FY 2000 proposal 199702600

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Sampling is dependent on obtaining ESA permits and availability of commercial fishing vessels for charter.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Comments: Population densities and food habits of potential predators in the Columbia River estuary (and near offshore) would be monitored and their impact on salmonids estimated. The proposal also shows good integration with other oceanographic programs being developed along this coast. The research question is adequately explained, but the utility of the information (how it can/will be used) is not explained well enough to be convincing. The objectives are clear, but the measurables are weak (e.g. what happens if the number of predators captured is too small? How will the experiment design be modified?). Results obtained from previous work are not sufficiently discussed or interpreted, apparently because analyses are still ongoing.

Each reviewer stated concerns about the methods presented. Items of particular concern are: (a) how the population size and distribution of the predator species will be determined; (b) the months of coverage; and (c) the adequacy of the sampling rates to study predation by large marine populations. The proposal refers to estimating the density of predator species and their predation rates, but impact on the Columbia basin salmon must be a function of the total population size and distribution. We could not find any description of how predation rates might be calculated based on collected data, which is a critical concern. The sampling coverage is for May through June, but substantial production of fall chinook will enter the near-shore coastal environment after that time. The expected number of predator stomachs that will be examined (30 stomachs per predator species per tow; 100-200 stomachs per species for each two-week period) is likely too small to detect what the authors state is likely to be the relatively rare event of predation on juvenile salmon. Similarly, one two-day survey, repeated every 10 days, will be insufficient to resolve the variations that are likely to occur in both predation rates and the physical environment. It is suggested that the sampling design be modified to incorporate a two-stage process of less detail (e.g. only presence/absence of juvenile salmon) which will include a much larger number of predator stomachs while at sea as well as the detailed examination of stomachs returned to the laboratory.

The proposed budget generally appears reasonable. However, the proposed required purchase of a new trawl should be further investigated. The project description indicates that this same type of trawl was used in 1998. Trawls typically last many years, so was this trawl purchased previously and if so, is it still available? If not, is it cheaper to rent a trawl than purchase another one? Also, while no ship could be contracted in 1998, the use of the resulting surplus funds from 1998 has not been adequately identified.

This proposal could be an important companion to Project 9801400 in that it addresses the larger marine fish species that are not addressed in that proposal. We could not understand why this proposal was and has been funded as an entity separate from proposal 9801400 which seems most interested in its results. Finally, while an understanding of marine predation would be of enormous scholarly interest, one reviewer questioned the payoff from such research. Outmigration timing has minimal manipulation, especially for wild fish. The proposal needs to better justify the benefits of collecting these data. Again, a direct link to project 9801400 would be beneficial.

It was noted that these proponents did not address the ISRP's FY99 comments, Appendix A, page 2. The research is of programmatic value. Further, while the proponents list other ocean research efforts (i.e., other support for marine studies), they need to more directly indicate active collaboration.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The authors have attempted to respond to each comment in the ISRP review. Their comments clarify that this project is largely developmental, directed to yearling smolts, and not intended to "quantify total predation rates on salmonids" (1st para. of response). The project seeks to identify relations between the timing, distribution, and abundance of predators and available prey, including salmonids. Impacts on salmonid survival would be inferred from these relationships and estimates of consumption rates by predators. These rates would be empirically based but would be expressed, for example, as salmonids consumed per unit measure of the predator species (e.g., numbers of salmon per tonne of mackerel, etc.). Any estimate of total predator abundance would be derived from NMFS triennial surveys.

However, there continues to be some confusion due terminology used. Given the above objectives, the proponents' responses to other ISRP comments are certainly more quantitative in nature. For example, in response to utility of the information the respondents refer to "prediction of overall salmonid ocean survival" and "prediction of ocean survival of particular groups of salmonids". Regarding the population size and distribution of predator species, the respondents describe contour mapping, swept trawl expansions, and trawl efficiencies. How would depth of predator biomass be accounted for, and why does trawl efficiency have to be accounted for … as opposed to just assuming equal catchability between trawls. Concerning how predation rates would be calculated; the response involves density of predators in a specified area (and presumably time period), invokes information on digestion rates, etc. (without citing a source), and linear expansion to some total number of days. We continue to question that the objectives of this proposal can actually be addressed by relative or qualitative measures, or whether it will naturally evolve into the need for quantitative measures in order to study the marine survival of salmonids. In this regard, population abundance estimated from the triennial surveys may also not be informative of the abundance in one area in one specific time period. Possibly, hydroacoustic methods could be a more direct means to determine predator abundance during survey periods? However, more quantitative surveys would require investigation of trawl efficiencies by species and size classes.

There also seems to be confusion regarding the ISRP suggestion of a two-stage sampling procedure. One reviewer offered this suggestion as a means to increase the sample size of predators when the predation rate is low and predator abundance large. In this case, the estimate of predation rate is subject to large random error particularly when sample sizes are as small as stated in this proposal. The authors suggest that the "sampling rates are adequate" but acknowledge that the adequacy of their sampling rates "could be considered one of the questions for this research project". If so, how would this be assessed? The two-stage sampling suggested by the ISRP involves sampling large numbers of predators on-board to determine presence-absence of salmonids in the diet, and then sub-sampling a much smaller number of predators to examine the species composition in the diet. The authors state that they are using a two-stage process but we were unable to identify this in the methods. The methods do refer to stratified sampling but our interpretation is that the stratification occurs within the random samples collected during the surveys.

Concerning ISRP comments regarding integration of this project with 9810400 and responding to comments in the ISRP FY99 report, the authors suggest: (a) that the two ocean projects have different sampling protocols but that the primary investigators are working closely together already; and (b) that they have responded to the FY99 comments. Concerning integration of projects, close collaboration and cooperation is an adequate response. The issues identified in the FY99 report are addressed in the above discussions.

Further, one ISRP reviewer questioned the benefits of this project to the FWP (i.e., "questioned the payoff from such research"). The authors suggest that such research and associated monitoring will be needed to account for changes in salmon production that may be attributed ocean and/or freshwater environments. While we endorse studies of marine processes to understand variation in marine survivals (to determine what we may or may not manage in that environment), the partitioning of survivals between freshwater and marine environments will likely be most accurately determined via PIT evaluation and monitoring.

Comment:

Comment: