FY07-09 proposal 200311400

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: Ongoing
Comments: By 2010 the entire west coast array should be operational from Baja to the Bering Sea, and involve major river systems as well as the coastal ocean. At this point, it is anticipated that the Census of Marine Life will move into its follow-on phase, and the projected $10M/yr annual budget for supporting the POST Secretariat, POST array, and operational expenditures to do so are expected to be funded by a consortium of west coast agencies in both the US and Canada based on the broad utility of the data. It is the objective of the 5 year POST Implementation phase (2006-2010) to demonstrate the widespread utility of the array for answering important resource management and conservation questions. Addressing key Columbia river issues is an integral part of this requirement.

Final deliverables: A permanent west coast array operational year-round, and extending from Baja to the Bering Sea. The system is anticipated to consist of ca. 2,000 sensors sitting on the seabed, and providing statistically accurate and precise measurements of survival and seasonal movements for migrating fish as small as salmon smolts. For fish >2kg body mass, implanted acoustic tags will have a performance lifespan on the order of a decade, for fish >5 kg, projected tag lifespans are >20 years. For salmon smolts, feasible tag lifespans will range from 4.5 months to 2-3 years, depending upon programming.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The ISRP reiterates its recent (February 2006; ISRP 2006-3, www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2006-3.htm) review that this is an important ongoing project that should be funded in part at a reduced level of funding and deployment of the proposed acoustic tracking arrays. The ISRP also reiterates its previous suggestion that a reasonable process for this specific project would be to discuss the final acoustic array design with the proponents and to develop an incremental budget over the next few years. Coordination of the final design with other projects in the Columbia River Basin and Plume is essential to this process, and was not adequately addressed in this proposal. The ISRP also reiterates its previous comment that the proposed acoustic tag is suitable only for large (> 14 cm) juvenile salmon and steelhead, and technical and scientific problems with this approach are not adequately addressed in the proposal. The ISRP understands that because of timing, the sponsor did not have the benefit of the ISRP’s final response (February 2006) to the FY06 proposal when submitting this FY07-09 proposal (January 10, 2006). However, there have been significant improvements to this proposal since the previously submitted FY06 proposal and January 4, 2006 response to the ISRP review. In particular the proponents now plan to focus BPA-funded work to the north and south of the Columbia River plume. The proponents continue to incorporate the latest (VEMCO) technology. The proponents have provided a good discussion of expected statistical power based on the number of tags deployed. The ISRP's primary concern is that results to date indicate effectiveness of detecting tagged juvenile salmon along open coast arrays is not always high. As the proponents state, this may be explained by the lack of data from acoustic receivers along the outer edge of the shelf off Cape Elizabeth and Brooks Peninsula -- due to malfunction of acoustic releases and the harsh environments at these sites. This result supports the ISRP’s view that on the open coast this project is still in the development or “proof of concept” phase. The ISRP does not consider results in the sheltered and enclosed inlets of British Columbia or for other species (e.g., green sturgeon) or other populations of salmon and steelhead along the open coast to be indicative of the effectiveness of these sites in detecting tagged populations of Columbia River salmonids. In the open ocean, survival rates can be estimated only if all juvenile salmon movements are confined within the area of the continental shelf where acoustic listening arrays are located and detection efficiencies are close to 100%. Until the proponent's results can demonstrate "proof of concept" of the effectiveness of the open coast sites to detect tagged Columbia River salmon, the ISRP continues to recommend the funding of only four arrays along the open coast (two arrays to the north of the Columbia River plume and two arrays to the south of the Columbia River plume), which will provide sufficient coverage to test the effectiveness of this system for Columbia River fish. The ISRP also recommends funding of one or two arrays in the Columbia River estuary because this will help to resolve the issue of whether mortality occurred in the lower river/estuary vs. the ocean. The ISRP does not recommend funding the proposed inriver acoustic arrays above Bonneville Dam without further justification from the proponents as to why the same data cannot be obtained at a lower cost by PIT tags alone. The ISRP has several questions or reservations that require a response from the proponents (see list below). 