Qualification: The ISRP requested information from the proponents in several areas. Some has been provided in this response, but critical questions about the project remain unaddressed. A point-by-point response to the ISRP request for more information should be included in an updated on-line proposal, during contract negotiations with BPA and in the 2011 Annual Report, which should be submitted to the ISRP for review.

Information should be provided on the following:

(1) Project relationships: the response includes only a cryptic note "identify relationships to 1982-013-01, 02, 03; 2010-036-00 (LCR exp CWT recovery-Rawding; others (see other CWT proposals)” and does not adequately describe how this project fits in the larger context of CWT projects. Proponents need to expand this note into a complete description of these relationships.

(2) Deliverables: Instead of addressing the ISRP's request for more detailed information, the proponents argue that the Taurus format is the problem. Nevertheless, the project has only one deliverable that does not seem to directly relate to the objectives, and no metrics were specified.

(3) Accomplishments: The table provided shows the number of tags recovered only for the years 1994-1998. Does this mean that the project was not involved in tag recovery in other years, and if so how does this comport with Objectives 2 and 3?

(4) Methods of tagging and sampling: Methods are only very briefly described as "standard methods." The proponents need to describe their standard methods, cite appropriate references, and include these references in a list of citations. The project goal is to "Coded-wire tag at least one group of fish representative of each hatchery's production of a given species that is currently not being tagged through another program for Columbia Basin salmon released in Washington." The table showing the plan for tagging is a good start, but it needs to be expanded to incorporate all hatcheries, including those covered by other programs. How is the representativeness of a particular release group determined? How is this plan coordinated with the other programs? Is CWT tagging of the stocks listed 100% or are some fish released without a CWT or with a CWT but without a fin clip?

The proponents did not document the percentage of poor fin clips (fish that might be identified as natural origin) or indicate whether they report these data to RMIS.

(5) Limiting factors: The proponents state "Because the focus of this project is on tagging and reporting on tag data for hatchery stocks, this project is not expected to be vulnerable to impacts from emerging limiting factors." Nevertheless, there are emerging limiting factors, e.g., changes to mark-selective fisheries or the issue of mini-jacks, that need to be identified and discussed.

Recent studies show that many male yearling Chinook salmon mature as mini-jacks (up to ~50% of males in some hatcheries), i.e., fish that never go to sea and that are not captured to any degree in fisheries. The presence of mini-jacks can bias studies that rely upon CWT data to estimate release to recovery survival, and possibly other studies that rely upon CWT data. Studies also show that the proportion of mini-jacks in the release can be estimated through blood sampling from a portion of the yearling release. These data could be used to account for CWT releases of mini-jacks if the data were recorded to RMIS along with other CWT data. The proponents should describe how they are addressing the issue of mini-jacks among yearling Chinook.

(6) Adaptive management: The proponents do not describe how the project will adapt to changing needs and conditions or how it will test different sampling or tagging methods. As the ISRP indicated in its review, the proposal needs to explain how the collection of data is adjusted to address identified weaknesses and how it is connected to the management use of data.

