Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1982-013-01 - Coded Wire-Tag Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1982-013-01 - Coded Wire-Tag Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Project Number:
1982-013-01
Title:
Coded Wire-Tag Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Summary:
The Coded-Wire Tag (CWT) Recovery Project is an on-going data collection and data management program conducted by ODFW, WDFW, and PSMFC that supports a coastwide stock identification system for coded-wire tagged salmonid fish. Within the Columbia Basin, the CWT is used extensively for identification of hatchery and wild anadromous salmonid stocks. In particular, the tag recovery data are used to monitor the status of both threatened and endangered stocks. In addition, the recovery data are used to assess a wide variety of studies designed to improve survival of hatchery-produced salmonids. CWT recovery information also provides critical data for evaluating stock rebuilding programs sponsored by NPCC's Fish and Wildlife Program.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2004
Ending FY:
2024
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Basinwide - 100.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Salmonids
Chinook - All Populations
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Lamprey, River
Other Anadromous
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Sturgeon, Green
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
FCRPS 2008 – view list of FCRPS 2008 BiOp Actions

RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 51.1 Synthesize fish pop metrics thru Regional Data Repositories,
RPA 51.1 Synthesize fish pop metrics thru Regional Data Repositories,
RPA 51.1 Synthesize fish pop metrics thru Regional Data Repositories,
RPA 51.1 Synthesize fish pop metrics thru Regional Data Repositories,
RPA 51.1 Synthesize fish pop metrics thru Regional Data Repositories,
RPA 51.1 Synthesize fish pop metrics thru Regional Data Repositories,
RPA 51.3 Provide funding support/staff participation in regional forums,
RPA 51.3 Provide funding support/staff participation in regional forums,
RPA 51.3 Provide funding support/staff participation in regional forums,
RPA 51.3 Provide funding support/staff participation in regional forums,
RPA 51.3 Provide funding support/staff participation in regional forums,
RPA 51.3 Provide funding support/staff participation in regional forums,
RPA 62.4 Support coded-wire tagging to hatchery rates,
RPA 62.4 Support coded-wire tagging to hatchery rates,
RPA 62.4 Support coded-wire tagging to hatchery rates,
RPA 62.4 Support coded-wire tagging to hatchery rates,
RPA 62.4 Support coded-wire tagging to hatchery rates,
RPA 62.4 Support coded-wire tagging to hatchery rates,
RPA 62.4 Support coded-wire tagging to hatchery rates,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data

Description: Page: 9 Figure 1: Warm Springs NFH, note the tagging trailers used to coded wire tag juvenile salmon.

Project(s): 1982-013-01

Document: P119719

Dimensions: 1280 x 960

Description: Page: 14 Figure 2: Sampling spring Chinook caught in the commercial tangle net fishery on the Columbia River.

Project(s): 1982-013-01

Document: P119719

Dimensions: 811 x 608

Description: Page: 17 Figure 3: Juvenile salmon in rearing trough at the Wells fish hatchery in Washington.

Project(s): 1982-013-01

Document: P119719

Dimensions: 737 x 983

Description: Page: 19 Figure 4: Spring Chinook sport fishery on the Willamette River.

Project(s): 1982-013-01

Document: P119719

Dimensions: 815 x 611


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2023 - FY2025)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2023 Expense $381,636 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY23 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2022
FY2024 Expense $398,428 From: General FY24 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2023