1. Deployment of arrays: Which lines in Table 2 of the proposal narrative are proposed to be funded by BPA in FY 2007-2009? The proposal does not clearly explain which listening lines have been funded by BPA and installed, which lines have been funded by BPA but are not installed, which lines have been funded by other agencies and installed, and which lines have been funded or are to be funded by other agencies but are not installed. Many open coast lines to the south of the Columbia River mouth have limited relevance to Columbia River Basin stocks. Open coast lines off Cape Elizabeth, Brooks Peninsula, and Southeast Alaska were already deployed and at least partially functioning in 2005. The 2006 proposal indicated that new lines off Tillamook (Oregon) and Willapa Bay (Washington) would be established. There were substantial changes in the FY 2007-2009 proposal for deployment of arrays than as proposed for FY 2006. With respect to outer shelf lines, changes in FY 2006 include interchanges in the line length and number of nodes on the Icy Strait and Baranof, Alaska lines (is BPA funding these lines?), deletion of the Brooks Peninsula line, and postponing deployment of the Tillamook line until FY 2007. Eight lines in the Columbia River (above Bonneville) and Snake River have been added to the FY 2006 list. Does this mean that these freshwater locations are proposed to become part of the permanent "ocean" array? As stated above, the ISRP advises that four listening lines from Oregon to Vancouver Island (two lines to the north of the mouth of the Columbia River and two lines to the south) should provide sufficient coverage to test the effectiveness of the open ocean array for Columbia River fish. These four ocean arrays are what the ISRP recommends for funding in this proposal. The receiver array planned for the lower Columbia River estuary (FW9) is an important addition and also should be funded. It will enable partitioning survival rates between in-river plus estuary and ocean. Will the same mooring system be used in the estuary as in the ocean? Will efforts be made to prevent loss of receivers by strong tidal current, dredging operations, and ship traffic (consult with CORIE on locations)? How can Task 5c (establish residence time in the estuary) be accomplished with only one acoustic array located in the estuary? The ISRP considers funding of one or two arrays below Bonneville Dam to be more important than up river sites. These would help to assess movement and mortality through the upper and lower estuary, where bird predation can be intense and where we have little data except from the PIT-trawl surveys. Are the proponents coordinating their work with other acoustic/PIT tag programs in the estuary? The response from the proponents should include a prioritized table listing each BPA-funded array that is proposed for the 2007-2009 funding cycle, including information on the proposed date of deployment, location, total length, maximum depth, number of receivers, equipment costs, and annual maintenance costs for each BPA-funded listening line. This list should also include the line(s) that have already been funded by BPA with estimates of the proposed costs in FY07-FY09 for equipment replacement, maintenance, and repair. 2. Long-term perspective: The applicability of this technology to major hydrosystem issues in the Columbia River Basin is missing. How would the fully-implemented ocean array and long-term monitoring data on seasonal and interannual variations in survival rates or migration rates among years or stocks actually be used by managers of the Columbia River Basin hydrosystem? 3. Collaboration with other projects: The subject of relating ocean conditions to distribution and survival is important but was not well documented in the proposal. The proponent's success in confirming their hypothesis that the ocean distributions of the two selected stocks are different seems likely, given that other lines of evidence not discussed in the proposal (e.g., coded wire tag recovery data (Pacific States Marine Fishery Commission, RMIS database) and genetic stock identification data from Canadian studies (T. Beacham, DFO/PBS) already support this hypothesis. Perhaps a more important issue for the Council and BPA is whether passage over dams or transport around dams causes delayed mortality of salmon in the ocean. Because the causes of ocean mortality cannot be determined from acoustic tagging, how will the proposed study resolve this issue? Scientifically, the proposed project is closely related to the DFO “Canada-USA Salmon Shelf Survival” project (#200300900) and the NOAA/NMFS “Ocean Survival of Salmonids” project (#199801400). Both of these projects are collecting data on the distribution, migrations, stock structure, and ocean conditions relevant to ocean survival of salmonids. Are the proponents relying on these other studies to provide data needed on ocean conditions (including zooplankton, competitors, predators and physical factors) that might affect survival? The proponents have apparently had little contact with researchers who are working in the estuary, and apparently little time to talk to the NOAA/NMFS “plume group”. However, they propose to evaluate estuary residency. It would be beneficial if these three groups (estuary group, plume group, Kintama) were working with each other. What specific efforts are underway by the proponents to collaborate with these and other BPA-funded estuary, plume, and ocean studies on salmon survival? 