FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 198906500

Additional documents

TitleType
198906500 Narrative Narrative
198906500 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation
198906500 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAnnual Stock Assessment - CWT (USFWS)
Proposal ID198906500
OrganizationU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameSteve Pastor
Mailing address9317 Highway 99, Suite I Vancouver, WA 98665
Phone / email3606967605 / Stephen_Pastor@fws.gov
Manager authorizing this projectHoward Schaller
Review cycleMainstem/Systemwide
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide /
Short descriptionApply coded-wire tags to production groups of salmon at federal hatcheries not tagged by other programs. Prepare report on survival trends and distribution of anadromous stocks from 11 federal hatcheries for basin-wide stock assessment.
Target speciescoho, spring chinook
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.8715 -121.9765 Carson National Fish Hatchery
46.1634 -122.0204 Eagle Creek National Fish Hatchery
45.7208 -121.6397 Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
165
174
198

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS/BPA Action 174 NMFS Working through regional prioritization processes to the extent feasible and in coordination with NMFS, BPA shall collaborate with the regional, state, Tribal, and Federal fish managers and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to enable the development and implementation of a comprehensive marking plan. 1. Develop a comprehensive marking strategy for all salmon and steelhead artificial production programs in the Columbia River basin by the end of 2001. 2. Provide funding by March 1, 2001, to begin marking all spring chinook salmon that are currently released unmarked from Federal or Federally funded hatcheries. 3. Provide funding, beginning in FY 2002, to implement the Action Agencies’ share of the comprehensive marking plan for production not addressed in (2) above. 4. Obtain funding contributions as appropriate for additional sampling efforts and specific experiments to determine relative distribution and timing of hatchery and natural spawners.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1995 Code-wire tagged 1,042,430 fish, recovered tagged fish at National Fish Hatcheries, submitted data to the Regional Mark Information Center and completed an Annual Report
1996 Code-wire tagged 556,744 fish, recovered tags from over 955 fish returning to National Fish Hatcheries, submitted data to the Regional Mark Information Center and completed an Annual Report
1997 Code-wire tagged 718,358 fish, recovered over 905 tagged fish at National Fish Hatcheries, submitted data to the Regional Mark Information Center and completed an Annual Report
1998 Code-wire tagged 693,431 fish, recovered 356 tagged fish at National Fish Hatcheries, submitted data to the Regional Mark Information Center and completed an Annual Report
1999 Code-wire tagged 403,439 fish, recovered tags from over 1,760 fish returning to National Fish Hatcheries, submitted data to the Regional Mark Information Center and completed an Annual Report
2000 Code-wire tagged 277,761 fish, recovered over 6,250 returning tagged fish at National Fish Hatcheries, submitted data to the Regional Mark Information Center and completed an Annual Report

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
198201301 Annual Stock Assessment -Coded Wire Tag Program (PSMFC) The RMIS CWT database stores,and facilitates the retrieval of tagged fish returning as adults.
198201302 Annual Stock Assessment -Coded Wire Tag Program (ODFW) The CWT Recovery Program samples fisheries and escapement to retrieve these tagged fish returning as adults.
198201304 Annual Stock Assessment -Coded Wire Tag Program (WDFW) The CWT Recovery Program samples fisheries and escapement to retrieve these tagged fish returning as adults.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Tag anadromous fish at each National Fish Hatchery where fish are not being tagged a.Coordinate with all appropriate entities, provide routine supervision of marking areas at each tagging site, and provide a quaility control plan ongoing $55,788
2. Mark fish at each of hatcheries a. Apply coded-wire tags and remove the adipose fins from 250,000 salmon at four hatcheries.. ongoing $7,500 Yes
3. Provide Logistic Support a. Move Marking Trailers ongoing $2,200
4. Maintain Marking Trailers a. Perform Maintenance on Marking Trailers ongoing $15,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Tag anadromous fish at each National Fish Hatchery where fish are not being tagged 2004 2007 $188,236
2. Mark fish at hatcheries 2004 2007 $25,310
3. Provide Logistic Support 2004 2007 $7,424
4. Maintain Marking Trailers 2004 2007 $50,619
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$85,317$90,436$95,862$101,614

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Recover and decode coded-wire tags from returning salmon at four federal hatcheries. a. Examine returning salmon at four hatcheries. Collect scale sub-samples. Collect snouts from fish with coded-wire tags. b. Recover tags from snouts and decode tags c. Enter, proccess, and send data to RMIS ongoing $18,147
2.. Prepare annual written report which will evaluate the survival and distribution of all representative groups of production fish released at each of 11 federal anadromous hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin. a. Retrieve coded-wire tag recoveries from PSMFC database for tagged production groups b. Proccess data for individual groups c. prepare written analysis ongoing $20,633
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Recover and decode coded-wire tags from returning salmon at four federal hatcheries. 2004 2007 $61,239
2.. Prepare annual written report which will evaluate the survival and distribution of all representative groups of production fish released at each of 11 federal anadromous hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin. 2004 2007 $69,628
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$41,107$43,537$46,188$48,959

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 0.596 $34,986
Fringe $7,086
Supplies Coded-wire tags, cutter bars, rollers, scissors, disinfectant, aneshetic,etc. $20,899
Travel $1,913
Indirect $26,387
Subcontractor $7,500
Other Trailer Maintenance and Moves Office Operations $20,497
$119,268
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$119,268
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$119,268
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$147,191
% change from forecast-19.0%
Reason for change in estimated budget

increased efficiency

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Aug 2, 2002

Comment:

General ISRP comments on CWT Tagging #198906500, #198201302, and #198201304 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.)?

Recommendation:
Core Program
Date:
Oct 24, 2002

Comment:

BPA should fund only the appropriate share of the Fish and Wildlife Program demands on the coded wire tagging program.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 5, 2002

Comment:

ISRP Final Comments on CWT Tagging projects 198906500, 198201302, and 198201304:

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Jan 21, 2003

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Indirect biological benefits to listed stocks by providing critical stock assessment and fishery monitoring data.

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


Recommendation:
Fund (Tier 1)
Date:
Jun 11, 2003

Comment:

Category:
1. Council Staff preferred projects that fit province allocation

Comments:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 4, 2003

Comment:

Budget consistent with NPCC recommendation.