Objectives to support primary objectives of Tagging Forum Charter

1. Originally Objective (D): Describe the various data systems used to organize and track tagging data including recovery information.

2. Originally Objective (E): Describe the degree of coordination within and among tagging efforts and recommend improvements in coordination within and among tagging efforts where efficiencies and cost effectiveness may be improved.

3. Originally Objective (F): What is the objective of each tagging effort and are the right tags being used, or proposed to be used, to accomplish that objective.

4. Originally Objective (G): Review issues related to fish tagging, such as the adequacy of geographic coverage, span of species diversity, adverse biological impacts or completeness of life cycle tracking. The forum could provide recommendations on cost efficient, technologically practical and acceptable changes to current tagging programs.

5. NEW: Description of future considerations related to management questions and related fish tagging efforts.

1. Describe the various data systems used to organize and track tagging data including recovery information

• RMIS-CWT tagging,recovery,bio &sample data• PTAGIS-PIT tagging, recovery, & bio data• Genetic-IDFG&CRITFC develop SNPs• Otoliths- N.Pacific.Anad.Fish Commission• Scales- Co-managers individual databases• Radio & Acoustic – individual agencies for radio tags; – Acoustic COE?

Database Recommendations

• Maintain & improve web-based RMIS & PTAGIS– Data sharing & analysis– Leads to good decision making

• Implement regional web based SNPs database for data sharing

• Link regional web-databases (PTAGIS, RMIS, SNPs)

• All are consistent with ISRP recommendations

2. Describe the degree of coordination within and among tagging efforts and recommend improvements

in coordination within and among tagging efforts where efficiencies and cost effectiveness may be

improved

• Tagging coordination– CWTIT, PTAGIS steering committee– Management decision & local coordination

• No programmatic tagging coordination– F&W program based on subbasin plans & projects– F&W program structure does not support programmatic

coordination

Coordination Recommendations• Improve coordination, reduce redundancy, ensure

adequate sample sizes– Develop PIT & CWT tags forecasting system for Columbia

Basin and engage manager/researchers in processes – Basin Tagging Framework & Expert Tagging Panel (ISRP)

• Improved documentation & accountability of tagging programs– Documentation of study designs (ISRP)

• MonitoringMethods.org• Accountability of tagging costs (from this process) – Better define tagging Work Elements and costs– PISCES, CBFish.org

4. Review issues related to fish tagging, such as the adequacy of geographic coverage, span of species diversity, adverse biological impacts or completeness of life cycle tracking. The forum could

provide recommendations on cost efficient, technologically practical and acceptable changes to current tagging programs

• It is generally accepted there are adverse affects from tagging. However, these affects vary greatly depending on the tag type, fish size and condition, biological and environmental factors, tagging procedures, etc.

• For ESA listed populations, NOAA issues annual “take” permits to allow tagging and co-managers have permitting process for capture and tagging of non-listed fish.

• Tables for geographic coverage and species coverage by tag type

• Notes on life cycle modeling

2011 CWT Released by Region (ESU) and Species

CWT tagging is broadly spread across species and regionsTag # are highest for Chinook, Coho, and SteelheadChum too small for CWT so they are otolith marked

Region Spring CK Summer CK Fall CK Coho

Sockeye

Chum S. Stlhd W. Stlhd Totals

Below Bonneville L Col 33,574 NA 11,917 7,891 NA 0 0 4,083 57,465

Bonneville - McNary M Col 120,325 NA 60,274 661 760 NA 44,768 6,222 233,010

Snake R Basin Snake 391,091 148,049 656,956 14,981 68,147 NA 329,520 NA 1,608,744

Above McNary U Col 189,207 141,023 59,113 112,533 10,458 NA 172,084 NA 684,418

Totals: 734,197 289,072 788,260 136,066 79,365 0 546,372 10,305 2,583,637

2011PIT tags Release by Region (ESU) and Species

Few PIT tags (2%) released < BON, no infrastructurePIT more viable in Willamette with Willamette Falls infrastructureMost Fall Ck and Chum too small to PIT tagPIT tags are used in life cycle modeling most useful for yearlings (Spring CK, Coho, Sockeye, and Steelhead)

Don’t Have Genetic Table

• Tagging initiated in Snake• Expanding to other areas > BON• Not much genetic tagging below BON

Tagging Issues Recommendations• Benefits from tagging (i.e. answering a

management questions) should consistent with the impacts to that population (adverse biological impacts).

• ISRP recommends tagging effect studies to address adverse biological impacts

• Consider life cycle monitoring sites with PIT tagging and instream arrays below BON for select populations in Intensively Monitored Watershed. Link life cycle monitoring to habitat or change in habitat conditions.

5. Description of future considerations related to management questions and

related fish tagging efforts• Currently there are management questions that are challenging

to answer with current tag technologies & resources -small fish, estuary, predation, etc.

• Genetics has been identified as the tag technology with the most potential

• Need to allow for innovation in study design and technology development

• Need allow data sharing, streamline report, and timely use in adaptive management processes

• Improve coordination to reduce redundancy and ensure adequate sample sizes

Ocean CWT Recoveries

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum* Steelhead Totals

2011 6,958 2,577 1 0 4 9,540

2010 8,832 1,472 0 0 1 10,305

2009 5,364 4,364 2 0 9 9,739

2008 4,941 692 2 0 7 5,642

2007 4,502 2,763 4 0 1 7,270

Totals: 30,597 11,868 9 0 22 42,496

Recommendation: Reduce coded wire tagging of steelhead and sockeye because they are not harvested or sampled in the ocean. However, some coded wire tagging of these species may be necessary for specific research projects and hatchery evaluations.

* Chum salmon are generally not CWT due to small size