Comment:

This is a high priority project that is called for in the Fish and Wildlife Program. The importance of this work is clear. The proposal includes the following statement, "The primary goal of the Smolt Monitoring Program (SMP) is to develop a consistent, continuous long term data time series of juvenile salmon, steelhead, lamprey passage characteristics through the mainstem Columbia and Snake River hydrosystem." This sentence mentions lamprey and the proposal lists lamprey as a focal species, but lamprey are not discussed in the proposal. However, the Fish Passage Center provided extensive documentation of the monitoring protocols for lamprey.

The SMP has been collecting data on the emigration of salmonids and lamprey for over 30 years. They have adapted their methods in response to regional needs and the development of new technology. The data collected and transmitted daily is critical to the real-time management of the hydrosystem and the long-term evaluation of management actions.

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

The proposal states the goal of the SMP is to build a long-term time series of passage characteristics for juvenile salmon, steelhead, and lamprey through the mainstem hydrosystem. To accomplish this goal, the project collects daily samples at seven mainstem hydroelectric projects as well as several trap sites that are used to provide juvenile passage index data by species. The project also marks fish with PIT tags at several sites to supplement available data.

The SMP data, which are available on the Fish Passage Center (FPC) and DART websites, provides a basis for fish passage management in real-time and for analyses to assess future fish passage management decisions. These data, for example flow and spill, are critical to the day-to-day operations of the hydrosystem and to subsequent analyses of the success of management actions via the Comparative Survival Study (CSS). The data collected are quantitative and of benefit to many in the Basin.

The technical background for the project was not presented in the proposal but is available on the FPC website. Specifically, sampling protocols and data reporting protocols for each sampling site are available.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

The SMP meets its objectives on a daily basis by collecting and submitting data. The daily data generated by the SMP are transmitted and posted immediately on the FPC website where the data are available to the region. The historical data are available for investigation of future hydrosystem fish passage mitigation measures.

The proposal does not mention a formal adaptive management strategy but rather mentions that data provided by the project may be used to identify problems in fish passage operations that require modifications. That is, the project enables others to adaptively manage the hydrosystem to the benefit of fish. In addition, during its 30+ years in place, the SMP has adapted its methods as needs and technology have changed. For example, monitoring for gas bubble trauma signs began in the late 1990s in response to the voluntary spill program.

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

This project is integral to the CSS and FPC projects. The SMP-marked fish are used in the CSS analyses. The proposal and the additional materials supplied demonstrate that the scientific principles and methods are sound and are adequate to meet objectives. The SMP is reviewed annually by state, tribal, and federal agencies to ensure that the project meets objectives.

Qualification 1: The ISRP recommends that the project proponents incorporate the 2011 FPC/FPAC lamprey monitoring plans in their proposal, if they are available, before final contracting with BPA and the Council. Specifically, the fish condition metrics for lamprey should be better described, including any proposed use of lipid content as a metric.

Qualification 2: Justification for adequacy of sample sizes for gas bubble disease and descaling assessment should be provided during contracting.

Overall the response adequately responded to the request for additional information including a description of how this project is coordinated with the FPC and the CSS project, as well as a useful flow diagram illustrating how these projects are linked.

In future proposals, the ISRP suggests that the historical and technical background need to be better described and improvements resulting from adaptive management need to be clearly identified. The proponents are encouraged to develop protocols for evaluating the effectiveness of project deliverables.

A response is requested on the following two items: 1. The ISRP understands that this project, FPC, and CSS are all working together, but an explanation is requested. The ISRP would like to see a description and a diagram, or flow chart, illustrating how the elements are working together. 2. Lamprey were mentioned as a focal species but were not discussed. A description of the past effort and results, as well as future plans for monitoring lamprey, is requested. This is a high priority project that is called for in the Fish and Wildlife Program. The importance of this work is clear. However, information in the proposal is lacking on the historical background of the project, including project evolution over time, lessons learned from the past, improvements in the new proposed activity, key relationships and how the project actually functions. The proponents are encouraged to develop a protocol for evaluating the effectiveness of project deliverables. There are standard protocols for activities, but a historical vision on the work is missing. The proposal does not include adequate information concerning work elements, metrics, or methods. One must go to the Annual Reports to find sufficient information concerning the technical background, results, work elements, and methods. The ISRP’s concern is efficiency of the plan with regard to questions such as where to tag fish, how many to tag, and avoidance of redundant effort, so that the migrating fish are monitored at a level adequate to determine the effects of the hydrosystem. The basic application protocols appear sound, but the ISRP is looking for the overall vision as relates to the MERR (Skamania workshop) and PIT tag work group coordination efforts. The viewpoint may be of a service provider reacting to requests from the region, but it would be useful to hear the proponent’s overall vision of how this work fits into ongoing basin programs. The proponents are encouraged to assess the sampling effort for fish quality and gas bubble disease incidence. Are the levels of sampling for fish quality, descaling, and gas bubble trauma measures appropriate to provide an indication of the health of the run? That is, is the effort enough, too little, or too large for the purpose?

The mark group size requirements for the CSS study are determined by numer of marks needed to achieve desired confidence limits for the paratmers estiamted in the study design. All marking for Comparative Survival Study and the Smolt Monitoring Program are coordinated with all regional marking efforts. In this way maximinum effeciency and multiple application of mark groups is achieved for various study and monitoirng objectives throughout the region.  Coordination and collaboration among the CSS and SMP has been a long standing objective of these two projects. The CSS annual rerpot includes a specific description o fthe mark group coordiantion that takes place in the SMP and CSS with other regional eforts. The previous response to the ISRP comments on the SMP, CSS and FPC coordiantion includes a flow chart which illustrates the operating relationship among the three projects. The tables from the CSS draft rerpot for 2010 are included to illustrate the specific mark group coordination that has and will continue to occur.

The following tables, taken from the draft CSS Annual Report for 2010, illustrate the mark group coordination implemented by the FPC. The FPC coordinates, Comparative Survival Study and Smolt Monitoring Program marking needs with other regional marking for research and monitoring. The FPC objective is to maximize efficiency and multiple applications of available mark groups. This provides a benefit across the region by maximizing the information generated from regional marking efforts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

		PIT Tag Funding Source
Hatchery	Species	IDFG / LSRCP	CSS	IPC	ODFW / LSRCP	USFWS	WDFW / LSRCP	Total PIT tags
Rapid River	Chinook		32,000	20,000				52,000
McCall's	Chinook	20,000	32,000					52,000
Clearwater	Chinook	51,000	21,800					72,800
Pahsimeroi	Chinook		6,400	15,000				21,400
Sawtooth	Chinook	15,000	6,400					21,400
Magic Valley	Steelhead	24,600	10,400					35,000
Hagerman	Steelhead	19,000	8,100					27,100
Niagara Springs	Steelhead		22,300	6,000				28,300
Clearwater	Steelhead	16,800	7,000					23,800
Lookingglass  (Imnaha AP)	Chinook		21,000					21,000
Lookingglass  (Catherine AP)	Chinook		21,000					21,000
Irrigon               (Grande Ronde, Imnaha)	Steelhead		14,000		31,400			14,000
Dworshak	Chinook		52,000					52,000
Dworshak	Steelhead		9,000			19,900		9,000
Lyon's Ferry (Cottonwood AP)	Steelhead		2,000				6,000	2,000
Grand Total		146,400	265,400	41,000	31,400	19,900	6,000	452,800
Agencies are Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG), Idaho Power Company (IPC), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP)

 

 

 

		PIT Tag Funding Source
Location	Wild Species	SMP	CSS	IDFG	ODFW	Total PIT tags
Clearwater/Salmon tributaries	Ch./St.		24,000	40,000		64,000
Snake & Salmon Traps	Ch./St.	23,400	7,000			30,400
Clearwater Trap	Ch./St.		5,200			5,200
Grande Ronde Trap	Ch.	9,000	1,400			10,400
Grande Ronde tributaries	Ch.		2,200		2,500	4,700
Chiwawa Trap, Lower Wenatchee Trap	Ch./St.		30,000			30,000
Grand Total		32,400	69,800	40,000	2,500	144,700
Agencies are Smolt Monitoring Program (SMP), Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG), and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).  Ch = wild Chinook and St = wild steelhead.  PIT tags are provided for both wild Chinook and wild steelhead at some locations but the actual numbers captured and tagged by species is not known until after the outmigration is complete.

 

 

 

		PIT Tag Marking Agency
Location/Hatchery	Species	CTUIR	SBT	NPT	ODFW	COE	USFWS	YINN	SMP
Wild Groups
Lookingglass Creek (Grande Ronde basin)	Ch./St.	3,500*
East Fork Salmon,            West Fork Yankee Rivers       (Salmon basin)	Ch./St.		1,300*
Imnaha Trap                    (Imnaha basin)	Ch./St.			15,000**
John Day River	Ch./St.				~9,300
Trout Creek             (Deschutes basin)	St.				~1,300
Hatchery Groups
Snake River	Sockeye					63,600?
Carson	Chinook						15,000
Cle Elum	Chinook							40,000
Leavenworth	Chinook								15,000
Warm Springs	Chinook						15,000
Grand Total		3,500	1,300	15,000	~10,600	63,600	30,000	40,000	15,000
*  The CSS pre-assigns these groups through cooperative efforts with the primary marking agency ** Pre-assigned by NPT ?  Pre-assigned by COE
Agencies are: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT), Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Yakima Indian Nation (YINN), and Smolt Monitoring Program (SMP).  Ch = wild Chinook and St = wild steelhead,  PIT tags are provided for both wild Chinook and wild steelhead at some locations but the actual numbers captured and tagged by species is not known until after the outmigration is complete.

 

It is essential that funding be provided for smolt monitoring. A required and necessary monitoring function is performed by this project, but the proposal is marginally prepared. The proposal should have provided more information concerning the adequacy of the personnel to conduct this monitoring.

The basic rationale connecting this work to subbasin management plans should be more clearly explained. The connection to other projects was incomplete in the narrative and only three BPA related projects were listed and briefly described on the administrative form. The sponsors should be able to provide much more information concerning past history and accomplishments.

The objectives were clearly stated but methods are described only in general terms. Details concerning how these tasks will be accomplished are scant in the proposal. It would be useful to have a better explanation of the links to resources located elsewhere. There is insufficient detail provided about the new aspects of the proposal, e.g., exploration of video techniques to monitor smolts.

The ISRP suggests that the sponsors provide more details and an evaluation of the contributions of the project in future proposals or a summary report. The project history presented in this proposal provides information in terms of administrative changes, changing work elements, and tasks completed. For a project that has been operating since 1982, much more technical detail needs to be provided, including a list of biological accomplishments and reports.