1. The Use of Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) Tags as a Tool to Monitor and Manage Steelhead John Cassinelli Carl Stiefel Regional Fisheries Biologists Idaho Department of Fish and Game LSRCP Program Review Clarkston, Washington June 20 th and 21 st, 2012

2. PIT tags came on the market in 1987 and PTAGIS was implemented in 1991 PIT tags came on the market in 1987 and PTAGIS was implemented in 1991 Brief History

3. PIT tags came on the market in 1987 and PTAGIS was implemented in 1991 Through 1990’s and early 2000’s, PIT tags were mainly used to assess juvenile survival Through 1990’s and early 2000’s, PIT tags were mainly used to assess juvenile survival – Some exceptions like the CSS study Brief History

4. PIT tags came on the market in 1987 and PTAGIS was implemented in 1991 Through 1990’s and early 2000’s, PIT tags were mainly used to assess juvenile survival – Some exceptions like the CSS study In more recent years, PIT tags have been more readily used in evaluating returning adult numbers and behavior In more recent years, PIT tags have been more readily used in evaluating returning adult numbers and behavior Brief History

5. Current PIT Tag Uses in Steelhead

6. PIT Tag Uses in Juveniles

7. Juvenile survival estimates and travel times from release to LGD Juvenile survival estimates and travel times from release to LGD HatcheryRelease GroupStock PIT-tagged Fish Released Release Date 50% Passage Date 80% Arrival Window (# Days) % Survival (95% CI) Clearwater Newsome CreekDWOR 3,5914/11-4/185/154/28 - 6/274.7 (± 4.1) Peasley CreekDWOR 5,1954/155/94/21 - 5/2081.1 (± 2.5) DWOR 2,0984/154/284/20 - 5/1683.2 (± 3.9) SFCLW 11,2774/155/104/21 - 5/2280.3 (± 1.7) SFCLW 3,9874/15-4/155/104/21 - 5/2380.5 (± 2.6) Red House HoleDWOR 7,6744/12-4/134/214/17 - 5/1181.8 (± 1.6) HagermanUpper East Fork Salmon RiverEFNAT 6,9815/3-5/55/195/13 - 6/579.9 (± 4.1) NationalSawtooth WeirSAW 13,4094/13-4/295/94/29 - 5/1682.8 (± 2.5) Yankee ForkSAW 4,0705/6-5/165/265/19 - 6/1277.9 (± 4.5) Yankee ForkSAW 4,1425/6-5/165/295/17 - 6/1572.3 (± 4.3) Magic ValleyColston CornerPAH 2,0954/6-4/85/124/25 - 5/871.6 (± 4.3) Little Salmon RiverDWOR 3,9814/12-4/145/134/29 - 5/2785.0 (± 3.1) PAH 3,6784/8-4/125/104/21 - 5/2285.7 (± 2.7) Lower East Fork Salmon RiverDWOR 4,9834/14-4/185/145/9 - 5/2372.1 (± 3.9) McNabb PointSAW 2,0934/22-4/255/105/3 - 5/1587.1 (± 5.8) Pahsimeroi WeirDWOR 1,7954/265/125/9 - 5/2183.9 (± 5.9) USAL 5,3714/26-4/275/125/8 - 5/2189.3 (± 3.8) Red RockPAH 2,0814/4-4/55/114/26 - 5/1675.9 (± 4.4) Shoup BridgePAH 1,5994/5-4/65/114/24 - 5/1476.4 (± 5.3) Squaw CreekDWOR 5,0764/19-4/225/145/9 - 5/2660.4 (± 3.2) NiagaraHells Canyon DamOXA 8,2343/28-4/45/24/6 - 5/2172.8 (± 2.0) SpringsLittle Salmon RiverPAH 6,9224/5-4/115/114/20 - 5/2879.4 (± 2.4) Pahsimeroi WeirPAH 12,8404/12-4/285/125/5 - 5/1975.2 (± 2.3) IDFG juvenile hatchery steelhead release summary (release year 2011).