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2023 $288,728 43%
2022 $294,092 43%
2021 $356,000 48%
2020 $356,000 49%
2019 $225,000 38%
2018 $236,000 39%
2017 $236,189 39%
2016 $236,189 39%
2015 $236,189 16%
2014 $336,000 22%
2013 $2,569,036 68%
2012 $2,517,520 63%
2011 $4,538,674 68%
2010 $3,471,441 62%
2009 $4,003,482 66%
2008 $3,537,972 63%
2007 $3,353,587 62%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
6500 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 CODED WIRE TAG Closed $7,430,281 1/1/2001 - 12/31/2004
21928 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 198201301 CODED WIRE TAGS - PSMFC Closed $2,023,007 1/1/2005 - 12/31/2005
25739 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WR TAG - PSMFC Closed $2,056,191 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006
31586 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - PSMFC Closed $2,020,861 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
36537 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 198201301 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - PSMFC Closed $2,012,024 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
40810 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - PSMFC Closed $2,041,654 1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009
44922 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - PSMFC Closed $2,085,541 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010
50555 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - PSMFC Closed $2,056,806 1/1/2011 - 12/31/2011
55291 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - PSMFC Closed $1,452,134 1/1/2012 - 12/31/2012
59767 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - PSMFC Closed $1,439,491 1/1/2013 - 3/31/2014
63610 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - PSMFC Closed $196,879 1/1/2014 - 12/31/2014
64769 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CWT RECOVERY Closed $1,013,298 4/1/2014 - 3/31/2015
67252 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG DATABASE - PSMFC Closed $198,429 1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015
68964 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CLACKAMAS LAB CWT Closed $175,884 4/1/2015 - 3/31/2016
70673 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG DATABASE - PSMFC Closed $198,416 1/1/2016 - 12/31/2016
72028 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CLACKAMAS LAB CWT Closed $175,884 4/1/2016 - 3/31/2017
74269 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG DATABASE - PSMFC Closed $198,429 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017
75495 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CLACKAMAS LAB CWT Closed $175,844 4/1/2017 - 3/31/2018
77960 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - PSMFC Closed $198,467 1/1/2018 - 12/31/2018
74313 REL 27 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CLACKAMAS LAB CWT Closed $175,844 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019
78040 REL 9 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG DATABASE RMIS Closed $195,458 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019
74313 REL 43 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CLACKAMAS CWT LAB Closed $175,844 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020
78040 REL 19 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CWT RMIS DATABASE Closed $198,469 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020
74313 REL 69 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CLACKAMAS CWT LAB Closed $175,844 4/1/2020 - 3/31/2021
78040 REL 31 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CWT RMIS DATABASE Closed $197,768 1/1/2021 - 12/31/2021
74313 REL 96 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CLACKAMAS CWT LAB Closed $183,167 4/1/2021 - 3/31/2022
78040 REL 42 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CWT RMIS DATABASE Closed $198,430 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2022
84041 REL 1 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CLACKAMAS CWT LAB Issued $196,818 4/1/2022 - 3/31/2023
78040 REL 55 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG RMIS DATABASE Closed $197,689 1/1/2023 - 12/31/2023
84041 REL 20 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CLACKAMAS CWT LAB Issued $183,167 4/1/2023 - 3/31/2024
78040 REL 65 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG RMIS DATABASE- PSMFC Issued $207,201 1/1/2024 - 12/31/2024
84041 REL 34 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CLACKAMAS CWT LAB Issued $191,227 4/1/2024 - 3/31/2025



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):38
Completed:38
On time:38
Status Reports
Completed:117
On time:93
Avg Days Early:9

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
6500 21928, 25739, 31586, 36537, 40810, 44922, 50555, 55291, 59767, 63610, 67252, 70673, 74269, 77960, 78040 REL 9, 78040 REL 19, 78040 REL 31, 78040 REL 42, 78040 REL 55, 78040 REL 65 1982-013-01 EXP CODED WIRE TAG RMIS DATABASE- PSMFC Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 01/01/2001 12/31/2024 Issued 76 196 3 0 0 199 100.00% 4
64769 68964, 72028, 75495, 74313 REL 27, 74313 REL 43, 74313 REL 69, 74313 REL 96, 84041 REL 1, 84041 REL 20, 84041 REL 34 1982-013-01 EXP ODFW CLACKAMAS CWT LAB Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 04/01/2014 03/31/2025 Issued 41 28 2 0 0 30 100.00% 1
Project Totals 117 224 5 0 0 229 100.00% 5


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1982-013-01-NPCC-20210312
Project: 1982-013-01 - Coded Wire-Tag Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal: NPCC19-1982-013-01
Proposal State: Pending Council Recommendation
Approved Date: 8/25/2019
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Continue implementation through the next review cycle.

[Background: See https:/www.nwcouncil.org/fish-and-wildlife/fish-and-wildlife-program/project-reviews-and-recommendations/mainstem-review]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1982-013-01-ISRP-20190404
Project: 1982-013-01 - Coded Wire-Tag Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal Number: NPCC19-1982-013-01
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 4/4/2019
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

Comment:

The coded-wire-tag (CWT) project is an ongoing critical effort for the management of fisheries and hatcheries in the Columbia Basin and along the entire West Coast. This proposal is clearly written and provides a detailed explanation of the structure and linkage of two long-term projects within the overall CWT program. The CWT program has clearly played an effective role in providing the data needed to manage harvest rates in fisheries, evaluate the status of endangered salmon populations, and monitor and compare trends in productivity of wild and hatchery salmon in the Columbia Basin. It would be worthwhile knowing more about how the CWT effort is coordinating with PIT-tagging efforts and emerging parentage-based tagging efforts.

Section 1.2 (on CWT sampling in ocean fisheries) contains a statement that recent reductions in funding from BPA for CWT support have resulted in undesirable sampling cutbacks in minor salmon-only fishery locations. The implications of these cutbacks need to be evaluated and discussed by the Basin's fisheries managers, the Council, and BPA.

1. Objectives, Significance to Regional Programs, and Technical Background

The goal and objectives of this ongoing coast-wide effort are clearly described: maintain the regional CWT databases used to manage data related to CWT release and recovery events as well as catch and effort statistics for fisheries providing CWT recoveries. The centralized database and associated coordination of effort support international, state, federal, and tribal fisheries organizations using CWT data or marking anadromous salmonids throughout the Pacific region, including the Columbia River Basin. The database is needed for a variety of important ongoing issues, including status monitoring of ESA-listed salmonids and survival of hatchery salmonids. It would be worthwhile knowing more about how the CWT effort is coordinating with PIT-tagging efforts and emerging parentage-based tagging efforts, and whether new cost-effective methods are being developed to "read" CWTs.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

This project maintains the CWT database from which many analyses are based, but it does not test hypotheses or analyze data itself. Activities associated with this project are briefly described, including CWT sampling of Columbia River commercial fisheries, hatcheries, spawning grounds, observations of Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams, selective fisheries sampling, sampling of Oregon ocean fisheries, data management, and basic analyses. By its design, the project provides data that are broadly applicable to salmon populations throughout the Pacific Coast. Objectives have been achieved consistently over many years, and the project remains on track. The project has successfully adapted to challenges related to changes in management policy (e.g., mass marking of hatchery fish) and budgets. Adaptive management actions largely involve focusing sampling efforts each season and year on high priority fisheries to meet management needs.

Surprisingly, the proposal does not provide arguments (or cite relevant articles) to justify continuing the use of CWT instead of switching to genetic techniques for identifying individual fish (e.g., parent-based tagging) that have become increasingly powerful and cost effective and are now used widely throughout the Columbia Basin (e.g., by CRITFC).

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

Project relationships are well documented for this ongoing coast-wide monitoring effort. Specific project deliverables include extraction of CWTs from salmonids and inputting data into the Regional Mark Information System, and coordination of the collection, reporting, and database management. The methods have been developed, reviewed, and fine-tuned over many years. The project is not responsible for evaluating the CWT data beyond validating their accuracy and maintaining a publicly accessible database. Most CWT fish are from hatcheries and managers generally assume that hatchery stocks are representative of natural stocks.

Modified by Michael Ferrante on 4/11/2019 11:46:49 AM.

Modified by Rasa Keanini on 4/19/2019 9:53:35 AM.
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1982-013-01-NPCC-20100910
Project: 1982-013-01 - Coded Wire-Tag Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1982-013-01
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement through FY 2013 with condition: Sponsors to participate in developing an over- arching plan on the future of CWT as described in programmatic issue #9. Funding beyond 2013 subject to ISRP and Council review of the plan.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #9 Coded-wire tags—.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1982-013-01-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1982-013-01 - Coded Wire-Tag Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1982-013-01
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This proposal is clearly written. It provides good detail and explanation of the structure of the program, its evolution over time, its accomplishments, issues of sampling and coordination, and actions needed or already taken to address those issues. The coded wire tag (CWT) program is very important for evaluating, monitoring and management of fisheries in the Columbia River Basin.

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The purpose of the PSMFC CWT project is to collect and manage data in a coast-wide stock identification system, in coordination with ODFW and WDFW. The project provides critical information for monitoring and evaluating population characteristics of Columbia River Basin hatchery and wild salmon and steelhead and for monitoring the status of ESA-listed stocks. These characteristics include stock of origin, hatchery versus wild origin, smolt to adult survival, age, adult size, etc. The project also provides information for evaluating stock-specific contributions to ocean and in-river fisheries, information critical to the management and conservation of Columbia River stocks.

