Charles R. Bronte, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California-Nevada Chapter Meeting American Fisheries Society April 2009 A Coordinated Mass Marking Program.

Charles R. Bronte, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

California-Nevada Chapter MeetingAmerican Fisheries Society

April 2009

A Coordinated Mass Marking Program for Salmonines Stocked Into the Laurentian Great Lakes

Presentation Outline

• Some facts about the Great Lakes and fisheries management• Great Lakes manager’s dilemma (the problem)• Need for a comprehensive and cooperative fish marking and recovery system• Implementing a fish marking program

Facts about the Great Lakes • one-fifth of the world's surface fresh water (95 % US)• > 244,000 sq km of water • 67,000 sq km in the watershed• 17,549 km of shoreline

Facts about the Great Lakes

Fish community and fisheries

Historical State (before 1950)

• Lake trout – key stone salmonine predator in all lakes (Atlantic salmon in L. Ontario only) supported by a prey base of a coregonines (Coregonus, Prosopium) comprised of up to 10 different species.

• Supported early aboriginal subsistence fisheries and later (after 1820) large scale commercial fisheries (lake trout, whitefishes) until overfishing and exotic species (sea lamprey, alewives, and rainbow smelt) disrupted these communities.

• Fisheries management was very limited -- gear and season restrictions. Stocking was done for enhancement but likely ineffective.

Facts about the Great Lakes

Fish community and fisheries

Current State (after 1960)

• Lake trout stocked for restoration supplemented by Pacific salmon (3 species) and brown trout supported by a prey base of non-native alewives and rainbow smelt. Little natural reproduction by lake trout outside Lake Superior and unknown levels of natural reproduction by non-native salmonines.

• Limited commercial fisheries (lake whitefish), newly developed treaty fisheries, and extensive and economically important sport fisheries ($7 billion) (Chinook salmon).

• Fisheries management is relatively intensive. Annual sea lamprey control ($17 million US) and salmonine stocking support fisheries, and without either, salmonine predator populations would not exist.

Management jurisdictions in the Great Lakes

Countries (2) United States States (8) Minnesota Wisconsin Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Pennsylvania New York Intertribal Groups (2) G. L. Indian Fish and Wildlife Comm. (1842 Treaty) Chippewa/Ottawa Authority

(1836 Treaty) Canada Provinces (1) Ontario Intertribal (?)

Coordinated Fisheries Management through

A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great

Lakes Fisheries

Under the auspices of the Great Lakes Fishery

Commission

Lake Ontario Committee

Lake Erie Committee

Lake Huron Committee

Lake Superior Committee

Lake Michigan Committee

Council of Lake Committees

Each lake has its own Technical Committee that

provides biological recommendations

Hatchery raised & stocked Wild, lake-produced

Most fish stocked are not marked so it is difficult to tell them apart. Both fishery managers and anglers desire

the ability to discern the two.

Great Lakes Mass Marking InitiativeSo what’s the problem?

Great Lakes Mass Marking InitiativeWhat information will be gained by marking that is not currently available?

• natural reproduction by non-native salmonines • inter-jurisdictional movement• the contribution to sport, tribal commercial and subsistence fisheries• identify fish that have greatest returns to the fishery• accurate year-class classifications• improved estimates of growth, survival, and exploitation

Great Lakes Mass Marking InitiativeWhy is this information important?

• Great Lakes fisheries worth more that $7 billion (US) annually.• Stocking levels are taxing forage fishes making outcomes of management decisions unpredictable.• Wild fish of restoration and conservation significance (lake trout, brook trout) must be distinguished from hatchery counterparts (selective fisheries).• Inter-jurisdictional populations require lake/basin wide coordinated efforts; the only way to get the RIGHT answers.

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

The CLC Charge (April 2005)

1) Design an implementation plan for mass marking trout and salmon that refines marking logistics, mark recovery, and information management strategies

2) Design a strategy for coordinating hatchery operations by evaluating the logistics and costs associated with implementing mass marking at hatcheries in each jurisdiction.

Great Lakes Mass Marking InitiativeWhat is it?

A comprehensive, coordinated fish tagging/marking and data recovery program involving all state, tribal, federal, and provincial agencies that stock salmon and trout into the Great Lakes and its tributaries.

=

What will it do?

Provide tagging/marking services for 30.8 million salmon and trout at 49 hatcheries across the Great Lakes basin, and a system to collect, process, and cooperatively analyze return data to assist agencies in evaluating the economic and biological impact of their stocking programs.

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

Great Lakes Mass Marking InitiativeWhat tagging/marking technique will be used and why?• Coded-wire tags/adipose fin clips can answer ALL important management questions. Return data is UNAMBIGUOIS.

Coded-wire tag

Adipose fin-clip

Coded-wire tag in the snout of salmon

Great Lakes Mass Marking InitiativeWhat other techniques were considered?

• Thermal marking • OTC marks• Passive Integrated Transponder tags• Isotope analysis• Manual clipping• Manual CWT marking• Genetic

Most where not selected because of high cost, limited ability to discriminate groups and answer all management questions,

low processing rates, or ambiguous results.

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

Autofish – an automated system for handling live juvenile fish without anestheticSorts – measures total length and countsClips – excises the adipose finTags – snout tagged with CWT

AutoFish SCT Mass Marking Trailer

• process up to 60,000 fish/8 hr shift.• fish are never dewatered• 98% or better tag retention• 99% or better Ad Clip• far superior to manual methods• accurate counts

Great Lakes Mass Marking InitiativeWho will do it?