8. PIT Tag Uses in Juveniles Juvenile survival estimates and travel times from release to LGD Juvenile survival estimates and travel times from release to LGD Travel Time to LGR BY EarlyMiddleLate 200838.9 days39.0 days43.2 days 200941.9 days48.6 days57.1 days Outmigration % detected at LGR BY EarlyMiddleLate 200836.4%34.5%28.8% 200917.30% 18.70% Smolt-to-Adult Survival 1-salt fish only for RY 2009 BY EarlyMiddleLate 20082.00%2.14%0.81% 20091.54%1.13%1.17% Little Sheep Cr. (OR) acclimation facility early, middle, and late volitional release comparisons.

9. PIT Tag Uses in Juveniles Arrival timing of juveniles at LGD Arrival timing of juveniles at LGD HatcheryRelease GroupStock PIT-tagged Fish Released Release Date 50% Passage Date 80% Arrival Window (# Days) % Survival (95% CI) Clearwater Newsome CreekDWOR 3,5914/11-4/185/154/28 - 6/274.7 (± 4.1) Peasley CreekDWOR 5,1954/155/94/21 - 5/2081.1 (± 2.5) DWOR 2,0984/154/284/20 - 5/1683.2 (± 3.9) SFCLW 11,2774/155/104/21 - 5/2280.3 (± 1.7) SFCLW 3,9874/15-4/155/104/21 - 5/2380.5 (± 2.6) Red House HoleDWOR 7,6744/12-4/134/214/17 - 5/1181.8 (± 1.6) HagermanUpper East Fork Salmon RiverEFNAT 6,9815/3-5/55/195/13 - 6/579.9 (± 4.1) NationalSawtooth WeirSAW 13,4094/13-4/295/94/29 - 5/1682.8 (± 2.5) Yankee ForkSAW 4,0705/6-5/165/265/19 - 6/1277.9 (± 4.5) Yankee ForkSAW 4,1425/6-5/165/295/17 - 6/1572.3 (± 4.3) Magic ValleyColston CornerPAH 2,0954/6-4/85/124/25 - 5/871.6 (± 4.3) Little Salmon RiverDWOR 3,9814/12-4/145/134/29 - 5/2785.0 (± 3.1) PAH 3,6784/8-4/125/104/21 - 5/2285.7 (± 2.7) Lower East Fork Salmon RiverDWOR 4,9834/14-4/185/145/9 - 5/2372.1 (± 3.9) McNabb PointSAW 2,0934/22-4/255/105/3 - 5/1587.1 (± 5.8) Pahsimeroi WeirDWOR 1,7954/265/125/9 - 5/2183.9 (± 5.9) USAL 5,3714/26-4/275/125/8 - 5/2189.3 (± 3.8) Red RockPAH 2,0814/4-4/55/114/26 - 5/1675.9 (± 4.4) Shoup BridgePAH 1,5994/5-4/65/114/24 - 5/1476.4 (± 5.3) Squaw CreekDWOR 5,0764/19-4/225/145/9 - 5/2660.4 (± 3.2) NiagaraHells Canyon DamOXA 8,2343/28-4/45/24/6 - 5/2172.8 (± 2.0) SpringsLittle Salmon RiverPAH 6,9224/5-4/115/114/20 - 5/2879.4 (± 2.4) Pahsimeroi WeirPAH 12,8404/12-4/285/125/5 - 5/1975.2 (± 2.3) IDFG juvenile hatchery steelhead release summary (release year 2011).

