Qualification: The response contains some improvements to the proposal: the relationship to Basinwide goals and other projects is presented in detail, a better technical background is provided, and the accomplishments section is expanded. However, deficiencies still exist in several areas. To address these, the on-line proposal and the 2011 Annual Report should be updated with the information identified below. The 2011 Annual Report should be submitted for ISRP review.

On-Line Proposal:

(1) Expand the "Study Design" description with greater detail on sampling and analytical methods.
(2) Provide greater detail on results.
(3) Explain how the project uses adaptive management.
(4) Develop metrics specific to each objective and provide a more detailed explanation.

Metrics were provided for the four project objectives but were the same for each objective and too brief to permit ISRP evaluation of scientific merit. The metrics include several references, i.e., Age at Return (Beasley, C.A., Berejikian, B.A., Carmichael, R.W., Fast, D.E., Galbreath, P.F., Ford, M.J., Hesse, J.A., McDonald, L.L., Murdoch, A.R., Peven, C.M., & Venditti, D.A., 2008); Age Structure (none); SARs (none); Smolt to adult return rate (Beasley, C.A., Berejikian, B.A., Carmichael, R.W., Fast, D.E., Galbreath, P.F., Ford, M.J., Hesse, J.A., McDonald, L.L., Murdoch, A.R., Peven, C.M., & Venditti, D.A., 2008); Smolt to Adult Survival Rate (Yakama Nation Fisheries, 2010). It is not clear what methods from the references provided are used and why some metrics have no methods.

(5) Provide full citations for all references.

Annual Report:

(1) Expand the methods and results section.
(2) Provide detailed information on methods of tagging, sampling and statistical estimation. What is the right number of groups to tag? What is the statistical basis for the sampling objective of 30 observed off-station recoveries?
(3) Provide data on fish with poor quality fin clips.

The ISRP noted that a USFWS study (Brignon et al. 2008) could be cited with respect to the issue. This study showed that overall a relatively low percentage (2%) of marks were of poor quality.

Brignon, W.R., R.O. Engle, D.M. Hand, J. Rivera, and D.O. Olson. 2008. Comparative injury, adipose fish mark quality, and tag retention of spring Chinook salmon marked and coded wire tagged by an automated trailer and manual trailer at Carson national Fish hatchery. USFWS. Vancouver, WA. www.fws.gov/columbiariver/publications/CNFH_trailer_eval_final_report.pdf

(4) Discuss the following issues raised by the Methods section of the 2010 Annual Report and how they will be addressed with BPA/PSMFC/RMIS:

"Numerous discrepancies have been noted between the original reports of releases, and those in RMIS."

"Fisheries in some tributaries such as the Clackamas River, and its tributary Eagle Creek, are poorly sampled (or not at all) for recovery of coded-wire tags. Whereas, state agencies often rely on harvest estimates based on sport license returns in these tributaries, this information is not available through RMIS and the TS1 format."

"A single Production Expansion Factor (PEF - the total number of fish released divided by the total number of tagged fish released) is calculated for each hatchery, brood year, species, and stage of fish released. This PEF is used to expand estimated recovery information for non coded-wire tagged fish released along with tagged fish, and to determine the overall contribution and survival rate for each facility." Is this a statistically valid approach?

"In order to assess the success of selective fisheries, some hatchery fish are given a coded-wire tag and the adipose fin is not removed. Fish without adipose fins may be harvested at different rates than fish with adipose fins. A new program that expands the recoveries for each coded-wire tag, rather than as an aggregate, was written." No information on the mathematical/statistical calculations in this program were provided. More information on this assessment project is needed, e.g., how many fish are released with CWTs but not fin clipped?

“‘Residualized’ fish, or ‘mini-jacks’ from yearling releases, are not included in estimates of survival.” Estimates of the numbers of residualized and mini-jacks in each release might help to evaluate estimates of survival, as well as ecosystem effects of hatchery releases on wild fish.

(5) Address the issue of the possible bias of mini-jacks in CWT releases of yearling Chinook salmon.

The proponent states that a key use of the CWT data is for estimating release to recovery survival of salmon. 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. How is your agency addressing the issue of mini-jacks among yearling Chinook released from your facilities?

