1. The Coded-Wire Tag Program: Regional Overview

2. Coded Wire Tags: Tiny Tool for Stock Identification
Stainless steel micro-tag
Introduced in late 1960s
Replaced fin clips for stock id
Placed in nasal cartilage
Originally binary coding scheme
Adipose clip used ~ 3 decades as external flag for tagged fish
Present: Use of electronic detection: Ad clip now flag for hatchery fish
First however, I want to take a brief look at the features of the CWT for those who may not be familiar with the tagging approach.
Talk from the slide
Highlight the binary coding scheme, (1,2,4,8, 16,32)
and a master code for orientation

3. Major Advantages of CWTs
Small size (0.25 x 1.1 mm)
Ease of application
Very low tag loss
Vast number of codes
Low cost (14 cents/tag applied)
Biological compatibility
Very minimal impact on survival
Note size and point to the picture for scale, and placement in the snout cartilage
Talk from slide

4. Format of New Decimal CWTs (Laser Etched)
The second major change has to do with a switch to alpha numeric coding in 2000, thanks to advances in laser technology.
This represents the surface of the wire in a flattened view
Note that the code is duplicated 4 times as well as overlapped
Hence regardless of where the wire is cut, the code should be easily read

5. CWT Quality Today
Tag 16/58/09 made 11 April 2002

6. Types of CWT Marking Studies
1) Management Objectives
Stock contribution (fisheries viewpoint); Harvest allocation; Survival trends; Escapement
2) Hatchery and Wildstock Evaluation
Stock contribution to the various fisheries coastwide; Straying; Age composition, etc.
3) Experimental Comparisons
Diets, release sites, time of release, density, etc
4) Habitat Evaluation

7. Relevance of CWT Information to the NWPPC’s Fish & Wildlife Program
The CWT is the stock ID tool used coastwide for evaluating survival rates and status of salmonid stocks.
It serves a wide variety of F&W Program purposes, including:
Hatchery monitoring and evaluation
Adult and juvenile migration patterns
Evaluate and monitor harvest
Coastwide harvest management closely intertwined with the mission of the F&W Program; and is critical to protecting Columbia River stocks in trouble.
Federal ESA depends on CWT marked hatchery fish as indicators for wild listed stocks.
2nd point: Stock identification is fundamental to any monitoring and evaluation effort, regardless of where efforts are underway to rebuild stocks
Third point: One has to know what harvest pressures are impacting the threatened and endangered stocks

8. CWT Tagging Programs
Turn now to looking more closely at the tagging component.

9. Tagging Trailer in Action at Hatchery

10. Tagging Crew at work removing adipose fin and inserting CWT into the snouts of smolts

11. NMT’s ‘AutoFish System’ Marking Trailers, with Fish Guidance Trays

12. Volitional Entry of Juvenile Fish into the Auto Clipping and Marking System

13. AutoFish System with View of Tagging Machines (blue units)

14. Scale of Coastwide CWT Tagging Program
50 million tagged smolts released coastwide each year at a cost of ~$7.5 million
Over 1,200 new codes involving hundreds of studies
Chinook tagging levels are highest at 39 million; Coho levels at 9-10 million
54 federal, state and tribal fisheries agencies plus private entities now tag fish

15. Principal Tagging Facilities
Tagging programs are carried out at over 330 federal, state, tribal, and private hatcheries and rearing facilities on the west coast, including Canada
Wild stocks also captured and tagged at numerous sites

16. Oregon Facilities Releasing CWT’ed Fish
Hatcheries fairly evenly split between coastal systems (22) and inland (20), with 10 in Willamette R system

17. Washington’s Coastal and Columbia River Hatcheries (excluding southern Puget Sound)

18. Scale of CWT Tagging Program in the Columbia Basin
18-20 million of the 50 million chinook and coho tagged annually come from the Columbia Basin
Of those, ~6-7 million tags were directly funded by BPA in 2003
On a coastwide basis, BPA funds an estimated 13% of the 50 million tags released annually
Use slide:
These percentages have stayed fairly constant for the past ten years or so.

