FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 198201302: Annual Stock Assessment - Coded Wire Tag Program (ODFW)

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
January 10, 2006 Finalized Mark Lewis

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 198201302
Proposal Name: Annual Stock Assessment - Coded Wire Tag Program (ODFW)
BPA Project Manager: Jamie Swan
Agency, Institution or Organization: Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW)
Short Description: Apply coded-wire tags to production releases of coho and chinook salmon at ODFW Columbia Basin hatcheries for stock assessment of hatchery and wild salmon populations. Evaluate survival, contribution and stray rates of hatchery reared salmon.
Information Transfer: All release and recovery information for coded-wire tagged salmon is reported to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commision and is available on their on-line computer database (http://www.rmis.org). Annual reports providing summaries and analysis of coded-wire tag data for ODFW Columbia Basin hatcheries are available (printed and electronically) from BPA (www.bpa.gov) and ODFW (www.orst.edu/Dept/ODFW/).
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Mark Lewis ODFW 28655 Hwy 34
Corvallis, or, 97333
Ph: (541) 757-4263 ex241
Fax: (541) 757-4102
Email: mark.lewis@oregonstate.edu
Form Submitter I am the ODFW technical contact and project manager for BPA Project # 1982-013-02
All Assigned Contacts
Mark Lewis ODFW 28655 Hwy 34
Corvallis, or, 97333
Ph: (541) 757-4263 ex241
Fax: (541) 757-4102
Email: mark.lewis@oregonstate.edu
Project Lead
I am the ODFW technical contact and project manager for BPA Project # 1982-013-02

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Mainstem/Systemwide ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Systemwide ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
45 33 33 123 34 06 Big Creek Big Creek Hatchery. Fish tagged and released at the hatchery. Clatsop, Oregon Columbia Estuary No
45 24 25 122 15 11 Cedar Creek Sandy Hatchery. Fish tagging site, released at the hatchery and at Blind Slough. Clackamas, Oregon Sandy No
45 38 30 121 55 33 Eagle Creek Cascade Hatchery. Fish tagging site, released in the Umatilla River, at Bonneville Hatchery and at Young’s Bay Net Pens. Multnomah, Oregon Columbia Lower No
45 40 32 121 51 31 Herman Creek Oxbow Hatchery. Fish tagging site, released at Clackamas hatchery. Hood River, Oregon Columbia Lower No
44 36 45 122 56 50 Marion Creek Marion Forks Hatchery. Fish tagging site, released at Minto Pond and in Sandy River. Linn, Oregon Willamette No
44 07 00 122 37 10 McKenzie River McKenzie Hatchery. Fish tagged and released at the hatchery. Lane, Oregon Willamette No
46 03 15 123 43 35 S Fk Klaskanine R. South Fork Klaskanine (CEDC) Hatchery. Fish tagged and released at the hatchery. Clatsop, Oregon Columbia Estuary No
44 24 57 122 40 21 S Fk Santiam R. South Santiam Hatchery. Fish tagged and released at the hatchery. Linn, Oregon Willamette No
43 44 37 122 26 33 Salmon Creek Willamette Hatchery. Fish tagging site. Released at Dexter Ponds, at South Santiam Hatchery, and in Molalla River. Lane, Oregon Willamette No
45 38 00 122 57 18 Tanner Creek Bonneville Hatchery. Fish tagged and released at the hatchery. Multnomah, Oregon Columbia Lower No
n.a. ODFW Clackamas Office. Head lab and office for fish tagging staff. Clackamas, Oregon Willamette Yes
n.a. ODFW Corvallis Lab Office for Project Leader Linn, Oregon Willamette Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Chinook Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook Upper Willamette River ESU
Coho Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook All Populations
Coho Unspecified Population

