PNAMP Fish Population Monitoring Workgroup Worksession
May 24, 2007
NOTES
1. Introduction
a. Denny Rohr - facilitator
b. Jennifer O’Neal and Keith Wolf - PNAMP Fish Population Monitoring (FPM) Workgroup leads
c. Jennifer Bayer - PNAMP Coordinator
d. Attendees
2. Goals and Objectives of PNAMP with respect to Fish Monitoring
a. Help create consistent, comparable, scientifically robust, and accessible data across regional lines
b. History of fish monitoring work and how Tagging, telemetry, and marking (TTM) project started
i. Work on loose ends from Salmonid Field Protocols Handbook (SFPH) – large effort
ii. New books from AFS coming soon
1. Salmonid Field Protocols Handbook – capturing and counting fish population protocols – did not include marking, telemetry, tagging b/c it was too large of an effort.
a. Keith gave presentation to NW Power and Conservation Council regarding SFPH. Also an article in Columbia Basin Bulletin highlights the SFPH, as well as PNAMP’s role
b. Briefing memo to Council written by Steve Waste (link)
2. Analysis and Interpretation of Freshwater Fisheries Data
3. Inland Fish Protocols (coming 2008)
iii. Any way to interface with curriculum at universities? – There is a communication and outreach plan, publish an article in AFS? – will contact AFS education committee regarding promotion.
iv. Additional PNAMP ‘gap analysis’ task to take place later (July 2007?) – Dependent on when people want to get together.
1. Which of the protocols in the SFPH do we think should be adopted and which need more work? – PNAMP willing to facilitate conversation, but this is part of the additional ‘gap analysis’ that will take place later.
c. Cathy Kellon (Ecotrust) – SFPH: 400 page book, 4 dozen fisheries biologists involved in effort, some chapters available free as PDF on State of the Salmon website; end of July- all chapters available free on website. Handbook will be introduced to colleagues in Russia, Japan, etc. ISAB is currently reviewing, may lead to adoption by project sponsors - through the BPA process.
3. Overall goal of the Tagging, Telemetry, Marking (TTM) Project
a. Specific goals of this effort
i. Standardize approaches, become more strategic in using technologies and tools to monitor fish populations, esp. in this era of recovery
ii. Cost-effectiveness
iii. Cross-program coordination
iv. Focus on Columbia Basin and beyond, primarily on anadromous fish, but will stretch to include resident and other (wildlife?) applications
v. Technology
vi. Top down or bottom up approach
vii. Collective wisdom of practitioners
viii. Scoping of process to lead to success - need to deal with issues of prioritization/sequencing - what to do first?
ix. TTM is intentionally linked - often done at the same time
x. Current scope is broad opportunity to identify nuances (smaller issues)
b. How this effort fits with other existing efforts – see next section
c. Funding entities and participant benefits – cost-effectiveness, industry benefits from learning about what people are doing and what researchers need regarding new technologies and will be able to help form solutions
d. Need to start with existing work
e. Question: Is this just about marking and tagging or about why we mark and tag fish? – need input from experts to tell us what and why they do the work. Going to ask you how, when, why – what management questions you are trying to answer. Is work consistent to management questions and high level indicators and are we able to share that data (across tag types and jurisdictions)? What are the commonalities across current monitoring programs?
f. Keep in mind using a representative population (population of interest) of whatever species you are working with.
g. Document should aid people in selecting tool to make management decisions
h. Appropriate gear selection
i. Data access
j. Product(s) - format undecided at this point - series of articles, book, symposium, ???
4. Reports on existing work with respect to TTM
a. Northwest Power and Conservation Council – Steve Waste
i. ISRP has published a retrospective report for use in the 2007-2009 funding round, recommendation that the various tagging technologies be reviewed by the ISAB
ii. Have been short on integration of results from projects and use in decision-making processes for future efforts
iii. Jim Ruff and Steve Waste drafted document about tagging technologies for review by ISAB. Will at some point be published and used by the ISRP during future proposal reviews – will have to provide details on how your proposal connects to the program relevance.