A detailed and informative statement of the significance of this project to regional programs is presented. It notes an increased need to identify fishery (commercial, sport and tribal) impacts on listed stocks, estimate harvest rates, evaluate smolt-to-adult return (SAR) rates of hatchery stocks, and assess progress of stock rebuilding. Data from this program are provided to researchers and managers within the region.

A detailed description of the various fisheries and associated sampling programs is provided as technical background.

The proposal has four objectives: 1. Sample catch and escapement for CWTs (Chinook, coho and steelhead); 2. Summarize and analyze CWT and catch/sample data; 3. CWT database management and regional coordination; 4. Management and regional coordination. These are briefly but clearly described.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The financial history includes a clear explanation of the project’s budget structure across participants and performance. It discusses the link between the increasing project scope and intensity of sampling (to maintain a 20% sampling rate) and the associated budget growth.

The project’s history of accomplishments is excellent. It has provided valuable data used by managers and scientists to address key questions regarding salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin and elsewhere. The growth of the budget over time reflects the value of this project’s contribution to fisheries management. The sampling rate for fisheries is excellent. The project has also responded well to the need for increased sampling in light of the desire to mass-mark most salmon and steelhead released from hatcheries.

The project’s long history makes each year of new data even more valuable. These data are made available to the public through the project’s online webpage.

Accomplishments in sampling, data validation, database management, and reporting are well described. Tables of sampling rates by fishery over time are presented. The proposal discusses which fisheries have met the 20% sampling rate goal and which have not, providing an explanation for those fisheries that do not meet the goal. Methods of data distribution are well described.

The proposal describes adaptive management actions by the sampling agencies as inter-seasonal or inter-annual changes in sampling focus to high priority fisheries in order to meet management needs. These changes are coordinated among agencies. The Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) report “An Action Plan in Response to Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Expert Panel Recommendations” recommended changes in data coordination, validation, and reporting that have led to PSMFC changes to improve data validation and data integrity.

A long list of progress reports is presented.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The project is directly linked to ODFW and WDFW and indirectly linked to other regional entities that supply data and access the CWT database. The project appears to be responsive to issues raised by previous ISRP reviews and the PSC CWT action plan report.

Although the proposal mentions additional CWT sampling efforts, it was not clear how the project interacts with these other projects. For example, the project samples natural spawners for CWT below Bonneville Dam and on the Hanford Reach. Are other projects sampling natural fish in other areas and are their data included in the RMIS database?

One well-known deficiency in the RMIS process is that the Canadian coordinator does not report CWT recoveries during Canadian research sampling, e.g., the BPA-funded Canada-USA Shelf Salmon Survival Study (#2003009000) and CDFO research in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Georgia Straits. Can this deficiency be resolved?

For this project and all other 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.

The collected data are critical for evaluating (by others) emerging limiting factors. The proposal notes that since the main function of the project is to collect, manage, and report data, it does not account for emerging factors that could negatively impact fish populations and leaves that for other management entities in the basin. However, in other sections the proposal clearly identifies changes in human populations, sizes and locations of fisheries, and expanding sampling requirements that limit the ability of the program to expand its efforts under present budget levels.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project provides critical information for managers and scientists on a timely basis. The project has two deliverables: 1. Sample catch and escapement for coded wire tags, analyze the data and report the data to RMIS; 2. Coordinate the collection and reporting of coded wire tag data and maintain the coded wire tag database for public access.

Deliverables are well described, with detailed lists of metrics for objectives 1 and 2. Metrics are not listed for objectives 3 and 4 (regional coordination) although it is not clear why the important coordination activities of the CWT program should not be routinely evaluated for performance effectiveness. Four work elements relate to these deliverables.

Methods of sampling and data collection for each fishery, the division of sampling effort among ODFW and WDFW, and coordination of these state agencies with the PSMFC’s Regional Mark Processing Center are well described.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