The CWT program is very important for evaluating, monitoring, and management of fisheries in the Columbia River Basin. As the WDFW portion of the CWT program, this proposal addresses an important regional need. However, the proposal lacks explanatory detail in a number of important areas that limit the extent to which it can be reviewed. The ISRP requests a response on several critical components of the project to provide adequate detail adequate to enable a full scientific review. Information is needed on the project’s financial history, financial performance, accomplishments, project relationships, deliverables, methods of tagging and sampling, metrics, adaptive management, and limiting factors. The proposal needs to explain how the collection of data is adjusted to address identified weaknesses and how it is connected to the management use of data. These further information needs are described in more detail in the body of the review comments. The proposal should also provide information on the project’s plan for tagging, and the identification of which stocks it will tag, throughout the Washington portion of the Columbia River Basin. For this project and all other hatchery projects involving adipose fin clipping, it is important to document the percentage of poor clips (fish that might be identified as natural origin) and to report these data to RMIS. This annual estimate can be very important for researchers and managers that rely on marks to identify hatchery and wild fish in their samples. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The purpose of the WDFW project is to implant CWTs into at least one production group of hatchery coho and Chinook at each Columbia Basin hatchery, thereby contributing to the annual assessment of hatchery and wild salmon populations. The project goal is to tag a statistically valid number of coho and Chinook salmon from each hatchery such that accurate estimates of survival and distribution in the ocean, in freshwater fisheries and escapement areas can be made. The proposal provides an adequate technical background for the need to maintain the CWT collection program. It notes that the CWT database provides the framework for the basic performance measures of hatchery salmon production programs and so is significant to a broad range of regional programs. The project has three objectives: 1. Tag salmon; 2. Recover and decode CWTs; and 3. Produce annual progress report. Each has the same deliverable: “Effective CWT database and stock assessment opportunities” which does not seem to directly relate to the objectives. No metrics are specified. The expected outcome of continuing this project is to provide a long and consistent time series of survival and distribution data that can be used to measure trends in abundance of selected hatchery stocks. In addition, the tagged hatchery stocks would be used to provide data relevant to the management of natural stocks, including many that are listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA. This project is an important part of fisheries monitoring, evaluation, and management in Washington. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management A financial history of the past five years is provided without explanation. Under the explanation of the financial performance, reference is made to “financial missteps” in the past year, without further explanation. A number of cost share partners are listed. Reference is made to past due reports and efforts being taken to address the issue of reporting and deliverable timeliness. No details are provided as to how the problems are being addressed. The project has successfully provided CWT data, key to the monitoring, evaluation, and management of the fisheries for more than 15 years. However, the “accomplishments” section of the proposal, while referring to the utility of CWT data and to the objectives of the project, does not summarize the project accomplishments to date. The brief “adaptive management” discussion focuses on the use of CWT data in adaptive management of harvest or hatchery operations, but does not address adaptive management within the project. Given the past operational problems identified in the proposal and within the larger context of the PSC “action plan” recommendations, it would be useful to have an explicit discussion of how this project will adapt its management to these recommendations and identified problems. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The proposal lists no project relationships, although elsewhere in the proposal a number of links between this project and other regional entities are identified. The collected data are critical for evaluating (by others) emerging limiting factors. CWTs are a key tool for research, monitoring and evaluation. The proposal states that because its focus is on tagging and reporting it is not vulnerable to impacts of emerging limiting factors. However, it does not discuss the presence of factors that may limit the ability of the project to meet its specified deliverables and achieve its objectives. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The project has one deliverable for all three objectives: “Effective CWT database and stock assessment opportunities” which does not seem to directly relate to the objectives. No metrics are specified. The project has three work elements. A very general and overly brief description of tagging is presented. No discussion of sampling methods is presented. A brief description of operational methods (e.g. where samples are taken) is provided under the objectives. Data are reported to the PSMFC RMIS web page in a timely fashion. Data are used by other projects, as mentioned above.

This project is committed to working, in coordination with other related projects (1982-013-01, 1982-013-02, 1982-013-03, 2010-036-00), with an appropriate BiOp RM&E collaboration workgroup or other process to assess whether current and planned CWT tagging and sampling rates are adequate to support VSP monitoring and assessment needs for ESA listed populations, and to make changes to tagging rates (this project does not conduct sampling) as appropriate to meet the need and within the limits of available funding.

I will contact my COTR, Richard Golden, for clarification of details and to arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: 50.6, 50.7, 51.1, and  62.4.

This well-written proposal is for one of three projects (WDFW, ODFW, USFWS) that coordinates and funds tagging at Washington state hatcheries as part of the regional coded wire tagging (CWT) program. An excellent background section, the same as presented in the ODFW proposal, explains the need and utility of the coded wire tagging program. It describes how the CWT program addresses the issues of basin wide stock assessments and the need to monitor and evaluate hatchery production. The proposal contains a very good description of the different fish marking methods, clearly explains the basic assumptions of CWT marking and directly addresses several questions about CWT raised by the ISRP in its 2000 review.

The proposal clearly describes 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. It also describes other agencies that use the data and the management forums that depend on the data for run size forecasting and harvest allocation.

The 15-year history of the project is summarized as the numbers and type of fish tagged in each year. The number of tagged fish released by this program has declined from 2,080,000 Chinook and coho in 2000 to a present goal of 1,360,800 Chinook and coho. It is not clear why the 2003-04 tagging levels are stated as a goal. The history of the number of tagged fish recovered from these releases and the annual costs of this program are not provided. Other sections of the proposal contain excellent interpretive explanation of the program and its evolution over time, particularly the "answering ISRP questions" section.

The proposal has three objectives: tag and release smolts from six hatcheries, recover and decode tags, evaluate results and develop preliminary catch distribution data. The proposal makes the point elsewhere that the ability of the project to meet the overall objective may be affected by changes in the basinwide marking plan currently being developed by co-managers. Methods are well described in detail. Error checking is a routine part of the data collection process. The project is a long-term monitoring and evaluation effort that contains elements of internal monitoring throughout in error checking, annual evaluations of tagging and recovery, and annual evaluation of hatchery practices that lead to recommendations to change.

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.