Charles R. Bronte, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California-Nevada Chapter Meeting American Fisheries Society April 2009 A Coordinated Mass Marking Program for Salmonines Stocked Into the Laurentian Great Lakes

Presentation Outline Some facts about the Great Lakes and fisheries management Great Lakes manager’s dilemma (the problem) Need for a comprehensive and cooperative fish marking and recovery system Implementing a fish marking program

Facts about the Great Lakes one-fifth of the world's surface fresh water (95 % US) > 244,000 sq km of water 67,000 sq km in the watershed 17,549 km of shoreline

Facts about the Great Lakes Fish community and fisheries Historical State (before 1950) Lake trout – key stone salmonine predator in all lakes (Atlantic salmon in L. Ontario only) supported by a prey base of a coregonines (Coregonus, Prosopium) comprised of up to 10 different species. Supported early aboriginal subsistence fisheries and later (after 1820) large scale commercial fisheries (lake trout, whitefishes) until overfishing and exotic species (sea lamprey, alewives, and rainbow smelt) disrupted these communities. Fisheries management was very limited -- gear and season restrictions. Stocking was done for enhancement but likely ineffective.

Facts about the Great Lakes Fish community and fisheries Current State (after 1960) Lake trout stocked for restoration supplemented by Pacific salmon (3 species) and brown trout supported by a prey base of non-native alewives and rainbow smelt. Little natural reproduction by lake trout outside Lake Superior and unknown levels of natural reproduction by non-native salmonines. Limited commercial fisheries (lake whitefish), newly developed treaty fisheries, and extensive and economically important sport fisheries ($7 billion) (Chinook salmon). Fisheries management is relatively intensive. Annual sea lamprey control ($17 million US) and salmonine stocking support fisheries, and without either, salmonine predator populations would not exist.

Management jurisdictions in the Great Lakes Countries (2) United States States (8) Minnesota Wisconsin Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Pennsylvania New York Intertribal Groups (2) G. L. Indian Fish and Wildlife Comm. (1842 Treaty) Chippewa/Ottawa Authority (1836 Treaty) Canada Provinces (1) Ontario Intertribal (?)

Coordinated Fisheries Management through A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries Under the auspices of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission

Lake Ontario Committee Lake Erie Committee Lake Huron Committee Lake Superior Committee Lake Michigan Committee Council of Lake Committees Each lake has its own Technical Committee that provides biological recommendations

Hatchery raised & stocked Wild, lake-produced Most fish stocked are not marked so it is difficult to tell them apart. Both fishery managers and anglers desire the ability to discern the two. Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative So what’s the problem?

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative What information will be gained by marking that is not currently available? natural reproduction by non-native salmonines inter-jurisdictional movement the contribution to sport, tribal commercial and subsistence fisheries identify fish that have greatest returns to the fishery accurate year-class classifications improved estimates of growth, survival, and exploitation

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative Why is this information important? Great Lakes fisheries worth more that $7 billion (US) annually. Stocking levels are taxing forage fishes making outcomes of management decisions unpredictable. Wild fish of restoration and conservation significance (lake trout, brook trout) must be distinguished from hatchery counterparts (selective fisheries). Inter-jurisdictional populations require lake/basin wide coordinated efforts; the only way to get the RIGHT answers.

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative The CLC Charge (April 2005) 1)Design an implementation plan for mass marking trout and salmon that refines marking logistics, mark recovery, and information management strategies 2)Design a strategy for coordinating hatchery operations by evaluating the logistics and costs associated with implementing mass marking at hatcheries in each jurisdiction.