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Tag – 299,500 coho and 754,700 chinook salmon (total = 1,054,200). Collected tags from returning fish (not yet available). % of prod. fish associated with a CWT group and tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria (not yet available).
2004 Tag – 300,334 coho and 756,657 chinook salmon (total = 1,056,991). Collected tags from returning fish (not yet available). 99% of prod. fish associated with a CWT group. 20 of 23 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
2003 Tag – 303,233 coho and 756,647 chinook salmon (total = 1,059,880). Collected – 4,910 coho and 1,982 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 6,892). 99% of prod. fish associated with a CWT group. 21 of 22 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
2002 Tag – 330,150 coho and 702,070 chinook salmon (total = 1,032,220). Collected – 4,529 coho and 2,173 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 6,702). 99% of prod. fish associated with a CWT group. 18 of 23 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
2001 Tag - 352,575 coho and 659,054 chinook salmon (total = 1,011,629). Collected - 7,033 coho and 1,710 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 8,743). 98% of prod. fish associated with a CWT group. 19 of 24 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
2000 Tag - 423,169 coho and 621,870 chinook salmon (total = 1,045,039). Collected -3,723 coho and 625 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 4,348). 98% of prod. fish associated with a CWT group. 14 of 26 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
1999 Tag - 454,332 coho and 549,426 chinook salmon (total = 1,003,758). Collected - 1,390 coho and 439 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 1,829). 97% of prod. fish associated with a CWT group. 15 of 30 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
1998 Tag - 443,863 coho and 371,683 chinook salmon (total = 815,546). Collected - 977 coho and 255 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 1,232). 100% of prod fish associated with a CWT group. 11 of 20 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
1997 Tag - 417,350 coho and 370,004 chinook salmon (total = 787,354). Collected - 245 coho and 984 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 1,229). 98% of prod. fish associated with a CWT group. 13 of 27 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
1996 Tag - 294,933 coho and 547,427 chinook salmon (total = 842,360). Collected - 421 coho and 761 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 1,182). 84% of prod fish associated with a CWT group. 7 of 24 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
1995 Tag - 279,070 coho and 541,493 chinook salmon (total = 820,563). Collected - 425 coho and 491 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 916). 99% of prod. fish associated with a CWT group. 14 of 27 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
1994 Tag - 549,571 coho and 1,041,509 chinook salmon (total = 1,591,080). 16 mo. Collected - 1,150 coho and 539 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 1,689). 97% of prod fish assoc with a CWT group. 15 of 41 tag codes met 30 recoveries/grp criteria.
1993 Tag - 333,123 coho and 512,077 chinook salmon (total = 845,200). Collected - 873 coho and 538 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 1,411). 99% of prod. fish associated with a CWT group. 7 of 13 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
1992 Tag - 339,669 coho and 522,124 chinook salmon (total = 861,793). Collected - 2,840 coho and 290 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 3,130). 98% of prod. fish associated with a CWT group. 8 of 14 tag codes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
1991 Tag - 397,572 coho and 725,709 chinook salmon (total = 1,123,281). Collected - 5,285 coho and 43 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 5,328). 92% of prod. fish associated with a CWT group. 14 of 14 tagcodes met 30 recoveries/group criteria.
1990 Tag - 379,152 coho and 730,646 chinook salmon (total = 1,109,798). Collected - 338 coho and 1 chinook tags from returning fish (total = 339). 90% of production fish associated with a CWT group.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
Other: Mixed [no entry] ODFW - FID Section The ODFW Fish Identification Section receives funding from a variety of sources (Fed. State, and Local) for coded-wire tagging and recovery of CWT's in Oregon.
BPA 198201300 Coded-Wire Tag Recovery Provides sampling of catch and escapement for CWT fish. Compiles CWT recovery data and makes information available in PSMFC on-line database.
BPA 198201303 Coded Wire Tag - USFWS Complimentary coded-wire tagging project for USFWS hatcheries.
BPA 198201304 Coded Wire Tag - WDFW Complimentary coded-wire tagging project for WDFW hatcheries.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Harvest Status & Trend Monitoring This and other Ad+CWT marking contribute to monitoirng of ocean and frreshwater harvest of chinook and coho salmon. None Appendix A: RM&E Managment Questions, Information Needs and Cost Sharing Agencies (BPA 11/14/05). 13
Hatchery Post-Release Monitoring This project provides the Ad+CWT marking for the Umatilla Coho hatchery releases. Umatilla The Ad+CWT marking of hatchery coho is identified in the draft Umatilla River Coho HGMP Section 10.7 CWT data is also referenced in multiple places in Appendix H of the Umatilla Subbasin Plan. G-188
Hatchery Post-Release Monitoring This project, and other funding sources, provide for post-release monitoring of hatchery production through Ad+CWT marking. This will provide a component of the hatchery monitoirng need for implementing, evaluation and adaptive manamgent to meet the subbasin hatchery strategies. Lower Columbia Hatchery Strategies H.S2 H.S2 H.S3 Ad+CWT marking is identified in most of the draft HGMPs (Section 10.7) for hatchery programs in this subbasin. 6-48 to 49
Hatchery Post-Release Monitoring This project, and other funding sources, provide for post-release monitoring of hatchery production through Ad+CWT marking. This will provide a component of the hatchery monitoirng need for implementing, evaluation and adaptive manamgent to meet the subbasin hatchery strategies. Willamette Conserve and restore biological communities - Improve hatchery management through the funding and implementation of Hatchery-Genetics Management Plans. Ad+CWT marking is identified in most of the draft HGMPs (Section 10.7) for this subbasin. 5-18
Hatchery Status & Trend Monitoring This and other Ad+CWT marking contribute to post-release monitoirng of hatchery fish (Survival, Harvest, Escapement) and contirbute to determining hatchery/wild ratios of natural spawning grounds through release group specific marking. None Appendix A: RM&E Managment Questions, Information Needs and Cost Sharing Agencies (BPA 11/14/05). 12

