Within-Year Modification Request Form for FY 2008

 
Access CBFWA's Status of the Resource (SOTR) website or BPA's Report Center for more information on
Project 198201304 (Province: Lower Columbia Subbasin: None Selected )
SOTR Province View
Status & Trends Projects Interactive Map Report
SOTR Subbasin View
Status & Trends Projects Interactive Map Report
SOTR Project & Correspondence
Project
Pisces Report
Project Status Work Funded

View Modification

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Section 2: Description
Section 3: Related Projects
Section 4: Planning and Design
Section 5: Construction/Implementation
Section 6: Operations and Maintenance
Section 7: Monitoring and Evaluation
Section 8: Total Budget
Section 9: Project Documents
Part 2. Current Status of Modification Request
Part 3. Comments on this Modification Request


Part 1 of 3. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status BOG Meeting Date
October 28, 2008 Finalized November 12, 2008

Modification Type: FY 2008 Within-Year Ongoing
BPA Project Number: 198201304
BPA Project Name: Coded Wire Tag - WDFW
COTR/BPA Project Manager: Jamie Swan
Agency, Institution or Organization Requesting Rescheduling: WDFW
Funding Type: expense
Project Leader: Ron Roler
Province: Lower Columbia
Subbasin: None Selected
 
Contact Person
First Name: Ron
Last Name Roler
Address: 2108 Grand Blvd
City, State Zip: Vancouver, Washington 98661
Phone: 360-906-6737
Fax: 360.906.6776
Email: rolerrjr@dfw.wa.gov

Administrative Contacts
Primary Administrative Contact Secondary Administrative Contact:
Name Wolf Dammers Name Steve Vigg (Supervisor)
Address: 2108 Grand Blvd Address: 2108 Grand Blvd
City, State Zip: Vancouver, Washington 98661 City, State Zip: Vancouver, Washington 98661
Phone: 360-906-6709 Phone: 360-906-6709
Fax: 360-906-6737 Fax: 360-906-6737
Email: dammewhd@dfw.wa.gov Email: viggscv@dfw.wa.gov
Note: Note: WDFW Region 5 Fishery Mgt Manager

Section 2a: Description (Species Information)
Target Species Oncorhynchus spp. (salmonids)

Provide explanations as to why the following alternative funding solutions are not feasible and will jeopardize the project:
Reduction in existing scope of project: The CWT Missing Production Group (MPG) Project has been at level funding for over 10 years; this resulted in an effectively reduced annual budget for the CWT tagging aspect of the project -- since personnel costs gradually increased each year based on COLA salary adjustments. In addition, this year (FY2009)we have taken a 17% reduction in the overall scope of the Project due to a BPA Policy decision based on the "in lieu" issue. What we are requesting in this modification is just the amount needed to cover the increased cost of CWT product from $130 per thousand in 2008 to $163 per thousand in 2009. If this additional cost -- i.e., an increase of $33 per thousand CWTs -- is not compensated for, then the reduction in scope would significantly exceed the 17% we have already absorbed for FY2009. This additional cost of CWT product (approximately $44,636) amounts to an additional 17% cut in the project -- which would effectively cut the project by about one-third in one year. This level of cut would result in insufficient number of tags per tag group (i.e., reduced sample size) to obtain statistically reliable survival estimates; our only alternative at that point would be to eliminate whole tag groups -- that runs counter to the objectives of the MPG Project (see narrative under "Deferral ..." below).
Deferral of existing work elements to later date: The intent of the BPA funding of the Missing Production group Project is to coded-wire tag (CWT) at least one production group of each species at each Columbia Basin hatchery in Washington – to provide a holistic assessment of survival and catch distribution over time and to meet various measures of the Northwest Power and Conservation Councils (NWPCC) Fish and Wildlife Program. The WDFW project has three main objectives: 1) coded-wire tag at least one production group of each species at each Columbia Basin hatchery to enable evaluation of survival and catch distribution over time, 2) recover coded-wire tags from the snouts of fish tagged under objective 1 and estimate survival, contribution, and stray rates for each group, and 3) report the findings under objective 2 for all broods of chinook, and coho released from WDFW Columbia Basin hatcheries. It is not possible to defer the work to the next year because that would result in the loss of an entire brood year’s production in the database. This disruption of CWT marked year-classes would invalidate all subsequent survival estimates that are based on a continuous sequence of cohort analyses.

Section 2b: Description (Location Information)
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Location Description
SW Washington, Lower Columbia river

Is this/Are these the same study location(s) that was/were identified in the original proposal? No

Condition/situation creating the need for the modification:
Is the situation the result of a catastrophic event that occurred within the existing location? No
Has a habitat/population/mechanical/structural dilemma developed in the proposed study location since the contract was signed with BPA? No

Section 2c: Description (Work Element Information)
What work elements in the existing proposal does the proposed modification address?
Work Element Work Element Title
Purchase CWTs Purchase CWTs

Proposed action to achieve the objective(s) Purchase CWTs -- budget modification is to compensate for $33 per 1000 increase in CWT cost FY2008 vs FY2009.

