1. Effects of PIT tagging upstream migrating adult Columbia Basin Sockeye Salmon Jeffrey K. Fryer, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Skyeler Folks, Richard Bussanich, and Howie Wright, Okanagan Nation Kim Hyatt, Canada Department of Fisheries and Ocieans Jen Miller, Confederated Colville Tribes

2. Background CRITFC has been sampling adult salmonids at Bonneville Dam (and other sites) since 1985. Recent years have seen an increased demand for sampling driven by Accords-funded CRITFC projects and data users (e.g. fisheries managers). At the same time, we have received increased scrutiny and regulation, decreasing sample sizes (and increasing biases?), particularly at higher water temperatures.

3. Regulator concerns based on possible impacts of sampling/tagging Impact on non-target fish as a result of trapping (both in traps and bypassed) Impact on sampled fish: Increased mortality (immediate and delayed)* Spawning success

4. Oregon Shore Fish Counting and PIT tag detection Washington Shore Fish Counting and PIT tag detection Bonneville Dam X X Adult Fish Facility

8. Bonneville Dam sampling Anesthetize adults using Aqui-S. Scale sample for age analysis. Length measurement. Assess for condition and fin clips. PIT tag (if not already PIT tagged). Allow to recover and volitionally release.

9. How to assess Bonneville sampling impacts? 1. Immediate mortality. 2. Sockeye not detected after release. 3. Conversion rate to upstream dams compared to conversion rates of Sockeye Salmon tagged as juveniles passing Bonneville Dam. (Virtually 100% go through at least 5 dams with PIT tag arrays in their return migration to natal areas.)

10. 1. Immediate Mortality 2011201220132014Total Sampled766163679914204621 Mortalities204511 Rate0.3%0.0%0.5%0.4%0.2%

12. 2. Sockeye Not Detected after Tagging at AFF 2011201220132014Combined Tagged (12 mm) and released 623161279114124439 Not subsequently Detected 101119743 Rate 1.6%0.7%2.4%0.5%1.1% Non-detections could be due to the following: Mortality (but we see very few tagged dead sockeye at the AFF) Mortality (but we see very few tagged dead sockeye at the AFF) Sockeye not passing counting station PIT tag arrays (upper BO1 or BO4). These fish could have passed through the navigation locks or gone downstream, bypassing BO3 antennas. Sockeye not passing counting station PIT tag arrays (upper BO1 or BO4). These fish could have passed through the navigation locks or gone downstream, bypassing BO3 antennas. Shed or defective tags. Shed or defective tags. We are hoping to add a PIT tag antenna to the AFF exit fishway prior to 2015 tagging. We are hoping to add a PIT tag antenna to the AFF exit fishway prior to 2015 tagging.

13. 3. Bonneville-McNary Dam Sockeye Conversion Rate

14. 3. Bonneville Dam-The Dalles Sockeye Conversion Rate

15. Acoustic and Temperature Tagging at Wells Dam

16. Sockeye tagging (2010-2014) Under Columbia Basin Accords BPA-funded project, we PIT tag adults at Bonneville Dam and PIT, acoustic (Vemco V9), Floy, and temperature disc tag at Wells Dam. Track the Sockeye upstream to our OKC in-stream array in Canada which detects about 90% of passing Sockeye Salmon.

17. 2010 807 tags 400 tags Past Wells Detected at OKC: Bonneville tagged: 75.8% Wells PIT+Floy: 73.7% Survival decrease: 2.8% Selective Harvest Rates (Wells-Zosel): Tribal: 5.6% Sport(?): 3.7%

18. Wells-OKC 2010 Tagging LocationTags AppliedN WEL-OKC conv. rate Survival decrease WellsFloy+PIT30173.7%2.8% WellsFloy+Temp+PIT3755.1%27.3% WellsFloy+Acoustic+PIT6259.4%27.8% WellsFloy+Temp+Acoustic+PIT1563.4%16.4% BonnevillePIT41375.8%- Percentage passing Wells Dam last detected downstream of Wells: Bonneville tagged: 0.3% Wells tagged: 1.5%

19. 2011 747 tags 576 tags Past Wells Detected at OKC: BON tagged: 76.0% WEL PIT+Floy: 72.3% Survival decrease: 4.9% Selective Harvest Rates (Wells-Zosel): Tribal: 0.7% Sport(?): 2.6%

20. Wells-OKC 2011 Tagging LocationTagging RegimeN WEL-OKC conv. rate Survival decrease WellsFloy+PIT32272.3%4.9% WellsFloy+Temp+PIT19565.9%13.3% WellsFloy+Acoustic+PIT5970.1%7.8% BonnevillePIT34076.0%- Percentage passing Wells Dam last detected downstream (all fish): Bonneville tagged: 1.7% Wells tagged: 1.7% (4.7% not detected) Switched ladders at Wells Dam: Bonneville tagged: 1.7% Wells tagged: 15.7%

21. 2012 All Sockeye tagged at Wells were required to be released upstream of the dam. Using assistance from the Colville Tribe, we add tagging at Priest Rapids Dam.