10. PIT Tag Uses in Juveniles Cooperative work with the Comparative Survival Study Cooperative work with the Comparative Survival Study – Survival related to migration route and subsequent SAR’s From COMPARATIVE SURVIVAL STUDY (CSS) of PIT-tagged Spring/Summer Chinook and Summer Steelhead 2011 Annual Report Mig. YearSAR(T0) %SAR(C0) %SAR(C1) % 19970.52 (0.24 – 0.81)0.24 (0.09 – 0.39)0.17 (0.12 – 0.22) 19980.51 (0.22 – 0.84)0.89 (0.61 – 1.19)0.22 (0.17 – 0.28) 19990.90 (0.51 – 1.33)1.04 (0.79 – 1.31)0.59 (0.51 – 0.69) 20002.10 (1.22 – 3.07)0.95 (0.71 – 1.19)1.05 (0.92 – 1.18) 20010.94 (0.24 – 1.78){Assume =SAR(C1)}0.016 (0.005 – 0.03) 20021.06 (0.32 – 2.11)0.70 (0.54 – 0.88)0.73 (0.61 – 0.85) 20031.81 (1.50 – 2.13)0.68 (0.52 – 0.86)0.37 (0.26 – 0.47) 20042.13 (1.17 – 3.27)0.21 A (0.15 – 0.26) 20052.03 (1.28 – 2.83)0.24 A (0.18 – 0.30) 20062.14 (1.49 – 2.84)1.42 (0.94 – 1.93)1.23 (1.06 – 1.41) 20071.94 (1.51 – 2.38)1.17 (0.96 – 1.38)0.92 (0.78 – 1.07) 20083.39 (3.23 – 3.55)2.77 (2.63 – 2.90)2.76 (2.55 – 2.96) 12-yr avg.1.62 (1.16 – 2.08)0.86 (0.46 – 1.26)0.71 (0.30 – 1.12) Estimated LGR-to-GRA SAR (%) for PIT-tagged hatchery steelhead in annual aggregate by juvenile outmigration type from 1997 to 2008

11. Bonneville, McNary, Ice Harbor, and Lower Granite dams Adult Tag Monitoring

12. PIT Tag Uses in Adults Escapement to Bonneville, McNary, Ice Harbor, and Lower Granite dams Escapement to Bonneville, McNary, Ice Harbor, and Lower Granite dams HatcheryStock1-Ocean2-OceanTotal ClearwaterDWOR48511,47311,958 Clearwater Total48511,47311,958 HagermanDWOR881,0141,102 PAH2,8951,3274,222 SAW14,0706,16320,232 Hagerman Total17,0528,50425,556 Magic ValleyDWOR3022,9273,229 EFNAT3131,0431,357 PAH5,8761,7047,580 SAW4,6183,2027,820 USAL61826887 Magic Valley Total11,1709,70220,872 Niagara SpringsOX16,238- PAH27,261- Niagara Total43,499- Grand Total72,20729,678101,885 Summary of expanded PIT tag estimates for one- and two-ocean (Brood Year 2008 and 2007) steelhead returning to Bonneville Dam by hatchery and stock.

13. PIT Tag Uses in Adults Conversion rates between dams and back to racks Conversion rates between dams and back to racks (%) Bonneville to McNary(%)Bonneville to Lower Granite One-oceanTwo-oceanOne-oceanTwo-ocean DWOR (Clearwater)88.371.184.570.8 DWOR (Salmon)80.388.779.773.1 E.F. Naturals99.479.798.779.2 Oxbow78.865.4 Pahsimeroi79.182.873.082.6 Sawtooth85.080.677.674.9 Upper Salmon River B’s79.168.940.958.3

14. PIT Tag Uses in Adults Migration timing Migration timing IDFG 2011 summary of stock-specific adult migration timing over Bonneville Dam ODFW adult return timing of F1 Generation of Wallowa broodstock collection experiment

15. PIT Tag Uses in Adults Relative SAR’s between hatcheries, stocks, and release sites Relative SAR’s between hatcheries, stocks, and release sites Juvenile Migration Year Smolts Arriving @ LGD LGR-to-GRA SAR Estimate 90% LL90% UL 199724,7100.390.230.57 199823,5070.560.310.85 199927,1930.920.591.28 200024,5651.891.162.68 200120,8770.920.241.74 200220,6810.950.41.72 200321,4001.461.241.68 200417,0822.081.143.19 200519,6401.831.172.55 200613,4731.961.322.62 200721,8281.641.371.92 200816,8584.534.244.82 200812,4684.54.144.83 200817,4294.934.665.25 200818,3691.050.921.17 200824,7181.411.291.54 200889,8843.082.973.18 geomean (97-08)1.27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20042005200620072008 BROOD YEAR PERCENT SURVIVAL Autumn line, F 1 generation Standard stock Autumn line, F 2 generation From COMPARATIVE SURVIVAL STUDY (CSS) of PIT-tagged Spring/Summer Chinook and Summer Steelhead 2011 Annual Report ODFW SAS of Wallowa broodstock collection experiment Aggregate Snake River Basin hatchery Steelhead

