Mass Marking and Electronic Recovery of CWTs In the Pacific Northwest Ron Olson

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

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

3. Adipose Fin “Mass Marking”

4. Annual Hatchery Production Coho • 50 million • S. British Columbia, Washington, Oregon Chinook • 150 million • Washington, Oregon, Idaho

5. Complications – The CWT System

6. CWT Program Vital to Salmon Management 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 Without the CWT programs we would be virtually blind to fishery impacts and unable to separate fishery from marine survival effects - Morishima 2007

7. Pacific Salmon Treaty 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 CWT groups representative of natural stocks are tagged and released for a region wide PSC Indicator Stock Program

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

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

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

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

12. New Fin Clipping TrailersCrew of 12 – 14 60-80,000 fish / day

13. Fin Clipping Stations with Counting System

14. Clipping Crew

15. “Automatic” TrailersCrew of 0 – 530-60,000 fish/day (w/o crew)

16. “AutoFish” System Technology

17. Skilled Operators

18. Current Investment in MM Trailers

21. Proposed Chinook Marking for 2009 (Washington and Oregon)

22. Annual Mass Marking Costs (direct costs w/Automatic trailers) 1 ODFW, 2002

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

24. The “Wand” Detector

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

27. The “Tube” or “Tunnel” Detector

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

31. Results of 1996 Wand Tests on Coho

32. Results of 1996 Tube Tests on Coho

33. Early Chinook Wanding Studies

34. Chinook Mouth Wanding

35. Results of Chinook Mouth Wanding Studies

36. Current Agency Investment in ETD Equipment 1 Current cost per unit

37. CWT Sampling Methods

38. Projected Number of BY 2008 MM Chinook to be Encountered by Visual CWT Sampling Programs

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

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

41. Summary of Costs for Current Marking and Sampling One Time Costs • Marking Trailers = $ 22,610,000 • ETD Equipment = $ 7,385,800 Total = $ 29,995,800 Annual Direct Costs • Mass Marking = $ 4,128,950 • DIT Groups = $ 491,550 • DIT Processing = $ 384,700 1 • Add. Sampling = $ 524,300 1 Total = $ 5,529,500 Agency Program Costs $44 - 48 / 1,000 fish 2 • From Bowhay, 2004 • USFWS and WDFW, 2007

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

43. 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.

44. The End