1. Recommend specific type of tags for use in the program
2. Facilitate coordinate
3. Encourage use of new technologies
iv. Ran into TTFG while writing document – Council’s needs are a bit broader, but group is an excellent forum for continuing on after the Council is done with its work.
b. Tagging Technology Focus Group
i. Group came out of ACOE’s Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program, System Configuration Team, needed to prioritize funding for ACOE
1. Managers of group not always familiar with technology used in studies
2. Expanded group to include practitioners for development of white paper
3. Summary of Fish Tagging and Evaluation Techniques Currently Used in the Columbia River Basin
4. Tagging Technology Application to Management Questions Table – what management questions are answered by each technology?
5. How to ensure groups get funding if they do not fit into a specific technology slot? Most important focus is the management question that will be answered. New technologies can be added to document. Management questions/answers are the goal - not tied to the specific technologies. Some questions require coordination and comparable information - need for standardization
ii. Where do the PUDs fit in? They do hire some of the researchers included in the group. Chelan PUD did provide input to paper.
iii. Is the TTM process stepping on the previous efforts of the TTFG? No, focus of TTFG was to educate salmon managers to help recommend research and understand/develop the technologies. Not intended to go into methods, which are the goals of the SFPH and the TTM efforts.
iv. Next steps of the NPCC/TTFG/TTM efforts - show case studies, key programs, examples, interactions between programs (shared data)
1. Hatcheries, passage, tributary productivity
c. Innovative program will benefit from good proposals and hopefully continue
d. FERC, Puget Sound Restoration, HCP’s, PST, PFMC, NOF, SOF, academics, NPCC Power Act, tribal trust, BPA, BiOp, POST, CRFMP, US v WA, Rafeejteee, WA. Forum, OWEB, CMS, Bull Trout, resident and Anadromous fish harvest
e. ACOE in Portland district – survival methods, managed by Brad Eppard. Tag effects study comparing acoustic to PIT tags - biological effects of tagging; establish tagging protocol for fish (surgical) from handling to release - draft out in September 2007; monitoring a fish throughout the entire FCRPS. This forum would be a good place for review.
i. Data management - how and where?
ii. Effort will add to and update Peven et al.
f. Comparative studies in John Day, developed monitoring programs - need to describe to a fine level of detail to reduce differences in protocol implementation; detail in methods was not provided to train staff; need to provide QA/QC (need agency enforcement to adhere to protocols)
g. USGS led telemetry symposium planned for September 2007 national AFS meeting in San Francisco
i. Noah Adams, co-chair with John Beeman
ii. Technology has exploded in the past 15-20 years – working to innovate technology which is driven by management questions that arise in the basin - smaller tags, 3D technology
iii. Need to share info – get many calls regarding how to set up, how to process
1. Intend to put out a book, initial phase will be the symposium
2. Level of information – methods and protocols
3. Concern – exact SOPs and protocols, what about the procedures that cannot be agreed upon – could be a long and tedious process.
4. Dovetail book with PNAMP efforts
h. George Nandor (PSMFC) - October 9-10, 2007 Symposium in at Governor Hotel in Portland – more info to come soon, check their website.
i. Bring people together to educate resource managers of the various types of marking and tagging techniques that exist and what their purpose is; how to answer their management questions based on these techniques.
i. PIT – Dave Marvin (PSMFC) – PIT tag information system (PTAGIS)
i. Have created a way to create consistent, comparable, and accessible data, defined consistent methods
ii. PIT tags – real time management tool, constantly improving the network and technology
iii. Applies primarily to anadromous salmonids (juveniles and adults) throughout the Columbia Basin; multiple entities and jurisdictions using PIT tags
iv. Almost 19 million individual fish have been PIT tagged in the last 20 years at over 700 individual locations throughout the Basin.
v. Strategic approach since beginning of system, provide some coordination which extends to research and development – ensure everything is compatible and that a specific research project does not interfere or it does not interfere with existing technologies, PIT tag Steering Committee formed to plan coordination (48 projects) implementation, regional database of information - PTAGIS (region has trust in PSMFC to handle database, access information in a timely manner), equipment installation and use
vi. Validate data at the point of data collection using PTAGIS software.
vii. PSMFC has a methodology developed for the PIT tag program. Good resource to help start our effort.
viii. Is there room for collaboration to expand tool (P3 marking program and data collection and validation software) so it can be used more widely and incorporate other needs? Go through your SC rep to put requests in, they will review how things apply to Basin. Working on developing P4 software, rebuild software with input from the users.
