FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 198201301

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

Please refer to Section 9.e (Project History) for the explanation of changes in the estimated budget. The CWT Recovery Program is a composite of five separate programs, each with its own budget and associated changes. This field only allows a few lines of text and thus is not adequate to allow the necessary explanations that are needed for understanding budget changes for each of the component programs

Reason for change in scope

The lion's share of the 24.4% increase is attributed to the addition of the two new tasks (#8- expanding the CWT sampling to include PIT tags; #9- Statistician to assist CWT community). If only considering the standard tasks, the increase represents a 9.7% increase. And most of the latter increase is associated with the need to restore basic services and supplies plus personnel lost during the last serveral years of limited budget increases.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

For example, our Programmatic comments from the past review included: "The entire CWT program needs a programmatic review at regular intervals to confirm priorities and efficacy. We strongly recommend a technical/peer review to confirm the validity of the critical assumptions (e.g. current adequacy of the 20% sampling rate goal, and 30 tag recoveries per group, adequacy of using hatchery stocks as surrogates for monitoring wild stocks). Other key assumptions also need to be verified: 1) marked (CWT) fish suffer the same natural mortality as unmarked fish, and 2) marked fish do not lose their marks."

This proposal does respond adequately to the key assumptions but the ISRP was particularly surprised that the recommended statistical advisor position has not been staffed nor the technical review reported. Further, the 'CWT program' and management through the PSMFC is now much more than simply managing the CWT program and databases. This proposal covers analyses and data collection activities that are clearly the responsibility of state or Tribal agencies but for unstated reasons now seem to be managed through this program. The ISRP recognizes that there could be reasons of coordination and efficiency involved but technical review of the CWT program becomes substantially more difficult.

The coded-wire tag (CWT) program has been fundamental to the management of chinook and coho salmon coast-wide. Before the development of the CWT, catches of specific stocks were unknown and sustainable exploitation rates of stocks could not be assessed (other than by the trend in their spawning escapements). Trends in spawning abundance may result, however, from over-exploitation or decreased survival, or the interaction of exploitation and declining stock productivity (habitat impacts). The development of the CWT program and the establishment of a coast-wide recovery program allowed for the development of quantitative assessments of life history statistics for chinook, coho, and steelhead. As noted in the proposal, this tool allows estimation of catch and age distributions in fisheries, exploitation rates and patterns by fishery, and estimation of annual survival rates (from point of release to adult return). By the early 1980's, the CWT had become an essential tool for stock assessment and management and provided the technical basis for rationalizing ocean fishery exploitation under the PST and domestic agencies. This tool though is now under increased pressures due to the development of mass-mark selective fisheries and the need to implement electronic sampling for coded-wire tags.

The rationale for this proposal is to provide comprehensive stock assessment and hatchery production monitoring to regional management entities and all researchers. The program requires two components: tagging of representative groups of fish (by species, stock, brood year, etc.), and recovery of the tags in fisheries and spawning escapements. In the mid-1970's, a coast-wide agreement requested all recovery agencies to sample 20% of commercial salmon catches for the recovery of CWT. While this percentage was not based on any statistical principle, it has been adopted as the "standard" rate of sampling in catches. As in any mark-recapture program, however, the rates of tagging and recovery should be dependent on the objective of the program. Consequently, the ISRP has previously recommended the CWT program review the"30 observed recoveries" guideline that is quoted in the proposal. That value was determined during a period of good marine survival and well supported sampling programs. During periods of poor marine survival and/or reduced sampling (due to budget constraints), agencies would be well advised to increase the numbers of tags released, depending on the accuracy and precision desired in their programs.

Further, we re-emphasize two points previously presented by the ISRP:

1. It is still not possible to place tagging and recovery programs of this CWT program in a Regional context. For example, we are only notified of the requests of additional tagging or existing sampling programs. How can this be examined in a technical context without a comprehensive description of the supported tagging programs and related objectives? Do the current tagging programs address all regional concerns, or are the best tagging programs being supported, are sampling programs meeting agency needs, etc.?
2. The clarity of presentation would be dramatically enhanced by the use of a flow chart or other device to visually depict overall program structure and how subprograms fit into that structure, overall budget, etc. With so many agencies and tasks role into one program, it is not possible to advice the Council on the use of BPA funds or the technical rigor of programs funded by these resources.