22. 2012 1597 tags 769 tags Wells-OKC: BON tagged: 41.4% WEL PIT+Floy: 41.8% PRD PIT+Floy: 44.1% Survival Decrease: PRD: -6.5% WEL: -1.0% (5.2%) Selective Harvest Rates (Wells-Zosel): Tribal: 4.1%/5.0% Sport(?): 12.8% 751 tags

23. Wells-OKC 2012 Tagging LocationTagging RegimeN WEL-OKC conv. rate Survival decrease WellsFloy+PIT70941.8%-1.0%/5.2% WellsFloy+Acoustic+PIT6038.8%6.3% Priest RapidsFloy+PIT56244.1%-6.5% BonnevillePIT100141.4%- RIS JuvenilePIT4546.7%- % passing Wells Dam last detected downstream: Wells tagged (released upstream): 0.8% Priest Rapids tagged: 0.1% Bonneville tagged: 0.4%

24. Wells-OKC 2013 Tagging LocationTagging RegimeN WEL-OKC Conv. Rate Survival decrease WellsFloy+PIT69454.8%3.2% WellsFloy+Acoustic+PIT6146.1%15.9% WellsFloy+Temperature+PIT1353.9%93.0% BonnevillePIT40057.0%- RIS JuvenilePIT3871.1%- % passing Wells Dam last detected downstream: Wells tagged (released upstream): 3.6% Bonneville tagged: 1.3%

25. Tagging Impacts Summary Bonneville: Minimal Priest Rapids: Minimal Wells: 5.2% (comparison to 2012 PRD tagged Sockeye) Wells acoustic tags: 6-28% Wells temperature tags: 13-28%

26. Other considerations in estimating tagging impacts Tag impact also includes sampling impact which may differ from site to site. (Priest Rapids and Bonneville traps require less handling than Wells and have recovery areas with volitional release. Wells tagged fish are trucked upstream and released into shallow [warm] water.) Sockeye tagged at Wells dams are more mature than those at Priest Rapids and Bonneville dams, possibly affecting survival. Tagging at Priest Rapids and Wells also includes Floy tagging which may lead to additional tagging impacts. In addition, this opens up the issue of fishery selectivity. Traps at dams may also be selective for some particular trait which may affect comparisons. (For instance, the Wells trap selects for larger Sockeye.)

27. Acknowledgements Cory Kamphaus, Keely Murdoch, Greg Robison, Barry Hodges, and Tim Jeffris (YN), John Arterburn and Casey Baldwin (CCT), Crystal Chulik, Jason Five Crow, Buck Jones, Denise Kelsey, Agnes Strong, John Whiteaker, and others (CRITFC), Tom Kahler (DPUD), Chris Carlson (GPUD), and Josh Murauskas (AnchorQEA). Funding provided by BPA (through the Columbia Basin Accords) and the Pacific Salmon Commission.

28. PIT tagging impact on the Wells to OKC conversion rate 2010-2013 Fishery Year Tagging Location Conversion Rate Decrease Tribal (selective)Sport (?) 2010Wells2.8%5.6%3.7% 2011Wells4.9%0.7%2.6% 2012Wells-1.0%4.1%12.7% 2012Priest Rapids-6.5%4.1%12.7% 2013Wells3.2%

29. Temperature and acoustic tagging impact on Wells to OKC conversion rates 2010-2013 YearRegime Conversion Rate Decrease Fishery Tribal (selective) Sport (?) 2010Floy+Temp+PIT27.3%5.6%3.7% 2010Floy+Acoustic+PIT27.8% 2010Floy+Temp+Acoustic+PIT16.4% 2011Floy+Temp+PIT13.3%0.7%2.6% 2011Floy+Acoustic+PIT7.8% 2012Floy+Acoustic+PIT6.3%4.1%12.8% 2013Floy+Acoustic+PIT15.9%