Qualifications:

The ISRP recommends that the proponents describe their responses to the ISRP's comments and suggestions below in their upcoming annual report covering FY 2019 accomplishments.

1.      The proponents should perform the power analyses they suggest in their proposal to help guide their sampling efforts and to provide measures of precision for all estimates.

2.      The project should begin to build a "brood table" for natural origin salmonids and show these values in annual reports, e.g., total adult recruitment produced by natural spawners. This information is needed for the evaluation of abundance and productivity, two key VSP parameters.

3.      Describe any efforts being made to link fish identification from the CWT- and PIT-tagging programs with comparable data obtained by Parentage-Based Tagging.

Comment:

This proposal clearly explains why the project was initiated, how it relates to the overall coded-wire-tag (CWT) program, and why it remains a critical monitoring effort in the Columbia Basin. However, the Adaptive Management section contains statements that reductions in funding hampered WDFW's ability to achieve sample rates targets for some fisheries in 2013-2017, and that "if additional funding is not identified, it will be necessary to prioritize fisheries and reduce or eliminate sampling of some fisheries. ... It may be possible to shift sampling effort among fisheries occurring simultaneously to come closer to sample rate targets, but this is often not possible as fisheries may occur on different days or large distances apart. Fishery sampling of the treaty Indian fishery (Zone 6) was especially challenging in recent years due to increased landings of dressed (i.e., gutted) fish and lack of access to sample some tribal fish buyers. The issues encountered by samplers in Zone 6 may result in a biased sample of the CWTs, PIT tags and individual fish weights even if sample rates met the targets due to the need to sample different stocks in proportion to the catch composition. These potential sources of bias in Zone 6 create issues for estimating harvest by stock and in general decrease precision in management by WDFW and co-managers in the Columbia River basin. WDFW is currently attempting to restructure sampling in Zone 6 to account for these potential sources of error, but difficulties may continue." These concerns parallel concerns expressed in the PSMFC proposal involving CWT (1982-031-00). These funding issues and associated implications require further discussion and evaluationby the Basin's fisheries managers, the Council, and BPA. To be effective, these discussions should occur now, prior to the Basin's fall fisheries.

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

The goals and objectives of the monitoring project are well defined and justified, including (1) estimate the number of PIT tags in Columbia River fisheries, (2) estimate CWT Chinook and coho salmon contributions to escapement count in Washington's lower Columbia tributaries as a means to support VSP status, (3) Chinook salmon escapement monitoring for the Toutle River, Upper Gorge, and Upper Columbia populations (including Hanford Reach), and (4) monitoring spawning escapement of coho salmon in key Washington populations below Bonneville Dam. Anticipated outcomes are expressed quantitatively as sampling rates and data standards to be achieved and maintained over the longer-term.This is a monitoring project that requires long-term continuity to evaluate fish status in relation to fisheries.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

Results from 2013-2017 are briefly presented in the proposal for (1) Chinook and coho salmon spawning in specific tributaries, including hatchery origin (HOR) and natural origin (NOR) spawners, (2) sport fisheries, (3) commercial fisheries, and (4) fall Chinook counts at Bonneville Dam. Origin (hatchery versus natural) is identified in the recreational catches (unmarked fish are released) and commercial catches, and spawning escapements. Harvest rates based on PIT-tag data are calculated despite some logistical and technological challenges to achieving a 20% sampling rate in the mainstem fisheries. The proponents have identified a plan to overcome these hurdles; measures of precision about estimates and assumptions should be provided when possible. Ultimately, data generated by this effort are used in agency reports that describe basic salmon population trends and harvests. The proponents should begin to use the population data to create "brood tables" which are key to development of stock-recruitment relationships and assessing stock productivity. Data and evaluations produced by this project are uploaded to the publicly accessible CWT database (RMIS). A comprehensive report for the 2010 season provides many details on the methods and results. The proponents have produced a series of publications on methods and data standards in addition to their annual reports.

WDFW recognizes the need to restructure sampling in Zone 6 to account for potential sources of error and bias because of increased landings of "dressed" fish and lack of access to sample some tribal fish buyers. WDFW is testing new methods of electronic data capture and transfer to databases. Stream surveys of coho salmon are being revised.

The proposal does not mention any effort directed toward linking fish identification data from the CWT- and PIT-tagging programs with data obtained by genetic (e.g., parentage-based tagging, PBT) or acoustic telemetry programs. A major recommendation from the Pacific Salmon Commission's expert panel review in 2005 (that motivated this project) was to develop a coordinated research and implementation plan, including integration of other genetic and electronic tagging tools/techniques. This integration could be particularly useful because, as noted in the proposal, exploitation rates of wild salmon in commercial fisheries stem from analysis of CWT hatchery salmon and the assumption that exploitation rates of wild salmon are the same as hatchery salmon.

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

The proposal documents activities and methods in appropriate detail and makes good use of the published literature to justify assertions and support procedures. This project primarily serves a long-term monitoring and data sharing function. The proposal provides appropriate detail about the types of activities used to detect or recover CWT in samples of catches and escapements, and to estimate escapements and calculate harvest rate. There is a need to develop and describe integrated methods that can propagate uncertainty along the entire chain of computations to get final estimates with measures of uncertainty. On page 57 of the report, it states the need to "Consider a power analysis for important fishery management groups to ensure sufficient PIT tagging and sampling to meet management precision goals." This analysis should be completed immediately. We could not verify whether the statistical methods used for CWT analyses were standard or something different.

