Close Message
CBFish.org and Pisces Desktop will be unavailable briefly starting at 5:00pm PM, Thursday December 14th, for scheduled maintenance. Please save your work and log out before that time.
Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1982-013-02 - Coded Wire Tag-Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1982-013-02 - Coded Wire Tag-Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Project Number:
1982-013-02
Title:
Coded Wire Tag-Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Summary:
This program contributes to the annual assessment of hatchery and wild salmon populations throughout the Columbia Basin. Specifically, the goal of the coded-wire tag program, in conjunction with other Columbia River marking programs, 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. Historically, the objective of the CWT program has been to release adequate numbers of CWT marked fish to ensure sufficient power of detecting a 50% difference in survival among compared groups (i.e. p= 1-0.95/2). 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 basin-wide 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 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 will be used to provide data relevant to the management of natural stocks, including many that are listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA.

Fish managers, researchers, mitigation agencies and others use the CWT release and recovery data to evaluate a number of administrative, management and environmental effects on salmon and steelhead. For example, the harvest management agencies combine CWT data with other data and information to estimate the effects of harvest regulation on populations of salmon and steelhead. Others use CWT data to estimate the rates of escapement into the wild of a population of hatchery fish. Others, including BPA, use CWT data to determine survival of different hatchery operations, hence the effectiveness of the hatchery programs they fund. Others use CWT data to determine the effectiveness of specific hatchery or other management actions.

Citations/reference materials used in statement of work.
Blankenship, L. 1981. Coded-wire tag loss study. Washington Department of Fisheries, Technical Report No. 65, Olympia, Washington.
Jenkinson, D.W., and H.T. Bilton. 1981. Additional guidelines to marking and coded wire tagging of juvenile salmon. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1051. 24 pages.
Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). 1995b. Hatchery methodology workshop. Held January 10th through 12th 1995, Seattle, Washington.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2004
Ending FY:
2016
Stage:
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Basinwide - 100.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Upper Willamette River ESU (threatened)
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU (threatened)
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Catch areas for Oregon ocean salmon fisheries.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P118419

Document: Coded Wire Tag-Annual Stock Assessment ODFW

Page Number: 13

Project: 1982-013-02

Contract: 45630


Summary of Budgets

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2018 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Nov-2017

No Decided Budget Transfers

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2015 0 %
FY2013 0 %
FY2012 81 %
FY2011 81 %
FY2010 81 %
FY2009 75 %
FY2008 77 %
FY2007 72 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
4345 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-02 CODED WIRE TAG - ODFW History $780,029 4/4/2001 - 12/31/2004
21237 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife PI 1982-013-02 CODED WIRE TAG - ODFW History $217,881 1/28/2005 - 12/31/2005
25638 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-02 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - ODFW History $217,346 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006
33067 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-02 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - ODFW History $217,881 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
36819 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-02 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - ODFW History $206,111 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
40905 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-02 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - ODFW History $217,497 1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009
45630 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-02 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - ODFW History $222,457 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010
51421 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-02 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - ODFW History $212,646 1/1/2011 - 12/31/2011
55546 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-02 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - ODFW History $220,809 1/1/2012 - 12/31/2012
59665 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1982-013-02 EXP CODED WIRE TAG - ODFW History $245,686 1/1/2013 - 7/15/2014



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):8
Completed:7
On time:7
Status Reports
Completed:36
On time:8
Avg Days Late:18

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4345 21237, 25638, 33067, 36819, 40905, 45630, 51421, 55546, 59665 1982-013-02 CODED WIRE TAG - ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 04/2001 04/2001 History 36 68 0 0 1 69 98.55% 1
Project Totals 36 68 0 0 1 69 98.55% 1


Review: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1982-013-02-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1982-013-02
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1982-013-02
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.

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: (50.6 50.7 51.1 51.3 62.4 63.2 )
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( 71.4 71.5)
Proponent Response:

Response to BiOp Workgroup comments. There is currently no process identified for the assessment and optimization of CWT tagging rates, and to my knowledge there have never been precision targets identified for coded wire tagging. I agree that this issue needs to be addressed and in the proposal we explained how ODFW intends to identify appropriate tagging levels (including the establishment of an internal workgroup). However, I am not aware of a forum for discussing these issues on a basinwide basis, nor are we aware of the BiOp RM&E collaboration workgroup cited in the comments. We would fully support involvement in such a group but until one is identified we cannot explicity identify working with them. Perhaps this process could be identified as part of the RM&E review and be included in the contracting agreement. At present, tagging levels are based on the need to monitor hatchery program performance. Without input from managers using the data for recovery purposes it is difficult to plan the program accordingly, thus I would encourage recovery planners to be involved in the process.

 

BiOp RM&E Workgroups: After review of the RPAs identified for deletion we don't have a strong objection for their removal. However, I should point out that the reason these were included relates to the need for co-ordination identified by the workgroup (above). We believe there should be standard practices for determining appropriate group sizes as part of ongoing monitoring and there should be a forum for determining what the CWT data will be used for.