Does not implementing this modification jeopardize the ability to achieve existing biological objectives of this project, as well as other projects? Yes

Explain: The increase cost of purchasing CWTs in FY2009 ($130 per 1000 versus $163 per 1000) would effectively result in a budget balance decrease for CWT purchase, personnel and operations of $44,636. This constitutes an additional Budget decrease of 17% and would result in the reduction of sample size of Tag Groups to the point that statistically valid estimates of survival rates would not be possible. Our only alternative at that point would be to eliminate whole tag groups -- that alternative runs counter to the primary objective of the MPG Project; that is: to coded-wire tag (CWT) at least one production group of each species at each Columbia Basin hatchery to enable evaluation of survival and catch distribution over time.

Section 2d: Description (BiOp Information)
NMFS and/or FWS Biological Opinion that this funding request addresses Strategy
NMFS &/or USFWS
How proposed actions will address the BiOp
(i.e., substrategy / limiting factor / metric to be achieved)
NMFS May 5, 2008 Harvest BiOp harvest Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2)Consultation Biological Opinion And Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Consultation on Treaty Indian and Non-Indian Fisheries in the Columbia River Basin Subject To the 2008-2017 US v. Oregon Management Agreement. Section 13.5 Terms & Conditions 2c. NOAA Fisheries, in cooperation with the U.S. v. Oregon parties, shall sample fisheries for stock composition, including the collection of coded-wire-tags in all non-Treaty and treaty-Indian fisheries and other biological information, to allow for a thorough and statistically valid post-season analysis of fishery impacts on listed species.
NMFS May 5, 2008 FCRPS BiOp hydro

Excerpts from the FCRPS BiOp follow:

Coded wire tags (CWTs) are made of magnetized, stainless-steel wire. They bear distinctive notches that can be coded for such data as species, brood year, hatchery of origin, and so forth (Nielsen 1992). The tags are intended to remain within the animal indefinitely, consequently making them ideal for long-term, population-level assessments of Pacific Northwest salmon. The tag is injected into the nasal cartilage of a salmon and therefore causes little direct tissue damage (Bergman et al. 1968, Bordner et al. 1990). The conditions under which CWTs may be inserted are similar to those required for applying PIT-tags. A major advantage to using CWTs is the fact that they have a negligible effect on the biological condition or response of tagged salmon. However, if the tag is placed too deeply in the snout of a fish, it may kill the fish, reduce its growth, or damage olfactory tissue (Fletcher et al. 1987; Peltz and Miller 1990). This latter effect can create problems for species like salmon because they use olfactory clues to guide their spawning migrations (Morrison and Zajac 1987). In order for researchers to be able to determine later (after the initial tagging) which fish possess CWTs, it is necessary to mark the fish externally—usually by clipping the adipose fin—when the CWT is implanted (see text below for information on fin clipping). One major disadvantage to recovering data from CWTs is that the fish must be killed in order for the tag to be removed. However, this is not a significant problem because researchers generally recover CWTs from salmon that have been taken during the course of commercial and recreational harvest (and are therefore already dead).

CWT analyses are required to monitor harvest impacts on ESA-listed species; for example Snake River Fall Chinook: 8.2.5.5 Effects of Harvest Prospective Actions Effects on Species Status Under the Prospective Action the harvest of SR fall Chinook will vary from year-to-year based on the following abundance-based harvest rate schedule (Table 8.2.5.5-1). Harvest will depend on the abundance of unlisted upriver fall Chinook and natural-origin SR fall Chinook. The allowable harvest rate will range from 21.5% to 45.0%.

Another example is spring/summer chinook: Limiting Factors and Threats Limiting factors for the Snake River spring /summer Chinook include the Federal and private hydropower projects, predation, harvest, the estuary, and tributary habitat. Ocean conditions have also affected the status of this ESU. These conditions have been generally poor for this ESU over the at least the last four brood cycles, improving only in the last few years. Although hatchery management is not identified as a limiting factor for the ESU as a whole, the ICTRT has indicated potential hatchery impacts for a few individual populations. Recent Ocean and Mainstem Harvest. The ocean fishery mortality on Snake River spring/summer Chinook is very low and, for practical purposes, assumed to be zero. Incidental take of Snake River spring/summer Chinook occurs in spring and summer season fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River that target harvestable hatchery and natural-origin stocks. The fisheries on harvestable runs were limited to ensure that incidental take of ESA-listed Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook does not exceed a rate of from 5.5 to 17%. The incidental take of natural-origin upriver spring/summer Chinook averaged 10.2% since 2001.

Another example is Lower Columbia River chinook: Limiting Factors Human impacts and limiting factors for the LCR Chinook include habitat degradation (including tributary hydropower development), hatchery effects, fishery management and harvest decisions, and predation. Lower Columbia River Chinook populations began declining in the early 1900s because of habitat changes and harvest rates. FCRPS impacts have been limited, but are most significant for the five populations that spawn in tributaries above Bonneville Dam. Hatchery production for LCR Chinook has reduced the diversity and productivity of natural populations throughout the ESU.