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Coordinate with BPA Environmental Specialist to fulfill NEPA requirements. 1/1/2007 1/31/2009 $612
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Manage and Administer Projects Manage & Administer Project Perform administrative support for Coded Wire tagging field operations and analysis operations during entire contract performance period. Sponsor may be requested to attend BPA, Council, CBFWA conferences and workshops. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $55,060
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report Annual Report Produce and provide Annual Report. 1) Prepare summary of coded-wire tag release and recovery information for all Oregon hatcheries in the Columbia Basin by species and brood year (for the last 5 brood years). 2) Prepare summary analysis for each hatchery. The hatchery summary will include an estimate of the survival and contribution for all salmon released from each hatchery, for the last 5 brood years, that were represented by a coded-wire tag release group. 2/1/2007 3/15/2009 $54,448
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Recover CWTs From Snout Of Fish Tagged Recover coded-wire tags from snouts of fish tagged in Work Elements Mark & Tag Animals in prior fiscal years and released during 2002 to 2005: (2003 brood coho; 2001 to 2003 brood chinook). 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $144,670
Biological Objectives Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Process est. 3,160 salmon snouts to recover CWTs

Mark/Tag Animals Tag & Release Bright Fall Chinook Insure all ODFW Columbia Basin hatchery chinook production releases have a representative adipose fin clipped and coded wire tagged (Ad+CWT) group included in the release. 1/1/2007 5/1/2009 $53,098
Biological Objectives Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Ad+CWT mark 100,000 CHF

Mark/Tag Animals Tag & Release Coho Salmon Insure all ODFW Columbia Basin hatchery coho production releases have a representative adipose fin clipped and coded wire tagged (Ad+CWT) group included in the release. 1/1/2007 11/30/2009 $146,020
Biological Objectives Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Ad+CWT mark 275,000 Coho

Mark/Tag Animals Tag & Release Spring Chinook Insure all ODFW Columbia Basin hatchery chinook production releases have a representative adipose fin clipped and coded wire tagged (Ad+CWT) group included in the release. 1/1/2007 9/15/2009 $191,770
Biological Objectives Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Ad+CWT mark 360,000 CHS

Mark/Tag Animals Tag & Release Tule Fall Chinook Insure all ODFW Columbia Basin hatchery chinook production releases have a representative adipose fin clipped and coded wire tagged (Ad+CWT) group included in the release. 1/1/2007 4/15/2009 $106,199
Biological Objectives Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Ad+CWT mark 200,000 CHF


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel Project Manager $18,264 $18,629 $19,002
Personnel Tagging Supervisor $11,290 $11,515 $11,745
Personnel Head Lab Assistant $22,932 $23,391 $23,859
Fringe Benefits Head Lab Assistant $11,466 $11,695 $11,929
Fringe Benefits Project Manager $8,219 $8,383 $8,551
Fringe Benefits Tagging Supervisor $5,080 $5,182 $5,285
Travel PerDiem (Lodging & Meals) $3,465 $3,534 $3,605
Travel Vehicle Costs $2,030 $2,071 $2,112
Supplies Coded-wire Tags $74,800 $76,296 $77,821
Supplies Tagging Supplies Needles $187 $191 $195
Supplies Tagging Supplies Cutter bars $8,602 $8,774 $8,950
Supplies Tagging Supplies Drive Rollers $318 $324 $331
Supplies Tagging Supplies Anesthetic $327 $334 $340
Supplies Tagging Supplies Disinfectant $94 $96 $98
Supplies Tagging Supplies Misc. $234 $239 $243
Supplies Tagging Equipment Maint. $524 $534 $545
Supplies Tag Recovery Supplies $395 $403 $411
Other Subcontract (Temp. Taggers) $17,111 $17,453 $17,802
Overhead Indirect @ 35.87% $60,342 $61,549 $62,780
Totals $245,680 $250,593 $255,604

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$751,877
Total Work Element budget$751,877

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$260,716 $265,930 Based on a 2% annual increase in costs.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
Ongoing project. If Ad+CWT marking component of project was terminated, costs for tag recovery (WE 157), Annual Reports (WE 132) and project managment (WE 119 & 165) would continue for five years, to recover tags from returning adult coho and chinook.
 