The CWT program is very important for evaluating, monitoring, and management of fisheries in the Columbia River Basin. As the federal hatchery portion of the CWT program, this proposal clearly fits into the larger regional CWT effort. 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 to enable a full scientific review. Information is needed on the project’s technical background, limiting factors, project accomplishments, study design, tagging and sampling methods, and metrics. 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 this project is to contribute to the CWT program by tagging coho and Chinook salmon from federal hatcheries such that accurate estimates of total survival and area of catch can be made. These data will allow for more accurate assessments of the proportion of wild and hatchery stocks in the Basin. The expected outcome of 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 hatchery fish. Fish managers, researchers, mitigation agencies and others use the CWT release and recovery data to evaluate a number of 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 hatchery fish escapement into the wild or to determine hatchery fish survival and hence the effectiveness of the hatchery programs. CWT recovery data also provide critical information for evaluating stock rebuilding programs and assessing a wide variety of studies designed to improve survival of hatchery-produced salmonids. The project is significant to the overall regional CWT effort. The proposal lists a number of other CWT projects to which it is related. A brief project history is presented as technical background. The project has four objectives: 1. Tagging; 2. Recovery; 3. Data sharing; 4. Annual report. Each has one deliverable. No metrics are specified. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management A summary financial history and an explanation of different funding streams over time (different project designations) are provided. The proposal indicates that the project has been successful controlling costs. A list of successfully completed contract deliverables is provided. Accomplishments are summarized briefly as the number of recent fish tagged and the importance of the CWT program to the region. A brief description of 2009 results (#s of fish tagged) is presented. There is no enumeration of results over time. By way of adaptive management, the project is currently reviewing tagging levels to determine if adequate numbers are being recovered in fisheries. The project provides valuable data that have been used by managers and scientists to address key questions regarding salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. The project recognizes the need to expand its annual reports and to evaluate tagging levels. The history of project accomplishments should also be expanded. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The proposal provides a complete list of relationships of this project with other similar projects, each with a brief explanation of how the project is related. Data provided by this project are used to evaluate a variety of projects, including the Select Area Fisheries, straying from hatcheries to rivers, and survival rates of salmonids released from each USFWS hatchery. Limiting factors are discussed in terms of changing ocean and stream conditions that may affect productivity, but factors that may limit the success of this CWT project are not identified. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The project specifies four deliverables (one for each objective) and eight work elements. No metrics are provided. Methods are briefly described as numbers of fish tagged in 2009. A very brief description of the study design and the sampling properties of the project’s tagging is provided. The project appears to provide the basic information that can be used by others for monitoring, evaluation, and management of hatcheries and fisheries, but the proposal contains insufficient detail to make this evaluation.

The project lead will contact the BPA COTR to begin arranging discussion with RM&E work groups to begin assessment of tagging and sampling rates to support VSP monitoring and assessment needs for ESA listed populations/

This is a companion project to the ODFW and WDFW projects. It coordinates and funds tagging at three national hatcheries as part of the regional coded-wire tagging (CWT) program. A brief but adequate background section describes the CWT and the uses of the CWT data, noting that the data are used to address many of the critical uncertainties associated with release of hatchery-reared fish. It also notes that prior to this regional program, groups of CWT fish were releases unsystematically in a way that prevented any statistical robustness in analysis of the data. The proposal does not discuss issues of bias and undersampling.

The proposal describes the applicability of the CWT program to a number of regional programs, most notably to various objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program and to the Snake River Recovery Plan. The sponsors state that "the data generated from the long-term coded-wire tag program will be useful, if not essential, in meeting many of the goals and objectives and strategies of the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program."

A large number of projects are dependent on data produced by this project: the SAFE project, Yakima River Coho Restoration Project, Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers Restoration Projects, Wenatchee and Methow Rivers Coho Restoration, etc. The proposal lists a number of agency sponsors and supporters and makes the point that the CWT is the tool of choice for assessing fish response to environmental variables over broad geographic areas. This project is part of the overall long-term CWT program, which is a strong collaborative effort.

A brief project history focuses on the funding history and number of fish tagged since the project began in 1989. In recent years, the number of fish tagged and released using BPA funding has decreased because other funding sources were found and because production releases were terminated. In 2005, about 200,000 fish were tagged; this is about 20% of the numbers tagged in the 1993-95 period because other funding sources were found and some production releases were terminated. No species breakdown or number of tags recovered is provided.

Three briefly stated project objectives relate to tagging coho and Chinook, sampling returned fish and capturing release and recovery data. Methods are described in summary form and are too briefly explained with too much jargon to evaluate the soundness of techniques.

The project is focused on providing information for the M&E of a range of other projects and programs. It contains elements of project effectiveness monitoring throughout in tag checking, data error checking. This is a monitoring and evaluation program, but more detail is needed to determine if this program is meeting its objectives.

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 of salmon fisheries where CWT hatchery fish might be recovered. The proposal seems to indicate that this particular part of the coded-wire tagging program is in the process of being phased out or funded by other entities.