U.S. - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Fish and Wildlife Conservation Offices

Canada – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

• provide an organizational framework to meet the marking and information needs of the partners through the CLC

• purchase, operate, and maintain mass marking equipment (US)

• provide experimental design, statistical and data analysis, database management, and tag extraction (head shop) services for all marking studies

• provide significant manpower to enhance agency efforts to recover heads from ADCWT fish captured in sport fisheries or other sources

• provide coordination between US and Canada

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

Establish the Great Lakes Fish Marking Laboratory

Council of Lake Committees

Great Lakes Regional Marking Committee

Great Lakes Fish Marking Laboratory

(Wisconsin)

Data StandardsCommittee

Field office(Michigan)

OntarioCanada

Trailer storage(New York/Penn)

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

Program Coordinator

1

Biostatistician 1

Database administrator

1

Tag crew supervisor 4

Administrative technician

1

Tag crew technicians

10

Part-time assistant technicians

4

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

Provide overall program coordination (US and Canada), all marking services, head processing, database and programming services, head recovery, experimental design and analytical services, ownership and maintenance of all equipment in US waters. Ontario, Canada will own, operate and maintain their equipment. All technical services (database, head shop, statistician) will be available to them.

Total staffing needs

Data Standards Committee made up of data managers/biologists from all agencies that will be responsible for

• Development of the structure of the relational database that will house all the stocking/marking and recovery data.

• Development of protocols, for automated data transfer of recovery data from agencies to the basin-wide shared database

• Development of standard output reports per agency or study plan requirements

• Overall guidance on data management, security, and sharing activities and capabilities.

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

LAKE SUPERIOR

LAKE ONTARIO

LAKE

MICHIGAN

LAKE

ERIE

LAKE

HURON

CANADAU.S.A.

CANADA

U.S.A.

CANADAU.S.A.

CANADA

U.S.A.

TORONTO

LAKE

MICHIGAN

LAKE

ERIE

LAKE

HURON

CANADAU.S.A.

CANADA

U.S.A.

CANADAU.S.A.

CANADA

LAKE

MICHIGAN

LAKE

ERIE

LAKE

HURON

CANADAU.S.A.

CANADA

U.S.A.

CANADAU.S.A.

CANADA

U.S.A.

TORONTO

Federal

State

Provincial

TribalOntario

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Illinois

Michigan

Ohio

New York

PennsylvaniaIndiana

Great Lakes Mass Marking InitiativeHow big will the program be?

Area = 410,000 sq miles

Great Lakes Mass Marking InitiativeHow big will the program be?

Agency FacilitiesFish

(millions)Michigan DNR 6 8.1

U.S. Fish & Wild. Ser. 4 6.0

Wisconsin DNR 9 4.3

Ontario MNR 6 3.5

New York DEC 3 3.3

NGOs (Ontario) 11 1.8

Pennsylvania BFC 3 1.3

Indiana DNR 2 1.0

Illinois DNR 1 0.8

Minnesota DNR 2 0.3

Ohio DNR 1 0.2

Red Cliff (tribe) 1 0.1

Totals

49 hatcheries

30.8 million fish

Great Lakes Mass Marking InitiativeHow big will the program be?

Proposed number stocked in the Great Lakes per year

Species Millions

Chinook salmon 9.3

Lake Trout 8.9

Steelhead 5.6

Coho salmon 2.9

Brown Trout 2.9

Atlantic salmon 0.8

Brook trout 0.3

Splake 0.2

Total 30.8

(25.5 US; 5.3 CN)

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

Program element

Initial Cost

(US millions)

Capital equipment $ 15.0

Operations

Personnel (perm and temp) $ 2.5 (36%)

Travel $ 0.2 ( 9%)

Coded wire tags $ 2.2 (33%)

Operations/supplies $ 1.5 (22%)

Total annual operation costs $ 6.6

Grand total $ 21.5

How much will it cost?

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

Year

Co

sts

(ad

just

ed f

or

infl

atio

n) Capital costs

Base operations

Capital costs $1,749,467 $4,230,129 $3,807,116 $2,664,981 $-

Base operations $- $1,216,798 $2,555,275 $4,695,318 $7,042,977

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative

Costs adjusted for inflation over 5 yrs

Equipment - $12.4 millionOperations (fully funded) - $ 7.0 million

How much will it cost? An example for US waters only.

Actualappropriation

Great Lakes Mass Marking InitiativeGREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION

2008 Project Completion Report1

Report of the Implementation Task Group on Mass Marking Hatchery-reared Salmonines in the Great Lakes

to

Council of Lake Committees

by:

Charles R. Bronte (editor)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Green Bay National Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 2661 Scott Tower Drive, New Franken, WI 54229

January 2008

1 Project completion reports of Commission-sponsored research are made available to the Commission’s Cooperators in the interest of rapid dissemination of information that may be useful in Great Lakes fishery management, research, or administration. The reader should be aware that project completion reports have not been through a peer-review process and that sponsorship of the project by the Commission does not necessarily imply that the findings or conclusions are endorsed by the Commission. Do not cite findings without permission of the author.

http://www.glfc.org/