 

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1982-013-02-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1982-013-02 - Coded Wire Tag-Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1982-013-02
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 is a good proposal that was significantly enhanced by additional detail provided during ODFW’s September 2010 oral presentation to the ISRP in Portland, which improved the ISRP’s understanding of the project. The presentation created a picture of an excellent project that engages in strategic thinking and learning from current performance to improve future performance.

The presentation provided more detail on the project’s exercise to assess management priorities for tagging and sampling rates. The project has started a pilot study soliciting tagging proposals from ODFW biologists that will be subjected to review. The proposal review framework may be expanded statewide.

The project has made management changes based on what has been learned, including changing stocks to avoid straying and altering the size and timing of releases. Data are being spatially represented using Google map tools. The project also evaluated determining release group size based on a quadratic model and the possibility of changing the number of tags to increase statistical power. Investigators are considering using indicator stocks and are also developing a GIS interface.

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

This proposal is to fund the ODFW portion of the CWT program. The ODFW project conducts coded wire tagging of representative release groups (groups that exceed 50,000 fish) at each ODFW-operated hatchery in the Columbia Basin. The project provides critical information for monitoring and evaluating population characteristics of hatchery salmon and steelhead produced in Oregon. The data are used to monitor stock of origin, hatchery versus wild origin, smolt to adult survival, age, adult size, harvest, straying, and returns of hatchery salmonids.

The proposal provides an adequate description of the ODFW portion of the CWT data collection through its standard tagging operations. It identifies the same sorts of sampling issues raised in the PSMFC proposal. In light of the identified problem of a reduction in the numbers of fish samples in response to a constrained budget, it would be helpful to have an explicit description in the proposal of how the reallocation of sampling effort takes place and the expected impact on the statistical precision of the estimates.

Data provided by this project support the evaluation of stock-specific contributions to ocean and in-river fisheries as well as adult returns to specific watersheds and strays from hatchery to spawning grounds. The program is linked to a number of regional programs through the use of data to monitor hatchery operations and evaluate progress toward recovery goals.

The technical background is brief but adequate. The project has three objectives: 1. Evaluate the survival of anadromous hatchery salmonids released into the Columbia Basin; 2. Evaluate the harvest distribution of anadromous hatchery salmonids released into the Columbia basin; and 3. Evaluate the stray rate of each hatchery program. Each objective has several deliverables, most with metrics specified.

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.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The project has a long history of producing valuable data and making these data publicly available through the PSMFC website. A budget history and list of cost-share partners is provided. A flat budget for the past few years combined with increases in project costs has led to a decline in the number of fish being tagged.

Since 2004 the project has annually implanted CWTs into 15-25 hatchery groups (Chinook and coho salmon) from ODFW’s Columbia Basin hatcheries in the Mid/Lower Columbia and in the Willamette Basin. CWT data are reported to the PSMFC’s RMIS. The project prepares an annual summary of recovered CWTs, including an assessment of trends in survival, harvest distribution and hatchery returns. A summary of fish tagged between 2001-2008 shows reduced numbers tagged in 2008.

The proposal describes the use of CWT data in adaptive management of hatchery operations, harvest management, and the evaluation of straying, but does not discuss the adaptive management of the ODFW CWT project. However, elsewhere the proposal describes work to improve the ODFW data system in response to recommendations of the PSC’s “An Action Plan in Response to Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Expert Panel Recommendations,” and the presentation provided several examples of adaptive management actions taken by the project to improve performance.

The history of accomplishments of this project is excellent. It has provided valuable data that have been used by managers and scientists to address key questions regarding salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River basin, including Oregon. The proposal notes that data collected by the project will provide information on hatchery fish survival and stray rates which can then be used to evaluate hatchery production.

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

The proposal provides an adequate description of the relationship of this project with hatchery, harvest and other entities within the Columbia River Basin. The information collected by this project is essential for management and conservation of Columbia River stocks.

The proposal states that it does not explicitly address the effect of limiting factors on fish stocks. However, in other proposal sections the budget is addressed as a limiting factor affecting the numbers of fish tagged. The collected data are critical for evaluating (by others) emerging limiting factors.

The project appears to be responsive to issues raised by previous ISRP reviews and the PSC CWT action plan report. Justification of the tagging and adult sampling rate for CWT is provided.

Although the proposal mentions other CWT sampling efforts, it was not clear how the project interacts with these projects.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project has seven deliverables and notes that to date all project deliverables have been met on schedule. Metrics are not included, but could be, for two of the seven deliverables. A good description of the tagging methods is provided, with reference to the same statistical sampling issues raised by the PSMFC in its proposal. It discusses the effects of a constrained budget on sampling coverage but does not seem to address how, in 2008, the allocation of sampling effort was made in response to a need to reduce the numbers of fish sampled.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:
This is a good proposal that was significantly enhanced by additional detail provided during ODFW’s September 2010 oral presentation to the ISRP in Portland, which improved the ISRP’s understanding of the project. The presentation created a picture of an excellent project that engages in strategic thinking and learning from current performance to improve future performance.