Rather than a list of specific points in this huge program, the ISRP requests responses to questions in the above text, and to five more general program issues:

1. Are the current tag allocations appropriate to meet the needs of Regional managers and the recovery priorities of the ESA stocks? In your opinion, how should this be assessed and presented for technical review?
2. Are the current recovery programs and associated data appropriate to meet the needs of Regional managers and the recovery priorities of the ESA stocks? In your opinion, how should this be assessed and presented for technical review?
3. Given the development of mass-mark selective fisheries, what are the additional costs imposed on this program, are the electronic sampling programs and equipment adequate and how is this being monitored (e.g., verification of wand performance, checks for missed marks, sampling coverage of fisheries)?
4. The complex of tasks outlined in this proposal must be clearly identified into sub-tasks by activity, budget, funding source, and responsibility (i.e. which agency or group). Critical linkages should be identified and comment made on whether funding of these linkages is assured, at risk, etc. Are the data involved in these linkages adequate? For example, if PMSFC is responsible for run reconstruction (through this proposal), are escapement monitoring programs adequate for this assessment method, are inter-dam loss values included, etc.?
5. During presentations and discussion, reference was made to a Regional review of tagging programs. What other Regional reviews of tagging are being conducted, by who, and how is this proposal's staff integrated with any Regional reviews?
6. Given the importance of this program to Regional assessments and coastwide obligations for sampling, it is probable that funding for this program will continue. How will program managers ensure that recommendations that develop from this review and from past reviews are addressed?
7. Various aspects of this proposal are dependent upon other labs or agencies to complete their sampling, decoding, etc. Are there critical bottlenecks or consistent problems in these other programs that limit the success of this program and utility of the data?

Further, there are some specific questions concerning budget items that have been noted by the committee:

• the budget for statistical consulting (>$128k ) seems high, how was this determined? Are Indirect cost is still being charged on the CWT purchase and if so, why?
• Task 1.b indicates that $20,000 is allocated to sampling SAFE fisheries, why does this program pay for that program and are there plans to recover these costs?
• With the comments about handle-held data loggers and need for electronic sampling for CWT, is zero the correct entry for Capital in Section 8? Do the agencies purchase that equipment?

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:
STATUS MONITORING SUBGROUP --
198201301 - Coded-Wire Tag Recovery Program
198201302 - Annual Stock Assessment - Coded Wire Tag Program (WDFW)
198201304 - Annual Stock Assessment - Coded Wire Tag Program (ODFW)
198906500 - Annual Stock Assessment - Coded Wire Tag Program (USFWS)

(These 4 proposals were considered as a block.)

These proposals do not claim relevance to either RPA 180 or 181; they list only hatchery-release groups as being tagged, although Short Descriptions and Abstracts for some proposals indicate wild populations will also be assessed. Proposal narratives indicate that the tagged hatchery fish should be fairly representative of wild fish in migratory patterns, timing in the fisheries, etc., but the proposals do not suggest which ESUs or wild stocks might be represented by which hatchery stocks being tagged. However, absent direct application to RPAs, CWTs may be very useful for estimating harvest of similar wild stocks in monitored fisheries, which would apply to status monitoring performance standards (e.g., stage-specific survival).

For many stocks addressed by these proposals, release locations are Bonneville Pool or below Bonneville, so groups are exposed only to small reaches of the mainstem/estuary migration corridor and part of the inriver fisheries. PIT-tagging projects are probably better for monitoring smolt-adult-returns of listed stocks than are CWTs.

Sponsor may wish to clarify which ESA-listed stocks, if any, might be represented by the proposed release groups and the type of resulting data that might be applicable to those listed stocks.

OCEAN AND ESTUARY SUBGROUP -- Potential action items addressed - 165; 166; 174; 179; 184. Includes estuary and part of ocean in sample area. This proposal needs to be coordinated with proposal 35046 and 30007 which may be more effective means of tracking movement and habitat use, and the work that John Ferguson of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center is doing on acoustic tags to assess potential duplication of effort and do a better job of developing trend data on delayed mortality. It also needs to be coordinated (it has to some extent in the past) with the Dept. of Fisheries Oceans Canada, US/Canada Shelf sampling cruises, funded since 1998 under project 1998-014 and now proposed as 30010.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

RME comments concerning how representative tagged stocks are of an ESU should be addressed in a Regional review of tag allocations but some of the other RME comments are simply incorrect and/or poorly advised.