4. Estimates of survival and migration rates. Survival rates will be calculated as a combination of mortality, non-detection, and tag shedding. Can the proponents distinguish between detections of tags in live salmon, tags in dead salmon that are drifting with the current, and tags in live predators that ate tagged salmon? The problem with equating non-detection and mortality is that survivors might be swept directly offshore in the Columbia River plume or they might migrate northward or southward in waters beyond the 200-m depth contour, where there are no array lines or nodes to detect them. If the smolts (which is the life stage when mortality is highest) are not detected on the shelf, but the returning adults (which is the life stage of relatively low mortality) are detected on the shelf or in the river, then there is a possibility that the smolts reared offshore beyond the 200-m depth of the continental shelf. Therefore estimates of survival and migration rates and interpretations of results made using “on shelf” tag detections and ecological conditions for smolts may be wrong. Hence the “geographic correlation” that is the main thesis of the proposed work is diluted. How will the proponents address this issue? How will the highly variable effects of water currents be accounted for in the proposed estimates of rates of movement in the estuary and ocean? 5. Tagging methods, fish size, hatchery stocks: Tagging methods and fish size are still a concern, as the proponents are targeting hatchery fish >14 cm because of large tag size. These hatchery fish will be larger than wild Snake River Chinook (except reservoir type Chinook), and will not be representative of the ESU. How comparable is the ocean distribution of tagged Snake River hatchery fish to wild Snake River Chinook? Is there a size difference? If so, how much will this influence their results and interpretation? The proponent’s response to the previous ISRP review did not adequately address the ISRP’s concerns about the weight of the tag and its effects on swimming performance and ocean survival. The proponent’s response should address this issue. Which specific hatcheries will be involved in the tagging work? Are the hatchery stocks selected for tagging representative of the ESUs? More discussion in needed in the proposal on the assumption that the ocean distributions, survival rates, and migration rates of tagged hatchery fish are the same as those of wild fish. Does the proposed work involve voluntary labor by hatchery employees or does the budget include funding for their work? The ISRP requests that the proponents provide more detailed methods, timelines, smolt release schedules, and evidence of coordination and cooperation with hatchery managers. 6. Permits. The proponents note that permits will be obtained to deploy the permanent array on the ocean floor. Which agency(s) issue the permits? What are the permit requirements? What are the timelines for completion of applications, agency approval, and issue of permits? The proponent’s response should demonstrate coordination/cooperation with the fishing communities along the coast of Oregon and Washington, through Washington/Oregon/Alaska Sea Grant, to reduce the loss of receivers in trawling grounds on the shelf. Who are the "appropriate authorities" that the proponents are working with for in-river deployment of equipment, and what specific requirements/timelines need to be met? 7. Lost acoustic receivers. The proponents should expand their discussion of the proposed method for recovering lost acoustic receivers. Previous ISRP reviews raised concerns about detecting lost receivers and the use of expensive ROVs. 8. Information transfer. What is the specific schedule of site visits to download data from each BPA-funded array? What are the specific data/metadata formats and time schedules (including public access to data)? How will the data from other investigators who used VEMCO tags be made available to them and at what cost? How will VEMCO and Kintama facilitate other research programs that want to use the coastal receiver network? 9. Equipment. Justification for expensive equipment described in the narrative was insufficient. What are the specific costs of tags and acoustic nodes? What are the costs of the ROV and additional equipment needed for the ROV, including high-resolution optics, and manipulator, plus surface electronics? What are the projected costs for the single special-purpose vessel that may be required in the future? What are the costs for the wireless (cell, satellite) communications, and other marine electronics? Are these costs shared with other programs funding the POST array? If so, how is BPA’s share determined? 10. Personnel. The PI is an outstanding scientist with an excellent international reputation and good publications. Given the PI’s other ongoing projects mentioned in the narrative (e.g., Moore Foundation project, Sloan Foundation project), additional justification is requested for the PI’s allocation of 100% FTE to this BPA-funded project.