The Tagging, Telemetry & Marking
Techniques Compilation Project

This contract does not require a progress report (final report).

Executive Summary

Fishery managers throughout the Pacific Northwest and beyond currently rely on natural “intrinsic” or human applied “extrinsic” identification methods to distinguish individual animals or groups of animals of interest. The “data” is used in many diverse biological and ecological science and policy forums, and, is consequential in its application. The basic premise certifying either approach relies on the assumption that individual animals are representative of the population from which they originate and thus provide unbiased data within the study design. But, both intrinsic and extrinsic approaches to animal identification have pros and cons. Information can be in improperly applied or imposed resulting in deficient or biased data.

In particular, current programs use a variety of tagging, telemetry and marking techniques to track animals during rearing and migration life phases, but typically answer a limited number, or, individual questions using probability statistics. In some cases, this does do not provide satisfactory information to understand sources of data variability or other factors such as atypical mortality or provide probable causes and corrective actions. Similarly, these programs are unable to provide regionally comparable or spatially relevant information. We are relying on a reasonable and commonly held premise that it is not enough to gather non-comparable data, or, use subregional or individual stock information for regional, population and or fishery management inferences using current designs or methods.

It has been over twenty years since an effort to update the information available on advances in tagging, telemetry and marking techniques. This has created an untenable situation for scientists and management executives. At its core, this confounds efforts to evaluate actions and gauge the effect of regional recovery, mitigation, trust and or enhancement programs. Thus, it is unknown if, or which, methods accurately measure performance benchmarks. Research, monitoring and evaluation is also used to permit specific actions and programs that may threaten viable and sustainable populations or jeopardize species altogether. These evaluations are required under a host of Acts, laws, international treaties, adjudications and voluntary programs. Given these needs and the consequences, we cannot assume that unlike designs and methods provide data of sufficient inferential power to do this. To improve this situation and objectively assess the current state of the science and its implied knowledge, a compilation and review of up-to-date information and an assessment of supplementary and or new methods is a necessary and principled task.

Thus, in 2005, the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership Steering Committee and its Fish Population Monitoring Work Group developed and approved The Tagging, Telemetry & Marking Techniques Compilation project and judged it a high priority. So far we have accepted submittals from over 100 expert practitioners and managers in the First Call for Contributions. This outreach is beginning to provide globally drawn expertise to improve these broadly used technologies and techniques. This effort will continue with expanded requests for case studies, published and unpublished data. We will also use robust database and Networked Information System queries to uncover the largest possible sample. The Critical Path work plan and its appendices that follow this summary describe how this information will be assessed and organized to make it available to regional scientists and others. The compilation is not intended to be proscriptive or propose “standardized” methods. Rather, we will jointly examine the data and its potential over the next 18- months. During this time we will generally continue to prepare for some form of e-publication, report, and or other form of information organization and dissemination process. Thus, the critical need and value of this project is not in question; it is only the final form and format that remains open for definition. The plan is also structured to reveal the best way to do this.

Specifically, the fish population monitoring work group has sequenced milestones and technical products to provide improved information that comports with high level management questions to support current and pending program needs and timelines. Accordingly the Techniques Compilation will describe contemporary methods and protocols for consideration and prospective use in an integrated and regionally comparable set of data products.

The scope of this specific project covers all populations of Pacific Salmon and many marine and resident fishes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia and Northern California. The scale of the project covers over thirty specific population management uses for all state, federal, provincial, tribal, and private agencies and organizations. The techniques and their many possible combinations number in the hundreds. Consequently, the fish population monitoring work group’s integrated analysis and findings are expected to provide high value for future TTM designs.

The scale, as preliminarily assessed, is that tagging, telemetry and/or marking techniques, technology, protocols, and their methods comprise over thirty-one (31) population monitoring divisions/subdivisions. Thus makes up the single most used fish population monitoring tool for contemporary and priority management decisions. Put simply, this is fish population monitoring at the highest level. This need was articulated over six years ago and has been continually validated by managers, researchers, practitioners, professional societies and most, if not all, population monitoring programs.  

In closing, the compilation, investigative and product path outlined in this plan are necessary—perhaps even compulsory, to optimize the use of tagging, telemetry and or marking technology and designs. The findings must then be reviewed and communicated widely. We believe this will improve the opportunity for data collection to provide more reliable information and result in an improved analytical and decision atmosphere.

Keywords: Fish Population Monitoring; Tagging; Telemetry, Marking; Techniques; Methods, Protocols, Technology; Case Studies; Research; Benchmarks and Performance; Genetic Stock Identification; Harvest; Preseason Forecasting; Post Season Evaluation; Escapement; SAR; Hatchery Evaluation; Restoration and Protection Action Effectiveness; Passage; Survival; Analytical Procedures; Status and Trend; ESA, Mitigation; Conservation; Enhancement; Collaboration, and,  Networked Information Sharing Systems.

1. Obtain PNAMP SC concurrence on the final CP/work plan and submit to the ISRP for review (tentatively scheduled for March);
2. Compile current information (e.g. existing and in process documents, publications, web sites, and data bases) on TTM methods, protocols and information management standards;
3. Catalogue compiled information in a structured format organized by PNAMP’s surveyed management questions (FPM workshops 1 & 2);
4. Begin a gap assessment of additional needs based on a review of existing information and its current utility (FPM subcommittee 1); Appendix IV (add names)
5. Identify options for developing a web-based platform for housing the TTM product (FY08). Based upon the findings further explore a regional TTM information resource and coordination tool in FY09.
6. Obtain PNAMP concurrence on the structure and content of a prototype web-based resource.
7. Facilitate development of a FY09 multi-party work plan for review by the ISRP (August 2008). Facilitate review and concurrence on FY09 work by PNAMP and ISRP/AB and others.