The Coded-Wire Tag Program: Regional Overview
Mar 27, 2015
The Coded-Wire Tag Program:
Regional Overview
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
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
Format of New Decimal CWTs (Laser Etched)
CWT Quality Today
• Tag 16/58/09 made 11 April 2002
Types of CWT Marking Studies1) 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
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.
CWT Tagging Programs
Tagging Trailer in Action at Hatchery
Tagging Crew at work removing adipose fin and inserting CWT into the snouts of smolts
NMT’s ‘AutoFish System’ Marking Trailers, with Fish Guidance Trays
Volitional Entry of Juvenile Fish into the Auto Clipping and Marking System
AutoFish System with View of Tagging Machines (blue units)
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
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
Oregon Facilities Releasing CWT’ed Fish
Washington’s Coastal and Columbia River
Hatcheries (excluding southern Puget Sound)
Scale of CWT Tagging Programin 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
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
CWT Recovery Programs
CWT Recovery ProgramBPA 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
Commercial Harvest Zones Below McNary Dam
M iles
0 15 30
N
Astoria
Portland
BonnevilleDam Dalles
Dam
John DayDam
McNaryDam
TREATY INDIAN SET NET FISHERY140 M iles O pen to Com m ercia l F ish ing
Zone 6Drift G ill Net Fishery
Zones 1-5
140 M iles O pen to Com m ercia l F ish ing
DeschutesRiver
John DayRiver
UmatillaRiver
61
62
63
1 2
3
4 5O REG O N
Washington
COLUM BIA RIVER
Pac
ific
Oce
an
Com mercial F ishing Zones on the Columbia R iver Below M cNary Dam.
Rock Creek
WillametteRiver
Sport Fisheries Sampling Sections Below Bonneville Dam
N
EnlargedArea
Lewis River
Cowlitz River
Kalama River
I-5 Bridge
Washougal River
W illamette River
Sandy River
Clatskanie River
Bonneville Dam(River Mile 146)
Oregon
Washington
Astoria Bridge
10
9 8
7
6
5
4
32 1
Recreational Sam pling Sections on the Colum bia R iver Below Bonneville Dam
Buoy 10
Oregon Ports and Ocean Management Areas for Salmon Fisheries
Flowchart for
Columbia River CWT
Recovery Programs
Columbia RiverCommercial Catch
CWT Sampling(ODFW, WDFW, USFWS, NMFS)
ODFWFish Tickets
WDFWFish Tickets
SnoutsTaken
SamplingData
ODFWHead Lab
ODFW Biometrics SectionData Processing & Validation
Regional MarkProcessing CenterOther Agencies
ODFW Clackamas Tag Recovery Lab
ODFW Tag Recovery LabClackamas, 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)
Number of Heads Processed by ODFW’s Tag Recovery Lab during 2003 -2005
YearHatcheryReturns
RiverSport
SpawningGround
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
Sampled Heads Brought into the Lab in Frozen and/or Formaldehye Soaked
Halving the Head, Cut by Cut, Until the CWT is Found
Checking Halved Samples to Isolate the CWT
Final Phase of Recovering Tag
Reading the Tag Code under a Microscope
Coding on Tag Easily Read on TV Monitor Screen
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. 2005 work covered 2002-2005 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
CWT Data Management
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 Flowchart for the RMPC
REGIONAL MARK PROCESSING
CENTER
VALIDATION PROCESS
REGIONAL MARKINFORMATION
SYSTEM(R M I S)
AL
L
CO
AS
T -
WID
E
TA
GG
ING
&
RE
CO
VE
RY
A
GE
NC
IES
R M I SCOAST - WIDEDATA USERS
C A N A D A
PSC format raw data Release Recovery Catch/sample Location codes Data description
Errors
RMPCvalidated data
RMIS Reports: Detail Summary Ad - hoc
PSC format valid data
New RMIS Web Pages