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The proponent has provided adequate responses with some notable exceptions as mentioned below. The ISRP's initial (June 2, 2006) review remains largely unchanged. The ISRP continues to recommend that this project be funded in part at a reduced level of funding and deployment of the proposed acoustic tracking arrays, until the proponent's results can demonstrate "proof of concept" of the effectiveness of the open ocean sites to detect tagged Columbia River and Snake River spring Chinook salmon. Results of the 2004 and 2005 field seasons were inconclusive because of incomplete coverage of the continental shelf on the Cape Elizabeth and Brooks Peninsula lines. In addition, detection efficiencies could not be calculated due to significant loss of receivers on the Cape Elizabeth and Brooks Peninsula lines (only 18 of 26 units recovered), as well as the lack of detections on the Alaska line. Somewhat troubling is that BPA-sponsored listening lines installed in previous fiscal years have already required replacement by new lines and new technologies. The ISRP appreciates that our previous comments about placing arrays in the estuary and plume have been used by the proponent to adjust his research. An approach tailored to Columbia River and estuary needs is now apparent. This aspect of the work should be emphasized and more collaboration encouraged between the proponent and other researchers working in the lower river, estuary, and ocean. The ISRP advises reducing (from 4 lines to 1 line) the number of proposed new listening lines on the open ocean coast. We reiterate our previous recommendation that only four open ocean listening lines (two located north of the Columbia River mouth and two located south) are needed to demonstrate the feasibility of this project. Three of these BPA-sponsored lines have already been funded in FY 2006 (Willapa Bay, WA; Lippy Point, BC; Cascade Head, OR), and installation of a second line south of the Columbia River mouth at Tillamook, OR, is proposed for FY 2008. Scientific justification is not adequate for installation of additional new BPA-sponsored lines in the open ocean at Graves Harbor, AK (FY 2007; 23 nodes), Cape Alava, WA (FY 2009; 80 nodes), and Coos Bay, OR (FY 2009; 31 nodes). The ISRP does not recommend funding permanent upriver acoustic listening lines (above Bonneville Dam). However, the proponent's response notes that upriver arrays have already been installed as part of the 2006 work plan. The ISRP advises that upriver research described in the proponent’s response to compare different tagging technologies (PIT tags vs. Vemco acoustic tags) is well beyond the original biological objective of this project, i.e., "tracking smolts in the ocean to resolve how to better manage the Columbia hydropower system." The ISRP reiterates its previous suggestion that the proponent coordinate development of the final acoustic array design with other projects in the Columbia River Basin and Plume, as this issue was inadequately addressed in the proponent's response. Additional comments are as follows: 1. The ISRP stated that its “primary concern is that results to date indicate effectiveness of detecting tagged juvenile salmon along open coast arrays is not always high . . .” In the open ocean, survival rates can be estimated only if all juvenile salmon movements are confined within the area of the continental shelf where acoustic listening arrays are located . . . ” The proponent responded, “We believe we have addressed the question of a significant offshore movement of smolts through a separate manuscript now in review.” This response was not adequate, as the data in this manuscript were not provided to the ISRP. In addition, the proponent’s response “that the Juan de Fuca line . . . showed that Snake River spring chinook do not use that potential migration route” is not in agreement with data in the 9 January 2006 proposal (Fig. 4), which show the detection of a Snake River Chinook on the Juan de Fuca line in 2005. Was this a false detection? 2. Table 1 of the proponent's response is useful supplemental information to Table 2 of the 9 January 2006 proposal, because it provides data on the specific BPA-sponsored arrays proposed for 2007-2009. However, a prioritized list including data on equipment and maintenance costs, as requested by the ISRP, was not provided. Information on month of deployment would also have been useful, as it is not clear whether new arrays would be installed in time to detect releases of tagged fish in the year of deployment. The project design would be improved if installation of the second array south of the mouth of the Columbia River (presumably at Tillamook, OR, not "WA" as listed in Table 1) occurred at the beginning of the proposed project (early in 2007) before tagged smolts are released. This would provide three years of data at two stations south of the mouth of the Columbia River rather than only two years of data. If the FY 2007 results show that tagged Columbia/Snake spring Chinook smolts are detected at the outermost nodes, then curtain lengths of the arrays would need to be extended well beyond the 200-m isobath. 3. The ISRP asked, “How would the fully-implemented ocean array and long-term monitoring data on seasonal and interannual variations in survival rates or migration rates among years or stocks actually be used by managers of the Columbia River Basin hydrosystem? The ISRP agrees with the proponent's response that estimates of ocean survival for tagged release groups of hatchery fish can be used to inform policy makers, fishery managers, and researchers. The proponent did not answer ISRP’s question about how hydrosystem managers would actually use the data. The proponent mentioned the possible over-emphasis of other past projects on freshwater mortality. A balanced approach would consider habitat and environment needs for the community of salmonid fishes, which after all show a wide diversity of life history types. For example, even very good ocean conditions apparently did not enable survival of sockeye in Redfish Lake. 4. The ISRP asked, “Are the proponents relying on these other studies (DFO “Canada-USA Salmon Shelf Survival” project #200300900 and NOAA/NMFS “Ocean Survival of Salmonids” project #199801400) to provide data needed on ocean conditions . . . that might affect survival? The proponent responded, “The goal of the POST project is not to address how the fish die, but to provide hard numbers on where the mortality occurred—and how great the mortality actually is.” The ISRP notes that the "hard numbers" will be estimates (statistical probabilities) of survival of two hatchery stocks of spring Chinook salmon. Collaboration with other projects would provide multiple lines of scientific evidence based on different methodologies, including mechanistic approaches and results to explain causality. This would strengthen support for the proponent’s hypotheses about the relations between fish passage over dams, barging, and ocean survival of Columbia River salmon. The proponent’s response used partial preliminary unpublished data from POST lines to refute alternative hypotheses and technological approaches of other projects, which is not good scientific methodology, even though parenthetical cautions were provided. Although the emphasis in this research is survival, as stated in the response, and not the causes per se, the ISRP considers it important to note that the estimated ocean locations or ages of high or low survival of Columbia River Basin salmon may not be the same in different years because of ocean variability. Therefore, it will be important to correlate minimal ocean survival rates with ocean conditions in the future by collaborating with other research programs. The proponent does not seem to acknowledge that ocean variability will make the concept of tracking the geography of ocean mortality and subsequent adjustment of hydropower system management very difficult to operationalize. For example, the proponent’s response regarding one year of results along a Kintama-sponsored Alaska line: "No Snake R. smolts appear to have migrated over the (Alaska) line, providing a very useful boundary on where the Snake R spring Chinook survival problems must occur.” The ISRP advises that this “boundary” is not a fixed line in the ocean. The ISRP asked, “What specific efforts are underway by the proponents to collaborate with these and other BPA-funded estuary, plume, and ocean studies on salmon survival?” The proponent responded, “We look forwards to closer collaboration in future as POST is proven and we can devote greater time to looking at the linkages.” The ISRP advises that the achievement of common biological objectives of the various BPA-funded ocean distribution and survival projects would benefit from better coordination. The ISRP also reiterates its previous suggestion that the proponent coordinate development of the final acoustic array design with other projects in the Columbia River Basin and Plume, as this issue was inadequately addressed in the proponent's response. 5. The ISRP noted that “survival rates will be calculated as a combination of mortality, non-detection, and tag shedding,” and asked: “Can the proponents distinguish between detections of tags in live salmon, tags in dead salmon that are drifting with the current, and tags in live predators that ate tagged salmon?” The ISRP agrees with the proponent that a technological solution (mortality sensor) to distinguish between tags in live salmon vs. dead salmon is not feasible at this time. More to the point, the response would have been improved if the proponents had provided information on the acoustic data analysis or interpretation methods that they use to distinguish between tags in live and dead salmon. 