This proposal is clearly written. It provides good detail and explanation of the structure of the program, its evolution over time, its accomplishments, issues of sampling and coordination, and actions needed or already taken to address those issues. The coded wire tag (CWT) program is very important for evaluating, monitoring and management of fisheries in the Columbia River Basin. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The purpose of the PSMFC CWT project is to collect and manage data in a coast-wide stock identification system, in coordination with ODFW and WDFW. The project provides critical information for monitoring and evaluating population characteristics of Columbia River Basin hatchery and wild salmon and steelhead and for monitoring the status of ESA-listed stocks. These characteristics include stock of origin, hatchery versus wild origin, smolt to adult survival, age, adult size, etc. The project also provides information for evaluating stock-specific contributions to ocean and in-river fisheries, information critical to the management and conservation of Columbia River stocks. A detailed and informative statement of the significance of this project to regional programs is presented. It notes an increased need to identify fishery (commercial, sport and tribal) impacts on listed stocks, estimate harvest rates, evaluate smolt-to-adult return (SAR) rates of hatchery stocks, and assess progress of stock rebuilding. Data from this program are provided to researchers and managers within the region. A detailed description of the various fisheries and associated sampling programs is provided as technical background. The proposal has four objectives: 1. Sample catch and escapement for CWTs (Chinook, coho and steelhead); 2. Summarize and analyze CWT and catch/sample data; 3. CWT database management and regional coordination; 4. Management and regional coordination. These are briefly but clearly described. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management The financial history includes a clear explanation of the project’s budget structure across participants and performance. It discusses the link between the increasing project scope and intensity of sampling (to maintain a 20% sampling rate) and the associated budget growth. The project’s history of accomplishments is excellent. It has provided valuable data used by managers and scientists to address key questions regarding salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin and elsewhere. The growth of the budget over time reflects the value of this project’s contribution to fisheries management. The sampling rate for fisheries is excellent. The project has also responded well to the need for increased sampling in light of the desire to mass-mark most salmon and steelhead released from hatcheries. The project’s long history makes each year of new data even more valuable. These data are made available to the public through the project’s online webpage. Accomplishments in sampling, data validation, database management, and reporting are well described. Tables of sampling rates by fishery over time are presented. The proposal discusses which fisheries have met the 20% sampling rate goal and which have not, providing an explanation for those fisheries that do not meet the goal. Methods of data distribution are well described. The proposal describes adaptive management actions by the sampling agencies as inter-seasonal or inter-annual changes in sampling focus to high priority fisheries in order to meet management needs. These changes are coordinated among agencies. The Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) report “An Action Plan in Response to Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Expert Panel Recommendations” recommended changes in data coordination, validation, and reporting that have led to PSMFC changes to improve data validation and data integrity. A long list of progress reports is presented. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The project is directly linked to ODFW and WDFW and indirectly linked to other regional entities that supply data and access the CWT database. The project appears to be responsive to issues raised by previous ISRP reviews and the PSC CWT action plan report. Although the proposal mentions additional CWT sampling efforts, it was not clear how the project interacts with these other projects. For example, the project samples natural spawners for CWT below Bonneville Dam and on the Hanford Reach. Are other projects sampling natural fish in other areas and are their data included in the RMIS database? One well-known deficiency in the RMIS process is that the Canadian coordinator does not report CWT recoveries during Canadian research sampling, e.g., the BPA-funded Canada-USA Shelf Salmon Survival Study (#2003009000) and CDFO research in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Georgia Straits. Can this deficiency be resolved? For this project and all other 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. The collected data are critical for evaluating (by others) emerging limiting factors. The proposal notes that since the main function of the project is to collect, manage, and report data, it does not account for emerging factors that could negatively impact fish populations and leaves that for other management entities in the basin. However, in other sections the proposal clearly identifies changes in human populations, sizes and locations of fisheries, and expanding sampling requirements that limit the ability of the program to expand its efforts under present budget levels. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The project provides critical information for managers and scientists on a timely basis. The project has two deliverables: 1. Sample catch and escapement for coded wire tags, analyze the data and report the data to RMIS; 2. Coordinate the collection and reporting of coded wire tag data and maintain the coded wire tag database for public access. Deliverables are well described, with detailed lists of metrics for objectives 1 and 2. Metrics are not listed for objectives 3 and 4 (regional coordination) although it is not clear why the important coordination activities of the CWT program should not be routinely evaluated for performance effectiveness. Four work elements relate to these deliverables. Methods of sampling and data collection for each fishery, the division of sampling effort among ODFW and WDFW, and coordination of these state agencies with the PSMFC’s Regional Mark Processing Center are well described.

Documentation Links:

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1982-013-01-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1982-013-01
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1982-013-01
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: This project should explicitly identify working with the region through BiOp RM&E collaboration workgroup or another process for the assessment and optimization of CWT tagging and sampling rates (relative to precision targets) needed to support VSP monitoring and assessment needs for ESA listed populations. Any major data management changes or development work should be explicitly coordinated with regional data coordination forums or processes.

