4. Nisqually Chinook
Annual Review
• Live
▫ Mark status
▫ Sex
• Dead
▫ Species, Length, Sex
▫ Mark Status, CWTs, Jaw Tags
▫ Biological Data
fin clip (genetic stock ID)
otoliths (habitat use)
scales (age composition)
GPS and egg retention
• Redd
mark and record location
4
Spawning surveys-methods
8. Nisqually Chinook
Annual Review
8
Add other carcass
locations +jaw tag
Jaw Tag Recoveries
12.5 (Weir)
22% of non-marked fish recovered above
weir were jaw tagged.
11. Nisqually Chinook
Annual Review
Estimation of sport catch
• Creel Survey Data
▫ CWT recoveries
▫ Mark vs. Unmark (retained
and released)
▫ Age composition (scales)
▫ Genetic Stock ID (tissue
samples)
• Catch Record Card Data
▫ Species retained
▫ Mark status
11
Error associated with traditional method
Hoped to use the weir to achieve a direct estimate of escapement
1979 to current
2.5 accounts for the fact that more fish are seen in Mashel than Nisqually
6.81 is the expansion factor for the rest of the river.
Without 100% efficiency and no jaw tags we were forced to do the CIR
Uses mulitiple sources of data but also reflects the population size observed in the sport fishery
Past modeling efforts and policy decisions have relied on the traditional method.
Can’t compare to base years.
Spawning survey escapement estimate has issues. Highlighted in years where redd counts are greater than live counts.
Spawning surveys UMNT 26.1% marked 73.9% Include Table of HOR and NORs