Some typos were noted in the caption to Table 1 of the 2018 report ("do NOT provide accurate pHOS estimates...") and values in Table 14 (commas misplaced or extraneous digits).

This project has the potential to benefit Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife by filling important gaps in recovery of passive integrated transponder (PIT) and coded-wire tagged (CWT) for salmonids in the Lower Columbia Region (LCR). However, the proposal narrative often referenced unpublished reports for details of viable salmonid population (VSP) monitoring methods and software to be used for different estimates. The ISRP requests a response in the form of a revised narrative to provide augmented details on methodologies outlined below. An adequate response should provide the following information: The metric numbers provided for tagging, RME designs, and analysis and interpretation of data need to be augmented with a description of the metrics. Similarly, the metric numbers provided for tagging, random sampling of CWT and PIT tags, and analysis and interpretation of data need to be augmented with a description of the metrics. The first proposed test of the tag detection rates appears problematic due to small sample size. In the second test plans to conduct the test at a hatchery or commercial sampling site have not been confirmed. Evidence of confirmation is necessary and details showing that the number of tags will be adequate should be provided. Details of how this test will be extended to examine differences between individuals/detectors should be provided. Details for the sampling design to sample CWT and PIT tags from Columbia River sport and commercial fisheries should be provided. The reference to a CV of 15% (Crawford and Rumsey, 2009) has not been established as a reasonable data standard. Crawford and Rumsey (2009) reference Carlile et al. (2008), which makes recommendations for coefficients of variation for estimates of total spawning escapement. The statistical and biological basis for the recommendation in Carlile et al. (2008) has not been reviewed. The justification that the standard represents a realistic goal for planning because it corresponds to an acceptable risk (one year or one stock in six) of failing to label a stock of concern when warranted appears to be arbitrary. The observation that the standard has proven to be attainable for many escapement estimation studies does not mean that this is the appropriate data standard. Further justification for sample size targets is required. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The technical justification was straightforward and adequate for expanding the tag recovery program by adding PIT tagging. The proposed project will address several deficiencies (that are clearly stated) in the current CWT program. In particular, the project will fill significant fall Chinook and coho salmon monitoring gaps in the Lower Columbia River during the Columbia River Tributary Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation (RME) process. The proponents provided very good detail on how this project will respond to the Lower Columbia River Subbasin plans (LCFRB 2004) and generally the BiOp, PSC recommendations, and other Fish and Wildlife Program elements. The proponents listed many projects (CWT and PIT) as related to and sharing data with this one. Also, this project coordinates with and shares data with the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Project’s (PNAMP) Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring (ISTM) project (#200400200) by using the same spawning distribution models for CWT recoveries and escapement. 2. Project History and Results This is a new project that builds on three previous BPA-funded CWT recovery projects (# 198201301, #2007236800, and #2007355000). A brief history of the current CWT program (# 198201301) was provided. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods Objective 1. "Escapement Sampling for CWTs" is not a fully stated, measurable objective and not until paragraph two following this statement do we find the full objective 1, which is "In this CWT and VSP monitoring effort, we intend to recover CWTs on spawning ground surveys to estimate exploitation rates for hatchery Chinook and coho salmon and concurrently gather data for VSP metrics (productivity, abundance, diversity, and spatial structure) using methods and sampling designs to meet the NOAA monitoring guidance (Crawford and Rumsey 2009)." The proponents provided useful tables summarizing assumptions needed to calculate unbiased population estimates. The methods for this objective are described in good detail for the most part, but often we are referred to reports for details of VSP monitoring methods and software to be used for different estimates. Links to some/many of those would be useful for reviewers. The proponents state that this project will provide "better managing and maintaining of existing databases" (WDFW's CWT, age, scales and biological data, and spawning ground survey databases in Olympia), but there is not a clear description of what this entails. Objective 1 includes marking and tagging of salmon for mark-recapture studies, but no details are provided on tagging methods, numbers and species of fish tagged, or possible negative effects of tagging on fish. The metric numbers provided for tagging, RME designs, and analysis and interpretation of data need to be augmented with a description of the metrics. Objective 2. "Fisheries Sampling for PIT Tags" should expand to "Fisheries Will be Sampled and Reported for PIT Tags as well as CWTs". This effort will be shared with ODFW and both agencies will upgrade to new detectors and data loggers. Methods for this objective are also well detailed and appear to be adequate for both sport and commercial Columbia mainstem fisheries. Carcasses will be PIT tagged to assess PIT tag detection rates, but a concise summary of experimental design and methods was not provided. The proponents state that CWT and PIT tags will be randomly sampled from Columbia River sport and commercial fisheries, but no sampling design is provided. The metric numbers provided for tagging, random sampling of CWT and PIT tags, and analysis and interpretation of data need to be augmented with a description of the metrics.

I welcome continued discusssion with PNAMP data workgroup.  I would like to discuss the questionable and deleted RPAs with the COTR and appropriate RM&E workgroups.

Dan