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative What is it? A comprehensive, coordinated fish tagging/marking and data recovery program involving all state, tribal, federal, and provincial agencies that stock salmon and trout into the Great Lakes and its tributaries. =

What will it do? Provide tagging/marking services for 30.8 million salmon and trout at 49 hatcheries across the Great Lakes basin, and a system to collect, process, and cooperatively analyze return data to assist agencies in evaluating the economic and biological impact of their stocking programs. Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

What tagging/marking technique will be used and why? Coded-wire tags/adipose fin clips can answer ALL important management questions. Return data is UNAMBIGUOIS. Coded-wire tag Adipose fin-clip Coded-wire tag in the snout of salmon

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative What other techniques were considered? Thermal marking OTC marks Passive Integrated Transponder tags Isotope analysis Manual clipping Manual CWT marking Genetic Most where not selected because of high cost, limited ability to discriminate groups and answer all management questions, low processing rates, or ambiguous results.

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative Autofish – an automated system for handling live juvenile fish without anesthetic Sorts – measures total length and counts Clips – excises the adipose fin Tags – snout tagged with CWT AutoFish SCT Mass Marking Trailer process up to 60,000 fish/8 hr shift. fish are never dewatered 98% or better tag retention 99% or better Ad Clip far superior to manual methods accurate counts

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative Who will do it? U.S. - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Fish and Wildlife Conservation Offices Canada – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

provide an organizational framework to meet the marking and information needs of the partners through the CLC purchase, operate, and maintain mass marking equipment (US) provide experimental design, statistical and data analysis, database management, and tag extraction (head shop) services for all marking studies provide significant manpower to enhance agency efforts to recover heads from ADCWT fish captured in sport fisheries or other sources provide coordination between US and Canada Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative Establish the Great Lakes Fish Marking Laboratory

Council of Lake Committees Great Lakes Regional Marking Committee Great Lakes Fish Marking Laboratory (Wisconsin) Data Standards Committee Field office (Michigan) Ontario Canada Trailer storage (New York/Penn) Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

Program Coordinator 1 Biostatistician1 Database administrator 1 Tag crew supervisor4 Administrative technician 1 Tag crew technicians 10 Part-time assistant technicians 4 Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative Provide overall program coordination (US and Canada), all marking services, head processing, database and programming services, head recovery, experimental design and analytical services, ownership and maintenance of all equipment in US waters. Ontario, Canada will own, operate and maintain their equipment. All technical services (database, head shop, statistician) will be available to them. Total staffing needs

Data Standards Committee made up of data managers/biologists from all agencies that will be responsible for Development of the structure of the relational database that will house all the stocking/marking and recovery data. Development of protocols, for automated data transfer of recovery data from agencies to the basin-wide shared database Development of standard output reports per agency or study plan requirements Overall guidance on data management, security, and sharing activities and capabilities. Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

LAKE SUPERIOR LAKE ONTARIO Federal State Provincial Tribal Ontario Wisconsin Minnesota Illinois Michigan Ohio New York Pennsylvania Indiana Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative How big will the program be? Area = 410,000 sq miles

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative How big will the program be? AgencyFacilities Fish (millions) Michigan DNR68.1 U.S. Fish & Wild. Ser.46.0 Wisconsin DNR94.3 Ontario MNR63.5 New York DEC33.3 NGOs (Ontario)111.8 Pennsylvania BFC31.3 Indiana DNR21.0 Illinois DNR10.8 Minnesota DNR20.3 Ohio DNR10.2 Red Cliff (tribe)10.1 Totals 49 hatcheries 30.8 million fish

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative How big will the program be? Proposed number stocked in the Great Lakes per year SpeciesMillions Chinook salmon 9.3 Lake Trout 8.9 Steelhead 5.6 Coho salmon 2.9 Brown Trout 2.9 Atlantic salmon 0.8 Brook trout 0.3 Splake 0.2 Total30.8 (25.5 US; 5.3 CN)

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative Program element Initial Cost (US millions) Capital equipment $ 15.0 Operations Personnel (perm and temp) $ 2.5 (36%) Travel $ 0.2 ( 9%) Coded wire tags $ 2.2 (33%) Operations/supplies $ 1.5 (22%) Total annual operation costs $ 6.6 Grand total$ 21.5 How much will it cost?

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative Costs adjusted for inflation over 5 yrs Equipment - $12.4 million Operations (fully funded) - $ 7.0 million How much will it cost? An example for US waters only. Actual appropriation

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative