Mass Marking and Electronic Recovery of CWTs In the Pacific Northwest Ron Olson Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Olympia Washington

Background Purpose Provide for Mark Selective Fisheries Provide for Mark Selective Fisheries Hatchery Broodstock Management Hatchery Broodstock Management  Brood selection for maintaining genetic fitness  Monitor hatchery/wild ecological interactions Requirements ESA listed hatchery broodstock management ESA listed hatchery broodstock management WA State legislative directives (1997 & 1998) WA State legislative directives (1997 & 1998) Federal mandate (2003 & 2004) Federal mandate (2003 & 2004)

Adipose Fin “Mass Marking”

Annual Hatchery Production Coho 50 million 50 million S. British Columbia, Washington, Oregon S. British Columbia, Washington, OregonChinook 150 million 150 million Washington, Oregon, Idaho Washington, Oregon, Idaho

Complications – The CWT System

CWT Program Vital to Salmon Management Fully integrated tagging, sampling and recovery program – California to Alaska Fully integrated tagging, sampling and recovery program – California to Alaska Only method to estimate and monitor coast wide fishery exploitation rates on individual stocks of coho and Chinook salmon Only method to estimate and monitor coast wide fishery exploitation rates on individual stocks of coho and Chinook salmon Without the CWT programs we would be virtually blind to fishery impacts and unable to separate fishery from marine survival effects Without the CWT programs we would be virtually blind to fishery impacts and unable to separate fishery from marine survival effects - Morishima 2007

Pacific Salmon Treaty The parties of the PST agree to maintain the CWT program to evaluate fishery regimes and monitor stock rebuilding The parties of the PST agree to maintain the CWT program to evaluate fishery regimes and monitor stock rebuilding Fishing regimes for Chinook and coho are based on constraining Exploitation Rates for naturally spawning populations Fishing regimes for Chinook and coho are based on constraining Exploitation Rates for naturally spawning populations CWT groups representative of natural stocks are tagged and released for a region wide PSC Indicator Stock Program CWT groups representative of natural stocks are tagged and released for a region wide PSC Indicator Stock Program

The Challenge Implement a region wide hatchery marking program Implement a region wide hatchery marking programand Maintain the capabilities of the CWT system in the presence of Mass Marking (MM) and Mark-Selective Fisheries (MSF) Maintain the capabilities of the CWT system in the presence of Mass Marking (MM) and Mark-Selective Fisheries (MSF)

The Approach Change the regional designation of the adipose mark Change the regional designation of the adipose mark Gear up to mark 150 million fish Gear up to mark 150 million fish Convert to Electronic Tag Detection to recover CWTs Convert to Electronic Tag Detection to recover CWTs Implement a “Double-Index Tag” program to measure the impacts of MSFs on wild stocks Implement a “Double-Index Tag” program to measure the impacts of MSFs on wild stocks

Double Index Tagging The Indicator Stock contains two tag groups. The two groups are identical except : And the other is unmarked One tag code is marked This group now represents wild fish Use difference between marked and unmarked returns to estimate total MSF mortality of unmarked fish

Challenges in Mass Marking Region-wide Hatchery Production Timing of Marking Timing of Marking Minimum fish size and limited window Minimum fish size and limited window 5 month marking season 5 month marking season Labor and Equipment Labor and Equipment More efficient trailer designs and new technology More efficient trailer designs and new technology Costs Costs

New Fin Clipping Trailers Crew of 12 – ,000 fish / day

Fin Clipping Stations with Counting System

Clipping Crew

“Automatic” Trailers Crew of 0 – ,000 fish/day (w/o crew)

“AutoFish” System Technology

Skilled Operators

Current Investment in MM Trailers Type # Units Approx. Cost Total $ Manual Clipping 23$70,000 $ 1,610,000 Automatic21$1,000,000 $ 21,000,000 Total Cost for Region = $ 22,610,000 $ 22,610,000

Proposed Chinook Marking for 2009 (Washington and Oregon)

Annual Mass Marking Costs ( direct costs w/Automatic trailers ) 1 ODFW, 2002 SpeciesActivity # Fish (mill) (# stocks) Application Cost/1,000 1 Cost CohoMarking38.2 $ 26 $ 993,200 DIT 0.95 (21) $ 113 $107,350 ChinookMarking101.7 $ 26 $2,644,200 DIT 3.4 (17) $ 113 $384,200 Total Cost = $4,128,950

Electronic CWT Detection Electronic Tag Detection (ETD) Equipment Electronic Tag Detection (ETD) Equipment How well does it work ? How well does it work ? Costs Costs Impacts to Agency Sampling Programs Impacts to Agency Sampling Programs

The “Wand” Detector

Feasibility of the Wand Method of choice in situations with low fish numbers or undeveloped sites Method of choice in situations with low fish numbers or undeveloped sites No calibration required No calibration required Very portable Very portable Cost = $5,000 (US) Cost = $5,000 (US)