16. PIT Tag Uses in Adults Stray/wandering rates Stray/wandering rates From COMPARATIVE SURVIVAL STUDY (CSS) of PIT-tagged Spring/Summer Chinook and Summer Steelhead 2011 Annual Report

17. PIT Tag Uses in Adults Fallback/reascension rates and after-hours passage Fallback/reascension rates and after-hours passage HatcheryStockPIT DetectionsFallback / ReascensionPercent ClearwaterDWORB2015.0 HagermanDWORB2300.0 NationalPAHA25352.0 SAWA47181.7 Magic ValleyDWORB1000.0 EF Nat.1815.6 PAHA20021.0 SAWA16631.8 USALB1400.0 Total1,199211.7 Detections of one-ocean PIT tagged steelhead during the 2009/2010 run and reascension rates at Lower Granite Dam.

18. PIT Tag Uses in Adults In-season coordination of anticipated abundance of hatchery returns by release site In-season coordination of anticipated abundance of hatchery returns by release site Idaho EstimatesStock1-Ocean2-Ocean3-OceanTotal CLFHDWOR1,8455,3201127,278 CLFH Total1,8455,3201127,278 DNFHDWOR68315,57775017,010 DNFH Total68315,57775017,010 HNFHDWOR01,1200 PAH06320 SAW12,9072,269015,176 EF NAT.854NA - HNFH Total13,7614,021017,782 MVFHDWOR3022,24002,542 EF Nat.NA31069- PAH13,4211,347014,767 SAW2,4111,4001193,929 USAL15240514571 MVFH Total16,2855,70220122,188 NISPOX11,1147,124NA18,239 PAH16,3742,871NA19,245 NISP Total27,4889,996NA37,484 Idaho Total60,06240,6161,063101,741 Oregon EstimatesStock1-Ocean2-Ocean3-OceanTotal WALAWAHL 5,0012,594NA7,595 SHEEP 2,132434NA2,566 Oregon Total7,1333,028NA10,161 Washington EstimatesStock1-Ocean2-Ocean3-OceanTotal LFH 2,982669NA3,651 WAHL 2,394880NA3,273 TUCAN1730NA173 TOUCH06NA6 Washington Total5,5481,555NA7,103 Hatchery Steelhead Grand Total 72,74345,199 119,005 2011 LGD Estimates

19. Teleconference calls are held through the fall to discuss run status (in conjunction with fall Chinook coordination) Teleconference calls are held through the fall to discuss run status (in conjunction with fall Chinook coordination) In-season run status can have implications on hatchery operations and fisheries In-season run status can have implications on hatchery operations and fisheries Participation typically includes IDFG, ODFW, WDFW, USFWS, NPT, SBT, and IPC Participation typically includes IDFG, ODFW, WDFW, USFWS, NPT, SBT, and IPC Coordination

20. Teleconference calls are held through the fall to discuss run status (in conjunction with fall Chinook coordination) In-season run status can have implications on hatchery operations and fisheries Participation typically includes IDFG, ODFW, WDFW, USFWS, NPT, SBT, and IPC This process enables the most up to date in-season estimates to be available for all co-managers and for real time management decisions to be made This process enables the most up to date in-season estimates to be available for all co-managers and for real time management decisions to be made Coordination

21. Expanding PIT tagged adults by juvenile tagging rates could underestimate the return (well documented in Chinook) Expanding PIT tagged adults by juvenile tagging rates could underestimate the return (well documented in Chinook) What are Potential Shortcomings?

22. Expanding PIT tagged adults by juvenile tagging rates could underestimate the return (well documented in Chinook) Tags are shed and there is the possibility for differential survival between tagged and untagged fish resulting in lower representation of tagged fish in the returning population Tags are shed and there is the possibility for differential survival between tagged and untagged fish resulting in lower representation of tagged fish in the returning population What are Potential Shortcomings?