The presentation provided more detail on the project’s exercise to assess management priorities for tagging and sampling rates. The project has started a pilot study soliciting tagging proposals from ODFW biologists that will be subjected to review. The proposal review framework may be expanded statewide.

The project has made management changes based on what has been learned, including changing stocks to avoid straying and altering the size and timing of releases. Data are being spatially represented using Google map tools. The project also evaluated determining release group size based on a quadratic model and the possibility of changing the number of tags to increase statistical power. Investigators are considering using indicator stocks and are also developing a GIS interface.

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

This proposal is to fund the ODFW portion of the CWT program. The ODFW project conducts coded wire tagging of representative release groups (groups that exceed 50,000 fish) at each ODFW-operated hatchery in the Columbia Basin. The project provides critical information for monitoring and evaluating population characteristics of hatchery salmon and steelhead produced in Oregon. The data are used to monitor stock of origin, hatchery versus wild origin, smolt to adult survival, age, adult size, harvest, straying, and returns of hatchery salmonids.

The proposal provides an adequate description of the ODFW portion of the CWT data collection through its standard tagging operations. It identifies the same sorts of sampling issues raised in the PSMFC proposal. In light of the identified problem of a reduction in the numbers of fish samples in response to a constrained budget, it would be helpful to have an explicit description in the proposal of how the reallocation of sampling effort takes place and the expected impact on the statistical precision of the estimates.

Data provided by this project support the evaluation of stock-specific contributions to ocean and in-river fisheries as well as adult returns to specific watersheds and strays from hatchery to spawning grounds. The program is linked to a number of regional programs through the use of data to monitor hatchery operations and evaluate progress toward recovery goals.

The technical background is brief but adequate. The project has three objectives: 1. Evaluate the survival of anadromous hatchery salmonids released into the Columbia Basin; 2. Evaluate the harvest distribution of anadromous hatchery salmonids released into the Columbia basin; and 3. Evaluate the stray rate of each hatchery program. Each objective has several deliverables, most with metrics specified.

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.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The project has a long history of producing valuable data and making these data publicly available through the PSMFC website. A budget history and list of cost-share partners is provided. A flat budget for the past few years combined with increases in project costs has led to a decline in the number of fish being tagged.

Since 2004 the project has annually implanted CWTs into 15-25 hatchery groups (Chinook and coho salmon) from ODFW’s Columbia Basin hatcheries in the Mid/Lower Columbia and in the Willamette Basin. CWT data are reported to the PSMFC’s RMIS. The project prepares an annual summary of recovered CWTs, including an assessment of trends in survival, harvest distribution and hatchery returns. A summary of fish tagged between 2001-2008 shows reduced numbers tagged in 2008.

The proposal describes the use of CWT data in adaptive management of hatchery operations, harvest management, and the evaluation of straying, but does not discuss the adaptive management of the ODFW CWT project. However, elsewhere the proposal describes work to improve the ODFW data system in response to recommendations of the PSC’s “An Action Plan in Response to Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Expert Panel Recommendations,” and the presentation provided several examples of adaptive management actions taken by the project to improve performance.

The history of accomplishments of this project is excellent. It has provided valuable data that have been used by managers and scientists to address key questions regarding salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River basin, including Oregon. The proposal notes that data collected by the project will provide information on hatchery fish survival and stray rates which can then be used to evaluate hatchery production.

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

The proposal provides an adequate description of the relationship of this project with hatchery, harvest and other entities within the Columbia River Basin. The information collected by this project is essential for management and conservation of Columbia River stocks.

The proposal states that it does not explicitly address the effect of limiting factors on fish stocks. However, in other proposal sections the budget is addressed as a limiting factor affecting the numbers of fish tagged. The collected data are critical for evaluating (by others) emerging limiting factors.

The project appears to be responsive to issues raised by previous ISRP reviews and the PSC CWT action plan report. Justification of the tagging and adult sampling rate for CWT is provided.

Although the proposal mentions other CWT sampling efforts, it was not clear how the project interacts with these projects.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project has seven deliverables and notes that to date all project deliverables have been met on schedule. Metrics are not included, but could be, for two of the seven deliverables. A good description of the tagging methods is provided, with reference to the same statistical sampling issues raised by the PSMFC in its proposal. It discusses the effects of a constrained budget on sampling coverage but does not seem to address how, in 2008, the allocation of sampling effort was made in response to a need to reduce the numbers of fish sampled.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1982-013-02-NPCC-20100910
Project: 1982-013-02 - Coded Wire Tag-Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1982-013-02
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—.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1982-013-02-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1982-013-02
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: 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; fishery managers authorized/required; needs cost share or other remedy.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1982-013-02-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1982-013-02
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1982-013-02-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1982-013-02 - Coded Wire Tag-Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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?
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1982-013-02-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1982-013-02 - Coded Wire Tag-Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
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.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Sandra Sovay Administrative Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Richard Golden Jr Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Rosemary Mazaika Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Shaun Clements (Inactive) Interested Party Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Katey Grange Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Micki Varney Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Scott Patterson Supervisor Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Ted Gresh Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Wilson Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration