<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Any similar study done for Klamath-Trinity tagging?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>THE COLUMBIA BASIN BULLETIN: Weekly Fish and Wildlife News<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.cbbulletin.com">www.cbbulletin.com</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>June 21, 2013 Issue No. 667<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <b>Economists: Need For ‘Rationalization’ Of Basin Fish-Tagging Programs Now Spending $70 Million A Year</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>One size definitely does not fit all when it comes to assessing how to spend a limited pot of money for the marking and tagging of Columbia River basin fish for research to determine how various stocks might be better managed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“The kinds of cost metrics that are needed as the basis for making decisions about how to allocate scarce resources for fish tagging cannot be found in project or agency budgets, but rather require a model like the one utilized here, which recognizes and takes account of binding constraints, economies of scale, and spillover effects (sharing data), all of which have sizable effects on questions of cost effectiveness,” according to a report, “Cost-effectiveness of Fish Tagging Technologies and Programs in the Columbia River Basin,” prepared by the Independent Economic Analysis Board for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It is estimated that about $70 million was spent during fiscal year 2012 for various forms of fish research tagging and/or marking, ranging from electronic tags to fin clips to genetic sampling and analysis. The research aims to inform fish managers about the status of fish populations such as salmon and steelhead stocks that are the target of federal, state and tribal preservation and restoration efforts. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Much of that money is funded by the Bonneville Power Administration as mitigation for impacts to fish and wildlife caused by the construction and operation of the Columbia-Snake river hydro system. BPA markets power generated in the region’s federal hydro system.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The NPCC is charged by the Northwest Power Act with recommending how that money should be spent. The panel is peopled by appointees of the governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. The Council has sought, through a “Fish Tagging Forum” process involving fish tagging project proponents and others, to determine were tagging funding would be most appropriately, effectively, and efficiently spent.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>(See CBB, May 10, 2013, “Fish Tagging Forum Finds Some Consensus On Efficiencies But Differences On Coded Wire Tags” <a href="http://www.cbbulletin.com/426530.aspx">http://www.cbbulletin.com/426530.aspx</a> and CBB, March 1, 2013, “Columbia/Snake Basin Fish Tagging Costs $61.4 Million In 2012; Forum Evaluates Data Value For Policy” <a href="http://www.cbbulletin.com/425291.aspx">http://www.cbbulletin.com/425291.aspx</a>)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The IEAB is made up of economists called together to scrutinize difficult economic issues associated with the Council’s fish and wildlife program. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Fish of various species and stocks are tagged to obtain data on their numbers, harvest rates, behavior, habitat use, mortality rates, as well as the success of hatchery and other enhancement programs. Program effectiveness means achieving the science-based objectives of the program; cost effectiveness involves achieving the objectives at the lowest cost.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Finding that program and cost effectiveness can be very complicated, given the fact that “Specific tagging programs involve various government agencies and non-governmental entities that overlap and intersect in terms of their interests, responsibilities, and funding. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“Fish tagging generates information on over one hundred ‘indicators’ that are used to address a wide range of management questions,” the report says.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“Fish tagging in the CRB is complex scientifically, technologically, administratively and jurisdictionally. The many sources of overlap, complementarity and spillover represent some of the ways that achieving cost-effectiveness is not straightforward or obvious,” the report says. “The evidence suggests that to achieve cost-effectiveness, and also to maximize program effectiveness, a more concerted and coordinated management program aimed squarely at “rationalizing” (achieving cost-effectiveness and program effectiveness) is needed. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“We see a need for ‘rationalization’ of fish tagging programs basin-wide, where by “rationalization” we mean organizing according to scientific principles of management in order to increase cost effectiveness and program effectiveness,” the IEAB says. Current programs are fairly decentralized, and yet positive spillover effects and coordination benefits exist at many levels. Taking advantage of wide-ranging mutual benefits represents a complex coordination problem. A rationalization program could both improve program efficiency and bring about cost savings at the same time.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As a part of its review effort the IEAB launched development, and tested the application, of a Fish Tagging (FT) mathematical programming model as a tool for evaluating the cost effectiveness of fish tagging. The model was used to evaluate the differences in cost between coded-wire tags and genetic marking for harvest indicators. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“Despite some cost advantages in tagging and other qualitative advantages, under current conditions, the model suggests that high sampling and lab costs for genetics makes it more expensive than coded-wire tags (CWT) for most stocks. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“Genetic marking, however, generates data that has qualitative advantages over CWT data, and may have advantages over CWT in some situations. For example, CWT is not cost-effective for monitoring harvests of wild stocks and genetic marking may have cost advantages in basins with few non-target fish in the fishery, such as the Snake River basin,” the report said. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Further development – in collaboration with others in the region-- of the model is needed, IEAB member Bill Jaeger told the Council during its June 18 meeting in Missoula, Mont. But the IEAB feels ultimately that the model can help answer some of those difficult questions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>…“the initial analyses described in the report give a strong indication that the programming model developed for the study could serve a valuable role in promoting future improvements in fish tagging cost effectiveness and program effectiveness. Indeed, a refined version of the current model could play a key role in the kind of rationalization process being recommended, although the results presented in this report barely scratch the surface of what is possible with the FT model. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“Many additional issues can be address by examining results from the model, and scenarios can be run to evaluate ‘what if’ questions related to costs, detection probabilities, fish populations, hatchery operations, allocation of budgets and responsibilities, etc.,” the report says. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The Council decided last week to offer the new report, and the model it utilizes, for public comment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The report can be found at <a href="http://www.nwcouncil.org/">http://www.nwcouncil.org/</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>