The “Tube” or “Tunnel” Detector

Feasibility of the Tube Practical use is limited to high volume sites with level ground and clean fish Practical use is limited to high volume sites with level ground and clean fish Equipment calibration is critical Equipment calibration is critical Automatic sorting and counting capability Automatic sorting and counting capability Staging adaptations (e.g. tote lifts and custom tables may be necessary to reduce time and labor) Staging adaptations (e.g. tote lifts and custom tables may be necessary to reduce time and labor) Cost = $29,700 (US) Cost = $29,700 (US)

Results of 1996 Wand Tests on Coho Sampling Type Fish Sampled CWTsDetection Rate (%) % False Detections NWIFC Hatchery 2, NWIFC Comm. 1, NWIFC Stream WDFW Hatchery 35,4171, WDFW Comm. 1, WDFW Sport 1, Totals Totals42,9032,682 mean = 99.1 or 97.0 or 97.0 Mean = 0.4 or 1.1 or 1.1

Results of 1996 Tube Tests on Coho Sampling Type Fish Sampled CWTsDetection Rate (%) % False Detections CDFO Hatchery 3, CDFO Comm. 12, NWIFC Hatchery 1, NWIFC Comm. 2, WDFW Hatchery 26, WDFW Comm. 1, Totals Totals47,2351,732 mean = 99.2 or 98.2 or 98.2 Mean = 0.9 or 1.5 or 1.5

Early Chinook Wanding Studies

Chinook Mouth Wanding

Results of Chinook Mouth Wanding Studies % Detections Study# CWTs Standard Wanding Combined Wanding Tube Detector WDFW, 2001 Hatchery 1, NWIFC, 2001 Hatchery ADFG, Troll 2, CDFO, Gill net CDFO, 2006 Troll CDFO, Spawning ground

Current Agency Investment in ETD Equipment Type # Units Cost 1 Total $ Wands800 $5,000 $5,000 $ 4,000,000 Tubes114$29,700 $ 3,385,800 Total Investment = $ 7,385,800 $ 7,385,800 1 Current cost per unit

CWT Sampling Methods RegionFisheryMethod AlaskaAllVisual British ColumbiaCommercial CohoElectronic / Visual Sport CohoVisual - Voluntary Commercial ChinookElectronic / Visual Sport ChinookVisual - Voluntary WashingtonAllElectronic IdahoAllElectronic Columbia RiverAllElectronic Oregon CoastCohoElectronic ChinookVisual CaliforniaAllVisual

Projected Number of BY 2008 MM Chinook to be Encountered by Visual CWT Sampling Programs State/Province # Fish Encountered Alaska10,000 British Columbia 25,400 California9,300

Summary Logistical issues of MM hatchery production have been met. Logistical issues of MM hatchery production have been met. Mass Marking is now an integral component of NW hatchery production. Mass Marking is now an integral component of NW hatchery production. DIT component has not had the necessary funding support outside of Washington State DIT component has not had the necessary funding support outside of Washington State

Summary Cont. ETD Equipment High detection rates High detection rates Expensive for agencies to gear up Expensive for agencies to gear up Challenges for processing plants Challenges for processing plants Sampling Issues CWT sampling more labor intensive for all agencies. CWT sampling more labor intensive for all agencies. Current geographical range of ETD limited. Current geographical range of ETD limited. Sampling rates may be impacted for agencies using visual sampling. Sampling rates may be impacted for agencies using visual sampling.

Summary of Costs for Current Marking and Sampling One Time Costs Marking Trailers = $ 22,610,000 Marking Trailers = $ 22,610,000 ETD Equipment = $ 7,385,800 ETD Equipment = $ 7,385,800 Total = $ 29,995,800 Annual Direct Costs Mass Marking = $ 4,128,950 Mass Marking = $ 4,128,950 DIT Groups = $ 491,550 DIT Groups = $ 491,550 DIT Processing = $ 384,700 1 DIT Processing = $ 384,700 1 Add. Sampling = $ 524,300 1 Add. Sampling = $ 524,300 1 Total = $ 5,529,500 Total = $ 5,529,500 Agency Program Costs $ / 1,000 fish 2 1 From Bowhay, USFWS and WDFW, 2007

Summary Cont. Mass Marking has provided fishery managers and enhancement biologists with powerful new tools: Mass Marking has provided fishery managers and enhancement biologists with powerful new tools: MSFs MSFs Differentiation of Hatchery and Wild fish Differentiation of Hatchery and Wild fish

Summary Cont. “Mass marking of hatchery fish by removing adipose fins should not be permitted until assurances are received from substantially affected jurisdictions that CWTs will be electronically sampled.” Recommendation of PSC Selective Fishery Evaluation, 1995 Unfortunately, CWT programs, DIT programs, and CWT sampling programs are no longer adequately synchronized between NW agencies.

The End