Termination Date Comments
Ongoing This project funds ongoing basic monitoring. Therefore, at this time there is no anticipated end date. Changes in technology, hatchery production levels, and monitoring and evaluation needs may result in changes in, or elimination of, part or all of this projects work elements.
 
Final Deliverables

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
No changes were made to this proposal


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$228,775
FY 2008 Budget
$228,775
FY 2009 Budget
$228,775
Total NPCC Rec
$686,325
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:Basinwide
Recommendation:Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending further Council consideration of regional monitoring and evaluation framework.


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$228,775
FY 2008 Budget
$228,775
FY 2009 Budget
$228,775
Total NPCC Rec
$686,325
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$228,775
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$228,775
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$228,775
Total MSRT Rec
$686,325
Budget Category:Basinwide
Comments: Interim funding pending further Council consideration of regional monitoring and evaluation framework.

Local or MSRT Comments: The MSRT recommends funding the CWT projects at their FY2006 level plus a 5% increase for increased costs.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC Comments: This well-written proposal is one of three projects (ODFW, WDFW, USFWS) that coordinates and funds tagging at ten Oregon hatcheries as part of the regional coded wire tagging (CWT) program. An excellent background section, the same as presented in the WDFW proposal, explains the need and utility of the coded-wire tagging program and how it addresses the issues of basin wide stock assessments and the monitoring and evaluation of hatchery production. It contains a very good description of the different fish marking methods. It clearly explains the basic assumptions of CWT marking and directly addresses several questions about CWT raised by the ISRP in its 2000 review. The sponsors provide a useful review of technical and scientific information on the coded-wire tagging program.

The 18-year history of the project is well described. A good narrative history of the project describes how project results have been used to modify and improve hatchery operations. It also describes the utility of understanding factors influencing variability in survival. Tables summarize the numbers of fish tagged over the life of the project, results of quality-control checks on tagging, and funding history. The narrative also discusses some of the challenges that have been addressed along the way. Disposition of the data on tagging is described. Overall, the proposal presents a good interpretive explanation of the program and its evolution over time that supplements information provided in the "answering ISRP questions" section.

The proposal contains a clear description of the significance of CWT to the region through its contribution to more accurate, complete and accessible data. It describes the wide range of uses for the data produced by the CWT recovery program. It relates the program to the Fish and Wildlife Program and to the BiOp-required Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans.

The proposal identifies the other CWT projects to which it is directly related, giving a clear description of how these projects interrelate to form a comprehensive monitoring program. The goal of the CWT Program is to ensure comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of all Columbia Basin Hatchery salmon production. The proposal also describes other agencies that use the data and the management forums that depend on the data for run-size forecasting and harvest allocation. It describes some of the multiple subbasin projects that use the CWT data. The CWT program is a strong collaborative effort.

Each coded-wire tag group represents a portion of the total hatchery production for the species. Multiple tag groups at each hatchery represent different production scenarios, such as one portion of the production released at a different time or size than another portion. This specific objective, and the means to achieve it and other marking objectives, may be affected by a new basinwide-marking plan currently under development by the co-managers in the Columbia Basin. Although this plan is currently under development, additional marking and sampling likely will be required. Much of that expanded work will require the use of the CWT coupled with electronic tag detection sampling programs.

The proposal makes the point that the ability to meet the project’s overall objective may be affected by changes in the basin-wide marking plan currently being developed by co-managers. In the introduction to the objectives section the proposal makes the point that this is an M&E project whose purpose is to provide information necessary to monitor, evaluate and manage salmon harvest and hatchery programs. By itself, it does not have a biological objective. The section describes how this project contributes to achieving the objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program and BiOp through many related projects. Still, even though the description is clear, objectives for accomplishing the work this project does in the course of providing this information could have been specified. Later in the "work elements" section four appropriate "overall objectives" are specified. Methods are well described in detail. Error checking is a routine part of the tag application and data collection process.

The project is a long-term monitoring and evaluation project focused on providing information for the M&E of a range of other projects and programs. The information will be used to monitor and evaluate progress toward regional biological objectives, and provide the information necessary for adaptive management of salmonid populations and their habitats. The project contains elements of project effectiveness monitoring throughout in tag checking, data error checking, annual evaluations of tagging and recovery, annual evaluation of hatchery practices that lead to recommendations to change. The history and "answers to questions" sections provide additional examples of how this has occurred. There does not seem to be specific evaluation of the CWT marking process itself although otolith checks were used in a past effort.