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ( 50.5 50.6 51.1 62.4 71.4 )
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (50.4 50.7 51.3 71.4 72.1 72.3 )
Proponent Response:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1982-013-01-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1982-013-01 - Coded Wire-Tag Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending further Council consideration of regional monitoring and evaluation framework.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1982-013-01-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1982-013-01 - Coded Wire-Tag Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Overall, this is a complete and clearly written proposal for a very large program that represents the coordinating mechanism for the three coded-wire tag (CWT) projects. It is the data collection and management program for the entire CWT effort. Tags recovered from ocean and river fisheries by Oregon and Washington are decoded and data provided to the PSMFC, which manages the data program. An extensive and detailed background section describes the components of the complex CWT sampling program: Columbia River commercial and recreational fisheries, Columbia River hatcheries and spawning ground surveys, selective fisheries, Oregon ocean fisheries (commercial and recreational). Helpful figures are provided to identify locations. The process of data extraction, management and analysis is also described in detail. A number of technical issues raised in past ISRP reviews are addressed in an excellent evaluative discussion. There must be many publications that have been produced based on the program, but the proponents have only listed a few, possibly because of space limitations.

The proposal emphasizes the CWT as a stock identification tool that enables many uses of the resulting data. It describes the broad range of uses of the CWT data by a range of agencies and management entities and links these uses with different sections of the Fish and Wildlife Program. However, the proposal mentions that habitat projects and planners also benefit from the program, and it would be useful to have the significance of CWT data to habitats explained more thoroughly.

The CWT recovery program is a strong collaborative effort with numerous projects using CWT data. More than 20 agencies provide cost-share for the CWT, ample evidence that the program is well integrated with other agencies. An excellent and well-documented history describes accomplishments of each of the subcontracting projects. It provides a particularly good discussion of the budget, giving reasons for each subcontract's components and budget line amounts. It describes the history of BPA funding in the context of the full regional finding. The proposal would have been improved by a more thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of this large-scale program given the increase in the use of mass marking and the downsizing of many fisheries.

The proposal has two main objectives: 1) sample catch and escapement for CWTs, and 2) summarize and analyze CWT and catch/sample data. The objectives are clearly laid out, with explanatory descriptions, specific timelines, and definite and measurable benefits. The proposal calls for expansion of work into sampling PIT tags in the fishery and elsewhere. Wanding for PIT tags is a new objective and the proposal would be improved by more justification for this expansion and evidence of collaboration with agencies applying them, as well as by further discussion of ways in which CWT and PIT tags are complementary. However, this expansion of project scope is likely to provide useful information. There is also radio and hydroacoustic tagging; do the various tagging groups coordinate with each other?

The proposal identifies lingering and unsolved statistical and ecological problems related to methodology which may affect the accuracy and precision of data as applied to critical fish and wildlife problems such as conservation of ESUs, for example, the 20% sampling rate and the application of hatchery fish results to wild stocks.

Monitoring of results is the primary task of the CWT program and a network of sampling is set up to determine spatial and temporal trends. Another network of investigators does the statistical analysis. The proposal explains this multi-agency work very well. In terms of program effectiveness monitoring, the program performs a lot of quality checking of the data, but it is unknown the extent to which it evaluates how well it meets its objective

The proposal has a good plan for information transfer. Detailed descriptions of data dissemination, analyses conducted for various end users, and information are provided.

The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved if the sponsors provided further information on:
-the problem arising from the lack of statistical support (mentioned in previous years);
-the ongoing issue concerning the 20% sampling rate;
-the problem of hatchery fish representing wild fish;
-the linkage between this program and the PIT program and whether there can be some collaboration at the tagging stage rather than the tag detection/sampling stage;
-the issue of data security.

Clarifications and adjustments to the proposed methods, objectives, and budgets by the sponsor in consultation with the Council and BPA might be needed given recent reductions of some of the salmon fisheries sampled by this program.
Documentation Links:

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1982-013-01-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1982-013-01
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Kevleen Melcher Technical Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Eric Schindler Technical Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Eric McOmie Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
William Stinnette Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Jody Lando Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
Nancy Leonard Project Lead Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Trevor Clark Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Ngu Castro Administrative Contact Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Monica Diaz-NOAA (Inactive) Project Lead National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Michael Arredondo Administrative Contact Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Catherine Al-Sheikhly Project Lead Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Monica Diaz Project Lead Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission