FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 198201304

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

Mitchell Act Funding was cut for the Lewis River, Ringold, Beaver Creek, and Gray's River* hatcheries. The loss of production from these hatcheries has eliminated the need for tagging production groups at these facilities. *Gray's River hatchery production and coded-wire tagging is now funded by the SAFE project.

Reason for change in scope

There is no change in the scope of work.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

These proposals are tagging components of the Columbia Basin coded-wire tag program (proposal #198201301) submitted by USFWS, WDFW, and ODFW respectively. The program goal for these three proposals is to tag enough coho and chinook salmon from each hatchery to estimate survival and distribution in the ocean, in freshwater fisheries and escapement areas. The proposals would provide continuation of a consistent time series of survival and distribution data to estimate abundance trends of selected hatchery stocks. In addition, the tagged hatchery stocks will be used to provide data relevant to the management of natural stocks, including many that are listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA.

The proposals are intended to create a comprehensive post-release production monitoring program for Columbia Basin salmon hatcheries. The projects were initiated to address the problem of incomplete basin-wide stock assessment that lacked representative tagging of hatchery production groups. The projects were also established to monitor and evaluate hatchery production in terms of adult returns. Each proposal provides an extensive description of the tagging program and how they related to regional programs and individual projects. The brief history of project performance focuses primarily on funding levels and numbers of fish tagged by each of these agency projects. Objectives and tasks are limited to tagging fish and the recovery of those tags. The description of tagging methods appears to be adequate. There is, however, very little to be reviewed from a scientific basis.

Any assessment of the stocks to be tagged should be considered within an overall Basin context and priorities set based on ESU information needs or other specified agency objectives. These tagging programs should be considered with the CBFWA M&E proposal (35033) and overall use of CWT within the Columbia Basin. There many not, however, be any need to change the tagging of the stocks included in these proposals since the overall costs are relatively minor. These costs though could increase substantially if mass-mark selective fisheries impact these stocks. If the stocks that are currently being tagged under these proposals are subject to any mass-mark selective fishery, then there is a need to implement double-index tagging (doubles tagged allocated) as recommended by the SFEC of the PST (Selective Fishery Evaluation Committee. 2002. Investigation of methods to estimate mortalities of unmarked salmon in mark-selective fisheries through the use of double index tag groups. TCSFEC(02)-1. Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC., available at www.psc.org/Pubs/sfec02-1.pgf). If these stocks are not be included in the double-index tagging, then they must be associated with another DIT stock so that the difference between marked and unmarked mortality can be accounted for.

There are also small issues of differences in budgets that contract managers should review, but the only points for response to the ISRP are:

1. Are these tagging programs integrated with Regional tagging plans and how were these stocks selected for including in these proposals?
2. Since double-index tagging is not included in these proposals, how is the additional mortality in mass-mark selective fisheries being accounted for?
3. An issue not addressed in any proposal is how tagging quality is assessed, and how consistently application standards are being met? For example, how long are tagged groups held to evaluate tag loss before release? Is any effort made to inspect tagging quality (placement of the CWT, quality of fin clip, etc.)?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Fundable for the three proposals (198201302, 198201304, 198906500). Agree with CBFWA (Core Program).

These proposals are tagging components of the Columbia Basin coded-wire tag program (proposal #198201301) submitted by USFWS, WDFW, and ODFW respectively. The program goal for these three proposals is to tag enough coho and chinook salmon from each hatchery to estimate survival and distribution in the ocean, in freshwater fisheries and escapement areas. The proposals would provide continuation of a consistent time series of survival and distribution data to estimate abundance trends of selected hatchery stocks. In addition, the tagged hatchery stocks will be used to provide data relevant to the management of natural stocks, including many that are listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA.

The proposals are intended to create a comprehensive post-release monitoring program for Columbia Basin salmon hatcheries. The projects were initiated to address the problem of incomplete basinwide stock assessment that lacked representative tagging of hatchery production groups. The projects were also established to monitor and evaluate hatchery production in terms of adult returns. Each proposal provides an extensive description of the tagging program and how they related to regional programs and individual projects. The brief history of project performance focuses primarily on funding levels and numbers of fish tagged by each of these agency projects. Objectives and tasks are limited to tagging fish and the recovery of those tags. The description of tagging methods appears to be adequate, but there is very little to be reviewed from a scientific basis.

Any assessment of the stocks to be tagged should be considered within an overall Basin context and priorities set based on ESU information needs or other specified agency objectives. These tagging programs should be considered with the CBFWA M&E proposal (35033) and overall use of CWT within the Columbia Basin. There may not, however, be any need to change the tagging of the stocks included in these proposals since the overall costs are relatively minor. These costs though could increase substantially if mass-mark selective fisheries impact these stocks. If the stocks that are currently being tagged under these proposals are subject to any mass-mark selective fishery, then there is a need to implement double-index tagging (doubles tagged allocated) as recommended by the Selective Fishery Evaluation Committee of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (See: Selective Fisheries Evaluation Committee. 2002. Investigation of methods to estimate mortalities of unmarked salmon in mark-selective fisheries through the use of double index tag groups. TCSFEC(02)-1. Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC., available at www.psc.org/Pubs/sfec02-1.pgf). If these stocks are not included in the double-index tagging, then they must be associated with another DIT stock so that the difference between marked and unmarked mortality can be accounted for.

There are also small issues of differences in budgets that contract managers should review, but the only points for response to the ISRP were:

1. Are these tagging programs integrated with Regional tagging plans and how were these stocks selected for inclusion in these proposals?
2. Since double-index tagging is not included in these proposals, how is the additional mortality in mass-mark selective fisheries being accounted for?
3. An issue not addressed in any proposal is how tagging quality is assessed, and how consistently application standards are being met? For example, how long are tagged groups held to evaluate tag loss before release? Is any effort made to inspect tagging quality (placement of the CWT, quality of fin clip, etc.)?

The two responses reviewed were adequate and specifically addressed each of these three points.

The content in the responses was very similar between proposals but each indicated that double-index tagging was included for each indicator stock, and that quality control measures were implemented in each tagging program. The responses could have been strengthened if the frequency of compliance with the quality control measures were reported. The issue of allocation of tags between stocks is addressed by a regional committee and will be re-considered by the Comprehensive Marking Strategy Group.

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:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website