination of Tag and Mark Recovery Programs

Coordination of Tag and Mark
Recovery Programs
Dan Rawding
WDFW
Mark & Tag Recovery
Coordination
• Except for recent advances in PIT tag
infrastructure at mainstem dam and tributary or
instream array, the CWT recovery platform has
been used to collect data for genetic marker and
PIT tag programs
• CWT recovery platform has two distinct parts: 1)
Fisheries Sampling, and 2) Spawning Ground
Recoveries at hatcheries & for hatchery fish that
spawning naturally (in the river).
CWT Coordination
•
•
•
•
•
Management
Implementation of Recovery
Data Sharing (RMIS)
Pros and Cons
Thoughts on tag and mark technologies
CWT Management Coordination
• Pacific Salmon Treaty & US vs. Oregon Allocation
• ESA incidental harvest rates
– NOAA developed recovery exploitation rates (RERs) that are
consistent with salmon recovery
• Run-reconstruction/Pre-season &Post-season review
– Forecasts developed by Co-managers
– North of Falcon Process for coastwide annual coordinated
salmon management (conservation & fishing opportunity)
– Compare pre-season forecast & allocation with actual
• In-season management
– Columbia R fishery CWT sampling and dam & trap counts
(conservation & fishing opportunity)
• PIT tags are now part of forecast & Inseason
management because time series is long enough and tag
groups are large enough
CWT Recovery
• CWT recovery is most commonly based on
dead fish including harvested fish, fish
taken for broodstock, and carcasses from
fish that have spawned in the river.
• However, tag recovery in some cases is
based on sampling of live fish scanned for
CWT presence (Cowlitz @ Barrier Dam).
• Tagging recovery goals are to sample ~20%
of the population
Harvest Implementation Coordination
• Tributary fishery sampling is done by co-managers for
their individual fisheries (Kalama-WDFW, ClackamasODFW, Klickitat Dip Net -YN). Some difference in
tributary fishery sampling depending on funding levels
• Columbia River (mouth to MCN) CWT sampling is
coordinated between entities (States & Tribes) to provide
spatial and temporal coverage, cost-effective (no overlap
or duplicative effort), etc.
• Similar coordination on other multi-state rivers such as the
Snake and Grande Ronde
• Col. R. Fishery sampling (often referred to as the CWT
sampling program) is responsible for collecting all tag and
genetic marker data.
• Regardless of what tag or marker types are recommended
by the tagging forum a mainstem Columbia River sampling
crew is needed to meeting fishery sampling needs PST, US
vs. Oregon, BiOP RPA, etc.
CWT Spawning Implementation Coordination
• Hatchery Sampling
– Goal is to sample all fish returning to hatcheries for CWT;
therefore hatchery are often sampled near 100%
– Management Agency operating hatchery responsible for adult
CWT recovery
• Natural Spawn (River Sampling)
– Not all hatchery fish return to a hatchery or are captured by a
hatchery weir. In some cases significant spawning of hatchery
fish occurs in rivers and CWT recovery is needed on spawning
grounds
– Generally similar approaches of CWT recovery & bio-sampling
on spawning ground surveys, although different methods may
be used to estimate escapement (redds, peak count, markrecapture, etc.). CWT & abundance collected concurrently.
• Since spawning fish often expel PIT tags, PIT tag recoveries are
based on in-stream detectors not carcasses
CWT Completeness
• If fisheries and spawning grounds are not sampled,
then some CWT are unaccounted for.
– If fisheries are not sampled harvest & hatchery survival
estimates are biased low.
– If major spawning areas (hatchery or rivers) are not
sampled harvest & survival estimates are biased high
• If representative populations are not CWT tagged
fish from those populations are not directly
accounted for in fisheries.
• Lack of sampling and tagging leads to policy
implications for conservation, recovery, harvest
sharing, and hatchery evaluation
• Pros
Coded-Wire-Tags
• Pros
– Coordinated coastwide monitoring
– Current Col R. CWT fishery
program with database (RMIS).
program is used for PIT tag and
Proven technology and accepted by
marker sampling
fishery managers in all harvest
– Tool for hatchery salmon evaluation
forums
(survival -SAR, straying)
– Low cost of tags (10 cents) and
• Cons
tagging effort & only current
coordinated source of annual ocean
– Batch mark so can not track
harvest & distribution
individuals (PBT or PIT)
– Tag very small fish (40mm) &
– Tags are recovered from snouts of
minimal tag effects
dead fish prevents non-lethal
– Recovery from dead fish (fishery,
sampling (genetic or PIT)
spawning areas – carcasses) &
– Coarse spatial scale of information
integrated into VSP or escapement
in Col R compared to PIT tags.
monitoring
Does not take advantage of
– Infrastructure are tagging and
Columbia River adult & juvenile
sampling crews
PIT tag infrastructure
– Inseason updates by week
– CWT hatchery fish are used as
surrogates for wild fish harvest
– Provide known ages and origins for
(DIT groups)
reference to age and genetic analysis
CWT Summary
• CWT is currently the only tagging or marking
technology with ongoing coastwide application to
salmon fisheries
• For species with significant ocean fisheries such
as fall Chinook, coho, & some spring Chinook
populations, it is difficult to provide an immediate
replacement for CWT
• For other salmon populations, with negligible
ocean harvest (steelhead, chum, some Chinook
populations), it is possible to use other tag and
marker technologies to estimate harvest &
hatchery management needs in the Columbia
River
CWT Summary (Continued)
• Other technologies are possible but coastwide &
international agreements would be need in the
next PST
• Since many troll and some sport fish are cleaned
before being sampled at a port, PIT tags are lost
prior to sampling. In these cases, it is a challenge
to estimate harvest based on PIT tags.
• Currently, there is not the infrastructure for
genetic markers for fine population scale
monitoring of ocean harvest and this would
require a substantial investment in infrastructure
(coastwide genetic baseline & database) and
analysis of genetic markers is more costly than
CWT
CWT Management Questions
• Harvest - ocean, estuary, freshwater
• Hatchery evaluation especially for salmon
because of carcass recoveries on spawning
grounds
• Ocean distribution & survival
• It will be difficult to answer Ocean
management questions with PIT tags
Mark & Tag Programs
• Mark and tag programs are complimentary. If tag/mark recovery
designs use the same population units, maximum likelihood
theory or other statistical techniques can be used to combine all
information (CWT, PIT, genetic markers) into a single estimate.
• There may be different tag/mark strategies by species or different
geographic area depending on management questions, costeffectiveness, and infrastructure.
• There is little PIT tag infrastructure below BON but there are
recent efforts on the Willamette. PIT tag cost-effectiveness
benefits from infrastructure, while CWT programs are very costeffective with little infrastructure except tagging trailers & CWT
labs.
• Regardless of what tag or marker types are recommended by the
tagging forum a mainstem Columbia River sampling crew is
needed to meet fishery sampling needs.
• Spawning ground crews, with a primary purpose to recovery
CWT and estimate abundance are often used to collect genetic
baselines.
CWT Recovery Estimates
• Estimate of the population
– # of fish returning to a hatchery
– # of spawners in a river
– # of fish caught in a fishery
• Fraction sampled from a representative
sample
– # of fish sampled / population estimate
• # of CWT in population
– # of fish detected with CWT / fraction sampled