23. Expanding PIT tagged adults by juvenile tagging rates could underestimate the return (well documented in Chinook) Tags are shed and there is the possibility for differential survival between tagged and untagged fish resulting in lower representation of tagged fish in the returning population Historically, rates of tagged fish in adults have been difficult to determine because hand scanning at hatchery racks in not 100% efficient Historically, rates of tagged fish in adults have been difficult to determine because hand scanning at hatchery racks in not 100% efficient What are Potential Shortcomings?

24. To get at true tagged proportions in adult returns, we have installed in-ladder detection arrays at the Sawtooth Trap To get at true tagged proportions in adult returns, we have installed in-ladder detection arrays at the Sawtooth Trap How are we Addressing Issues?

25. To get at true tagged proportions in adult returns, we have installed in-ladder detection arrays at the Sawtooth Trap This allows us to assess the proportion of tagged fish in the actual adult return vs. estimated tag proportions in juvenile releases This allows us to assess the proportion of tagged fish in the actual adult return vs. estimated tag proportions in juvenile releases How are we Addressing Issues?

26. To get at true tagged proportions in adult returns, we have installed in-ladder detection arrays at the Sawtooth Trap This allows us to assess the proportion of tagged fish in the actual adult return vs. estimated tag proportions in juvenile releases Through two years of evaluating, initial results are mixed as to the how well returning adult PIT tagged steelhead account for untagged fish based on juvenile tagging rates Through two years of evaluating, initial results are mixed as to the how well returning adult PIT tagged steelhead account for untagged fish based on juvenile tagging rates How are we Addressing Issues?

27. Brood Year Juvenile Expansion Rate Run At Large PIT Tags at Trap Array Return to River PIT Tags at Trap Array Estimated Expanded Return Actual Return Corrected Expansion Rate 2007108.650195,4495,699113.6 Return year 2009/2010 corrected expansion rate for the Sawtooth Weir steelhead release group derived from the in-ladder PIT tag array at the Sawtooth trap. Brood Year Juvenile Expansion Rate Run At Large PIT Tags at Trap Array Return to River PIT Tags at Trap Array Estimated Expanded Return Actual Return Corrected Expansion Rate 2008141.32032,7992,000101.6 2007113.6606561,003173.5 Return year 2010/2011 corrected expansion rate for the Sawtooth Weir steelhead release group derived from the in-ladder PIT tag array at the Sawtooth trap.

28. PIT tags serve numerous juvenile and adult monitoring and evaluation purposes. PIT tags serve numerous juvenile and adult monitoring and evaluation purposes. Summary

29. PIT tags serve numerous juvenile and adult monitoring and evaluation purposes. PIT tags provide a tool to get real-time, in-season estimates of adult parameters at 4 of the 8 lower Columbia and Snake River dams. PIT tags provide a tool to get real-time, in-season estimates of adult parameters at 4 of the 8 lower Columbia and Snake River dams. Summary

30. PIT tags serve numerous juvenile and adult monitoring and evaluation purposes. PIT tags provide a tool to get real-time, in-season estimates of adult parameters at 4 of the 8 lower Columbia and Snake River dams. In-season estimates coupled with weekly conference calls, allow for more accurate and timely management decisions and better multi-agency coordination. In-season estimates coupled with weekly conference calls, allow for more accurate and timely management decisions and better multi-agency coordination. Summary

31. PIT tags serve numerous juvenile and adult monitoring and evaluation purposes. PIT tags provide a tool to get real-time, in-season estimates of adult parameters at 4 of the 8 lower Columbia and Snake River dams. In-season estimates coupled with weekly conference calls, allow for more accurate and timely management decisions and better multi-agency coordination. Variation in the tagged to untagged ratio between juvenile releases and returning adult PIT tagged steelhead is still unclear and may be variable across return years, ages, and stocks. Evaluation is ongoing. Variation in the tagged to untagged ratio between juvenile releases and returning adult PIT tagged steelhead is still unclear and may be variable across return years, ages, and stocks. Evaluation is ongoing. Summary

32. LSRCPIPC ODFW - Lance Clarke WDFW - Joe Bumgarner NPTSBTIDFG Regional Staff Regional Staff Hatchery Staff Hatchery Staff Research Staff Research StaffPSMFC Acknowledgments

33. Questions?