| Proposal title | Annual Stock Assessment - CWT (ODFW) |
| Proposal ID | 198906900 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Mark Lewis |
| Mailing address | 28655 Highway 34 Corvallis, OR 97333 |
| Phone / email | 5417574263 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | 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 alternative marking techniques. |
| Target species | Coho salmon and chinook salmon. |
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1990 |
Tagged 1,109,798 chinook and coho |
| 1991 |
Tagged 1,123,281 chinook and coho and collected 339 tags from returning adults |
| 1992 |
Tagged 861,793 chinook and coho and collected 5,326 tags from returning adults |
| 1993 |
Tagged 845,200 chinook and coho and collected 3,130 tags from returning adults |
| 1994 |
Tagged 1,591,080 chinook and coho and collected 1,411 tags from returning adults |
| 1995 |
Tagged 820,563 chinook and coho and collected 1,689 tags from returning adults |
| 1996 |
Tagged 842,360 chinook and coho and collected 916 tags from returning adults |
| 1997 |
Tagged 788,048 chinook and coho and collected 1,181 tags from returning adults |
| 1997 |
Photonic tagged 32,333 coho, released in the spring of 1997. Recovered 8 jacks in the fall of 1997, from these marked groups. |
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 20515 |
Mainstem Umbrella Proprosal |
Provides for stock assessement and monitoring in mainstem. |
| 9000500 |
Umatilla Hatchery Evaluation |
Tag coho for release in Umatilla Basin. Identification of hatchery fish in Umatilla Basin. |
| 9306000 |
Select Area Fisheries |
Mark coho for release in Youngs Bay. Provide comparison mark groups. Identification of hatchery fish in Youngs Bay. |
| 8805304 |
Monitor Actions Implemented Under
the Hood River Production Program. |
Identification of hatchery fish in Hood River Basin. |
| 9144 |
Monitor Natural Escapement &
Productivity of John Day Basin
Spring Chinoo |
Identification of hatchery fish in John Day Basin. |
| 9506300 |
Yakima/Klickitat Monitoring and
Evaluation Program |
Tag coho for release in Yakima Basin. Identification of hatchery fish in Yakima Basin. |
| 9603301 |
Supplement and Enhance the Two
Existing Stocks of Yakima R. Fall
Chinook |
Identification of hatchery fish in Yakima Basin. |
| 9603302 |
Evaluate the Feasibillity and potential Risks of Restoring Yakima R. Coho |
Tag coho for release in Yakima Basin. Identification of hatchery fish in Yakima Basin. |
| 9604000 |
Evaluate the Feasibility and Risks of
Coho Reintroduction in
Mid-Columbia |
Identification of hatchery fish in Wenatchee and Methow Basins. |
| 8906600 |
Annual Stock Assessment - CWT (WDFW) |
|
| 8906900 |
Annual Stock Assessment - CWT (ODFW) |
|
| 8201300 |
Coded-wire Tag Recovery Program |
|
| 20543 |
Coded-wire Tag Program (Programatic Umbrella) |
|
| 8906500 |
Annual Stock Assessment - CWT (USFWS) |
|
Schedule Constraints: Production and release of hatchery salmonids in the Columbia Basin is regulated by NMFS under the Endangered Species Act. Specific groups to be tagged depend on funding for the production and tagging of hatchery salmon in Oregon.
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comments:
Projects 89-069, 89-065, and 89-066 are essentially the same proposal for different agencies (ODFW, USFWS, WDFW respectively). Each project "ensures" that all hatchery chinook and coho production releases have a representative CWT group associated with the release; provides for recovery of CWT in the spawning escapements, compilation of the data; and for ODFW (proposal 89-069), it provides for investigating alternative tags. These projects provide the tagging essential for routine stock assessment data. There is, however, very little to review in these proposals since the text largely reiterates the umbrella proposal and the coverage of tagging by facilities, geographic area, and species is not presented. Funding agencies may wish to request such a list before agreeing to additional tagging. They are again advised to examine the objective of each program and the expected numbers of recoveries before finalizing a tagging schedule. It is not possible to comment on the proposed costs without more detailed information of the CWT requirements and specific costs for applying and recovering them in this project.