The proponents state, "there has been considerable statistical research that now provides guidelines on tagging levels and models for evaluating variability...(several papers cited)...but also say much more statistical work, however, remains to be done." It would be useful to have needed work identified. It would also be useful to know whether there has been any progress in solving the problem of underestimating tag loss (because this is assessed only in the first five days post tagging).

Clarifications and adjustments to the proposed methods, objectives, and budgets by the sponsor in consultation with the Council and BPA might be needed given the recent reductions in salmon fisheries where CWT hatchery fish might be recovered. What will be the impact of the 2006 South of Falcon fishery reductions on the integrity of the data? What are the sampling implications of the fishery reductions?


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC Comments: This well-written proposal is one of three projects (ODFW, WDFW, USFWS) that coordinates and funds tagging at ten Oregon hatcheries as part of the regional coded wire tagging (CWT) program. An excellent background section, the same as presented in the WDFW proposal, explains the need and utility of the coded-wire tagging program and how it addresses the issues of basin wide stock assessments and the monitoring and evaluation of hatchery production. It contains a very good description of the different fish marking methods. It clearly explains the basic assumptions of CWT marking and directly addresses several questions about CWT raised by the ISRP in its 2000 review. The sponsors provide a useful review of technical and scientific information on the coded-wire tagging program.

The 18-year history of the project is well described. A good narrative history of the project describes how project results have been used to modify and improve hatchery operations. It also describes the utility of understanding factors influencing variability in survival. Tables summarize the numbers of fish tagged over the life of the project, results of quality-control checks on tagging, and funding history. The narrative also discusses some of the challenges that have been addressed along the way. Disposition of the data on tagging is described. Overall, the proposal presents a good interpretive explanation of the program and its evolution over time that supplements information provided in the "answering ISRP questions" section.

The proposal contains a clear description of the significance of CWT to the region through its contribution to more accurate, complete and accessible data. It describes the wide range of uses for the data produced by the CWT recovery program. It relates the program to the Fish and Wildlife Program and to the BiOp-required Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans.

The proposal identifies the other CWT projects to which it is directly related, giving a clear description of how these projects interrelate to form a comprehensive monitoring program. The goal of the CWT Program is to ensure comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of all Columbia Basin Hatchery salmon production. The proposal also describes other agencies that use the data and the management forums that depend on the data for run-size forecasting and harvest allocation. It describes some of the multiple subbasin projects that use the CWT data. The CWT program is a strong collaborative effort.

Each coded-wire tag group represents a portion of the total hatchery production for the species. Multiple tag groups at each hatchery represent different production scenarios, such as one portion of the production released at a different time or size than another portion. This specific objective, and the means to achieve it and other marking objectives, may be affected by a new basinwide-marking plan currently under development by the co-managers in the Columbia Basin. Although this plan is currently under development, additional marking and sampling likely will be required. Much of that expanded work will require the use of the CWT coupled with electronic tag detection sampling programs.

The proposal makes the point that the ability to meet the project’s overall objective may be affected by changes in the basin-wide marking plan currently being developed by co-managers. In the introduction to the objectives section the proposal makes the point that this is an M&E project whose purpose is to provide information necessary to monitor, evaluate and manage salmon harvest and hatchery programs. By itself, it does not have a biological objective. The section describes how this project contributes to achieving the objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program and BiOp through many related projects. Still, even though the description is clear, objectives for accomplishing the work this project does in the course of providing this information could have been specified. Later in the "work elements" section four appropriate "overall objectives" are specified. Methods are well described in detail. Error checking is a routine part of the tag application and data collection process.

The project is a long-term monitoring and evaluation project focused on providing information for the M&E of a range of other projects and programs. The information will be used to monitor and evaluate progress toward regional biological objectives, and provide the information necessary for adaptive management of salmonid populations and their habitats. The project contains elements of project effectiveness monitoring throughout in tag checking, data error checking, annual evaluations of tagging and recovery, annual evaluation of hatchery practices that lead to recommendations to change. The history and "answers to questions" sections provide additional examples of how this has occurred. There does not seem to be specific evaluation of the CWT marking process itself although otolith checks were used in a past effort.

The proponents state "there has been considerable statistical research that now provides guidelines on tagging levels and models for evaluating variability...(several papers cited)...but also say much more statistical work, however, remains to be done." It would be useful to have needed work identified. It would also be useful to know whether there has been any progress in solving the problem of underestimating tag loss (because this is assessed only in the first five days post tagging).

Clarifications and adjustments to the proposed methods, objectives, and budgets by the sponsor in consultation with the Council and BPA might be needed given the recent reductions in salmon fisheries where CWT hatchery fish might be recovered. What will be the impact of the 2006 South of Falcon fishery reductions on the integrity of the data? What are the sampling implications of the fishery reductions?

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.