Fisheries, primarily off the Washington coast and as far north as Alaska, and in spring season fisheries in the Columbia River mainstem and tributaries. In recent years, the total exploitation rates for the Cowlitz spring Chinook population (as a surrogate for all spring Chinook populations of the LCR Chinook ESU) were generally higher prior to the mid 1990s, averaging 50% through 1994. Total exploitation rates have averaged approximately 27% since 1995. The average exploitation rates for non-Treaty fisheries in the Columbia River for these same periods were 27% and 12% respectively. Lower Columbia River fall-run (tule) Chinook populations are caught in ocean fisheries off the coasts of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Total exploitation rates were generally higher through 1993 (averaging 69%), lower from 1994 to 1999 (averaging 34%), then increasing since 2000 (averaging 49%). From 2002 to 2006 fisheries were managed subject to a 49% exploitation rate limit. Total exploitation rates have been higher in some years but have averaged 49% from 2002 to 2006. The average exploitation rates for non-Treaty fisheries in the Columbia River for these same periods were 16%, 8% and 9% respectively. Total exploitation rates estimates to the North Fork Lewis bright Chinook population (as a surrogate for all “bright” Chinook populations of the LCR Chinook ESU) were generally higher through 1989 (averaging 56%), declining during the decade of the 1990s (averaging 36%), and increased slightly since 2000 (averaging 38%). The average exploitation rates for non-Treaty fisheries in the Columbia River for these same periods were 25%, 14% and 16% respectively.

Quantitative analysis of fishery harvest impacts, discussed above, are dependent upon CWT analyses.


Section 2e: Description (Objectives)
Objectives of this proposed project
Objective
(abbreviation)
Full Description
1. CWT all Production Groups 1) coded-wire tag at least one production group of each species at each Columbia Basin hatchery to enable evaluation of survival and catch distribution over time.
2. Recover CWTs for Analysis 2) recover coded-wire tags from the snouts of fish tagged under objective 1 and estimate survival, contribution, and stray rates for each group.
3. Report the findings 3) report the findings under objective 2 for all broods of chinook, and coho released from WDFW Columbia Basin hatcheries.

Section 3: Is This Funding Request Related to Other Projects in the Basin?

Other projects that are related to this request
Project # Project Title/Description Nature of Relationship

Section 4: Estimated Budget for Planning & Design phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Planning & Design
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Planning & Design
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost

Outyear totals
Planning & Design

Section 5: Estimated Budget for Contruction/Implementation phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Contruction/Implementation
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Contruction/Implementation
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost

Outyear totals
Contruction/Implementation

Section 6: Estimated Budget for Operations & Maintenance phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Operations & Maintenance
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Operations & Maintenance
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost

Outyear totals
Operations & Maintenance

Section 7: Estimated Budget for Monitoring & Evaluation phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Monitoring & Evaluation
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?
1. CWT all Production Groups Mark/Tag Animals CWT all Washington Hatchery Anadromous Salmonid Production Groups Tag sufficient numbers of juvenile salmonids per production Group to enable statistically valid estimates of life cycle survival estimates and stray rates. Number of salmonids tagged per production group; number of production groups tagged 2009 $44,636 No

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Monitoring & Evaluation
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost

Outyear totals
Monitoring & Evaluation

Section 8: Total Budget Modification Request

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2008 Cost

Total Estimated Budget Modification
Total FY 2008 budget modification $44,636
Total FY 2008 budget for this project, including modification request $315,902

Outyear Budget Totals
Not applicable

Cost sharing associated with this modification
Organization Item or Service Provided Amount ($) Cash or in-kind?

Section 9: Narrative, Maps and Project Documents
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 3. Current Status of Modification Request
Meeting Date Status Record Entry Date Decision Group Adjustment Category Urgency Status Budget Impact Reconsider Date
11/12/2008  10/28/2008  NA      Submitted  $44,636   
Decision Comments Next Steps
   
11/12/2008  11/12/2008  BOG  Budget  CAT-3b2: Loss of Monitoring and Evaluation Data  Under BOG Review  $44,636  2/16/2009 
Decision Comments Next Steps
Program needs to look at coded-wire tags raw costs for other projects that BPA funds. Council has a tagging report that will be coming the near future that will be helpful for reviewing this request.  This request will be reviewed by Fish Four in January and by at the Council Meeting in February. 
11/12/2008  2/11/2009  BPA  Budget    BPA Denied  $ 0   
Decision Comments Next Steps
Per letter from Bill Maslen to Tony Grover on 1/6/09, FY09 budgets were increased to FY08 levels. Therefore, no additional funds will be added via this BOG request.   

Part 3 of 3. Comments on this Modification Request
There are no comments on this proposed modification.