1. "PIT-tagging projects are probably better for monitoring smolt-adult-returns of listed stocks than are CWTs." These tags would only be better for data collected in-river but there is no sampling for PIT tags in ocean fisheries, there would be no historical perspective for perspective, and stock coverage comparable to CWT would be prohibitively costly.
2. The development of acoustic tags "which may be more effective means of tracking movement and habitat use" maybe true but that has never been the application of CWT. Such a statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of the value of different types of tags. Acoustics tags likely will provide a better research application for their intended use but they will never provide the monitoring capability of CWT.

The CWT program has been an integrated coastwide program since 1975 and is annually coordinated through the Regional mark coordination meeting and two technical committees of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The CWT is actually a commitment in the Memorandum of Understanding of the 1985 and 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty.

The ISRP agrees that there is a need to ensure that the CWT provides the necessary stock coverage and assessments needed for salmon recovery, but there must be a clear understanding of the applications of different tags and their relative importance.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The Coded-wire Tag Program is a huge program that annually conducts a large number of activities that are essential to the Basin, and the data provided has been widely utilized over many years. The current proposal requests $2.99 million from BPA (48.8% of total budget) based on inclusion of the new proposed activities. Matching funds for specific activities in the total program are received from 11 other sources (involving 26 activities)! Given the use and value of the CWT data to regional assessment and monitoring, it is appropriate that BPA funds make a significant contribution to the program. There are a lot of aspects of the CWT program that are of great interest to coastwide harvest management agencies including commitments in the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST); researchers in fisheries, oceanography, and climate; and for monitoring of hatchery production, stock status and salmon recovery.

In their response to the ISRP, the proponents made a very significant effort to address each of the ISRP's comments. The response clarified the various sources of funding and corrected some values in their presentation. The response recognized the need for integration with project #35033 and stated a commitment to cooperate. Concerning the lack of progress on past recommendations, the program managers explained that they had not proceeded with staffing the statistical position or its technical review due to budget constraints (recent funding guidelines stated "no new tasks and funding increases limited to 3.4% cost of living"). Funding for a statistical position is included in the current proposal. Further, a flow chart to depict the program and costs was included in the response and a detailed table was provided that identified each task and funding source.

Concerning the array of tasks included in the proposal, a regional mark committee determined the rationale for existing tagging and recovery rates, and the tasks currently included in this proposal were assigned following a NWPPC review (Sept. 1998). Concerning the technical review of the program previously requested by the ISRP, a regional response to RPA 174 has led to a "Comprehensive Marking Strategy Group" and a contract for technical evaluation of the CWT system (funded by BPA according to the response). This work is ongoing but should address many of the previous comments for the ISRP. Associated with any technical work were questions concerning the implementation of mass-marking of hatchery fish and the use of electronic detection of coded-wire tags in these fish. This issue is likely to become an increasingly important aspect of the CWT program and merits more careful evaluation.

Probably the least informative response concerned whether there were "critical bottlenecks or consistent problems in these other programs that limit the success of this program and utility of the data?" The ISRP suggests that the technical review that is currently being undertaken consider the need to establish a timetable of sampling and data needs to ensure that agencies meet these and/or a budget process is established that has flexibility to deal with variations in annual sampling or work needs. Issue of timely catch data is a common concern along the coast.

The remaining questions addressed smaller budget issues. These were adequately explained with the exception of the $20,000 for sampling SAFE fisheries in the lower Columbia River. The response noted that the predecessor fisheries were sampled at MRP expense and that there is some cooperative nature to the current sampling (note that WDFW and ODFW do pay for this differently). However, the ISRP question concerning whether these fisheries should pay for this sampling did not seem to stimulate a response.

The ISRP wishes to acknowledge the detailed response received. The committee will be interested in the results of the technical review and recommends that following completion a briefing be provided to the ISRP. The latter would ensure that the ISRP is aware of recommended actions or issues to be addressed, etc. If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA project #35033.

Comment:

Comments
Aspects of this program are critical to regional data needs for fishery management and stock assessments. There may be changes appropriate following completion of project pursuant to RPA 174 (regional marking plan), which revisits marking and sampling metrics for indicator stocks and resulting from RPA 164 & 165 which contemplate more mass marking and mark selective fisheries. The entire program would benefit from a comprehensive program review that, among other things, would revisit the question of regional responsibilities. Aspects of the CWT program may qualify as "BiOp" project rather than a "Base" project if, for example, a case is made that the base program had to be changed in response to BiOp requirements.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

Comment:

Comment:

Comments:
Reduce scope of objectives 1a, 1c, 1d, 3a, 6a and 7b to 2001 levels.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website