19. BPA Funded CWT Tagging Programs in the Columbia Basin
Prior to 1989, many hatcheries released chinook and coho without tagged groups
In 1989 BPA began to fund tagging the “Missing Production” groups at ODFW, WDFW and USFWS hatcheries
In 2000, projects renamed “Annual Stock Assessment - CWT” to avoid former confusing name
Prior to 1989, there were a number of hatcheries in the basin that were releasing their production without any tagging. The reason was insufficient funds to do the tagging.
Recognizing this serious gap in information, BPA in 1989 began to fund tagging for these hatcheries.
Use slide
NOTE ALSO the MATS Project as proposed new funding to meet needs for mass marking hatchery stocks

20. CWT Recovery Programs

21. CWT Recovery Program BPA Project 198201301
Ongoing data collection/management program
Five component projects: ODFW, WDFW, PSMFC
Tag Recovery Sampling Programs
Columbia Basin sport and commercial fisheries jointly sampled by ODFW and WDFW
Buoy 10 to Priest Rapids Dam (397 miles)
Oregon ocean fisheries (commercial and sport) by ODFW (~1/4 cost of sampling funded by BPA)
Tag Extraction: ODFW’s Clackamas Tag Recovery Lab
Data management: PSMFC’s Mark Center
Combined 2005 Funding Level: $2,028,757
The CWT Recovery program is ….with five component projects under ODFW, WDFW and PSMFC.
Use slide
Buoy 10 at the mouth of the Columbia to Priest Rapids Dam

22. Commercial Harvest Zones Below McNary Dam

23. Sport Fisheries Sampling Sections Below Bonneville Dam

24. Oregon Ports and Ocean Management Areas for Salmon Fisheries
ODFW’s ocean sampling program targets both commercial and sport harvest along the 310 mile coastline.
Major sampling challenge as there are 12 major ports and ~75 buying locations

25. Flowchart for Columbia River CWT Recovery Programs
Commercial Catch
CWT Sampling
(ODFW, WDFW,
USFWS, NMFS)
ODFW
Fish Tickets
WDFW
Fish Tickets
Snouts
Taken
Sampling
Data
ODFW Biometrics Section
Data Processing & Validation
ODFW
Head Lab
Use Col. R commercial catch to show flow of data
Sampling primarily by ODFW and WDFW, but some work also done by USFWS and NMFS
ODFW Clackamas = Primary head lab
Regional Mark
Processing Center
Other Agencies

26. ODFW Clackamas Tag Recovery Lab

27. ODFW Tag Recovery Lab Clackamas, Oregon
Extract and decode CWTs from fish heads recovered in the sampled fisheries, etc.
Verify and report CWT tag data to ODFW’s data management and to PSMFC’s Regional Mark Information System (RMIS)

28. Number of Heads Processed by ODFW’s Tag Recovery Lab during 2003 -2005
Year
Hatchery
Returns
River
Sport
Spawning
Ground
Comm.
Gillnet
Ocean Spt
& Troll
Totals
2003
12,527
2,383
1,006
8,793
9,710
34,419
2004
15,500
2,818
1,534
5,831
11,935
37,618
2005
20,153
1,574
785
14,809
6,801
44,122

29. Sampled Heads Brought into the Lab in Frozen and/or Formaldehye Soaked

30. Halving the Head, Cut by Cut, Until the CWT is Found

31. Checking Halved Samples to Isolate the CWT

32. Final Phase of Recovering Tag

33. Reading the Tag Code under a Microscope

34. Coding on Tag Easily Read on TV Monitor Screen

35. Ongoing Challenges for the Clackamas Tag Recovery Lab
The processed heads represent samples taken from fisheries, spawning grounds, and hatchery rack returns over multiple years (e.g work covered samples)
Level funding, staff reductions and large escapements have overwhelmed the capacity of the lab to keep abreast of the work.
This has forced prioritizing CWT processing:
In-season management needs met first
Fishery evaluation needs met second
Hatchery returns typically met last unless specific needs exist

36. CWT Data Management

37. The Regional Mark Information System (RMIS)
CWT data are forwarded to the Mark Center where it is loaded and validated against an extensive set of checks
Once validated, the data are moved into an online relational database (Oracle) that the public can access by Internet
Data is accessible in either PSC exchange format, or various summary reports
Data arrives in PSC format

38. Data Flowchart for the RMPC
REGIONAL MARK PROCESSING CENTER
R M I S
COAST - WIDE
DATA USERS
Errors
VALIDATION
PROCESS
PSC format raw data
Release
Recovery
Catch/sample
Location codes
Data description
RMIS Reports:
Detail
Summary
Ad - hoc
ALL COAST - WIDE TAGGING &
RECOVERY AGENCIES
RMPC
validated data
Iterative process to fix errors
REGIONAL MARK
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
(R M I S)
PSC format valid data
C A N A D A

39. New RMIS Web Pages