1. Steve Rentmeester - in the Upper Columbia P3 drives protocol use - goes beyond original intent
ix. Will scope extend into other technologies? Carter Stein would be best person to answer the question. ACOE in discussions regarding an acoustic database - not high priority to make it public though. Same thing for Puget Sound acoustic database.
j. Coded Wire Tags – George Nandor (PSMFC)
i. PSMFC maintains database
ii. Tag has advanced in technology since beginning models – currently using a numeric tag which has lowered error rate in data
iii. ~50 million fish tagged annually on Pacific Coast (40 million are Chinook)
iv. Tags reported as released by agencies and reported as recovered through various recovery programs (sampling rate goal is 20% of adults)
v. Primary use – management of marine fisheries (salmonids), other more local projects
vi. Database available for public use at the Regional Mark Processing Center website – www.rmpc.org - data validated before uploaded, all data shared, includes CWTs released in North America (Pacific Salmon Commission agreement)
vii. NMT coming up with sequential CWTs – could identify individuals with this new tag.
k. Guidelines and Recommended Protocols for Conducting, Analyzing, and Reporting Juvenile Salmonid Survival Studies in the Columbia River Basin (Peven et. al.)
i. Funded by PUDs and ACOE – general guidelines for tools, tagging procedures, analytical framework, and some data management procedures.
ii. Comparative Survival Study (CSS) – BPA funded, where is it at? No one present to discuss. Reports on website - www.cbfwa.org
5. Overview of TTM project scope
a. High need and value of programs - amendments and strategic plans require vetted and combined information.
b. Question – where do we go from here? What is in and out of the box? A lot of high level information exists, but not a lot of continuity to help understand why these programs exist and what their focus is.
c. Is it general like SFPH or very specific to PNW needs?
d. Consensus of problem definition – general coming together of minds and expertise is necessary (Council standpoint), problem – info (program and study design, data management, etc.) exists, but is not accessible
e. We are not the audience, we are the experts giving advice
f. Are we providing a product to help others understand techniques (just educate general public – USGS book) or are we developing a product to standardize techniques across the region? AFS books out that describe techniques, but they are not very detailed – still need extra input from experts regarding how to exactly do studies.
g. Brainstorm session involving all attendees
i. In the box
1. Management questions – general
2. Improving access
3. Generalized explanations of different approaches and how they work - need to know enough about what you did to decide if I can use your information
4. Management question/objective decision tree for new users (matrix – see TTFG table)
a. Logic path – using steps to approach problem (Hillman and DQO e.g.)
b. Pros and cons of each approach
c. Matrix – local vs. regional; survival, abundance, size of fish, duration of tag use
5. Website – Inventory of current projects/programs
a. Who is doing what and where (database) or where to look to determine what is available and a contact to point into right direction
6. Regional TTM
a. Large area
b. Standard methods
c. Analysis
d. Data sharing exists
7. Local TTM
a. Same batch marking
b. Local tag use
c. Low regional value
d. High local value
e. Useful to other developing studies
f. Technique sharing (alcian blue example)
8. Life history behavior
9. Calibration/verification
10. Procedures for using each tool
a. Use a tool as part of verification or validation (small scale) vs. overall how to use that tool; pros & cons, effect on animal, does it violate assumptions
11. Issue of scale
a. Use across scales – same technology, different technology
b. Combination of multiple techniques
c. Programmatic integration - Is it appropriate to use same tagged animal for different specific questions at different scales? And if so, how to do it?