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.

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.