6. The ISRP asked for an evaluation of the effect of the acoustic tags on the behavior and survival of spring Chinook salmon smolts. The response partially addressed the ISRP’s concerns about behavior by presenting data from an experiment on coho salmon (Chittenden's M.Sc. thesis), but did not adequately address Chinook salmon survival over the period of study for the V6, V7, and V11 tags. The proponent’s response included useful information on new Vemco V7 (7 mm) and a 6-mm acoustic tag (Vemco-developed by spring of 2007) for use on smolts down to approximately 10-10.5 cm in length. These tags will have at least a four-month life span, but the geometry of the array’s nodes will have to be re-configured to achieve a high detection efficiency for 6-mm tags. The ISRP notes that the size of the 6-mm tags will still limit the data from this project. The proponent provided a letter documenting good cooperation and involvement of hatchery managers in the project but did not respond to ISRP's request for more detailed methods, timelines, and schedules for releases of tagged smolts from the two hatcheries participating in the project (Kooskia National Fish Hatchery and Chandler Juvenile Monitoring Facility). The ISRP advises that differences between hatcheries in rearing and release conditions and schedules could affect experimental results. The ISRP asked, “How comparable is the ocean distribution of tagged Snake River hatchery fish to wild Snake River Chinook? Is there a size difference? If so, how much will this influence their results and interpretation?” The proponents did not answer this question adequately: "To our knowledge, the answer to this question is currently impossible to ascertain. We hope to address such questions with the POST array over time." Surely the literature could have provided at least a partial answer to this question. Size data are published and extrapolation from Chittenden's thesis work could have been interpreted. 7. In response to ISRP’s request, the proponent provided useful and detailed information on permits and permitting processes required to deploy the POST array on the ocean floor. However, the response did not demonstrate ISRP-requested coordination and cooperation with coastal fishing communities through Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Sea Grant. 8. The ISRP requested more information on the proposed method for recovering lost acoustic receivers. Previous ISRP reviews raised concerns about detecting lost receivers and the use of expensive ROVs and side-scan sonar. The proponent's response was informative with respect to problems with acoustic releases. The proponent stated, “as a percentage of the POST array, operations costs for ROVs are reasonable, and the POST array’s data is invaluable.” Although requested by ISRP, a breakdown of these costs was not provided. 9. The ISRP asked, “How will the data from other investigators who used VEMCO tags be made available to them and at what cost? How will VEMCO and Kintama facilitate other research programs that want to use the coastal receiver network?” The proponent noted that Kintama would probably handle scientific consultation and financial charging for use of the POST array by other researchers who own Vemco tags. It is not clear, however, if other BPA-funded projects that want to use the BPA-sponsored listening lines will be also be charged a fee for these services. Charging (the cost of membership) for use of POST array is troublesome given the significant BPA funding. The use of BPA-funded lines by other researchers should be specified by the proponent and evaluated by the Council and BPA. The proponents remain optimistic that State, Federal, Provincial, and International agencies will buy into the idea of a continental-scale array and support it in the long term. The cooperation of these agencies is key to the long-term success of POST in this part of the ocean. However the difficulty of continuing long term and expensive monitoring in the ocean may be underestimated. 10. The ISRP noted that “justification for expensive equipment described in the narrative was insufficient” and asked: “What are the specific costs of tags and acoustic nodes? What are the costs of the ROV and additional equipment needed for the ROV, including high-resolution optics, and manipulator, plus surface electronics? What are the projected costs for the single special-purpose vessel that may be required in the future? What are the costs for the wireless (cell, satellite) communications, and other marine electronics? Are these costs shared with other programs funding the POST array? If so, how is BPA’s share determined?” The proponent did not provide the requested estimates of specific costs for expensive equipment. 11. The ISRP requested justification for the PI’s allocation of 100% FTE to this BPA-funded project. The proponent’s response explained that FTE is allocated “between the various POST project sponsors” and “is difficult to precisely define.” The ISRP is concerned that FTEs allocated to the proposed BPA-funded project will not be adequate. The ISRP notes that there is a patchwork of FTEs and associated costs that cannot be explained. Qualifications: The ISRP’s “Fundable in Part” recommendation is qualified because the response and proposal were unresponsive with regard to several critical elements of collaboration and cost. These elements are described in the comments and eleven items above. The ISRP recommends that the Council and BPA secure this information as part of the final project selection process and development of this project's statement of work, if funding is continued.