The ISRP believes that this project, along with companion project 198331900, has assisted in providing significant monitoring tools for listed salmonids and other stocks and species in the Columbia River Basin, and there is a continuing need for further development, testing, and evaluation of these PIT tag technologies. The project proponents have a long history of involvement that contributes to collection of valuable data, and the proposed expansions of PIT tag detection systems and capabilities are welcomed. However, the ISRP has two qualifications that the project proponents need to address:

Qualification 1: The project proponents need to provide more supporting data in the proposal to back up detection efficiency test results for new systems. The ISRP especially recommends that sample sizes for supplemental tagging should be statistically evaluated prior to initiating tagging.

Qualification 2: Reporting of results and progress has been limited, and the project proponents need to improve on timely release of information to a wider audience via annual reports, published research papers, and web site postings. A timeline for completion of reports, papers, and postings should be scheduled during contracting.

The ISRP does not need to review a response on these two items.

Other ISRP comments:

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

Adequate descriptions are provided of how this project responds to the 2008 FCRPS BiOp, the Fish and Wildlife Program, and RME planning. Since all of the projects in the mainstem RME group rely to a large extent on information gathered from PIT-tagged fish, their success are dependent on the successful implementation of this project and two other projects (companion project -198331900 and PITAGIS - 199008000) that provide the fundamental structure for the network of PIT-tag systems. The evaluations of the technologies provided by this project are critical because they determine the accuracy and precision of the data that will be collected by future users.

The Technical Background section needs more detail regarding the designs for new installations, and the plan to use previously tagged salmonids for evaluating newly installed or adopted PIT-tag technologies is applauded. The plan to tag 300 spring Chinook salmon at Bonneville Dam to determine if this is sufficient number to give statistically meaningful results should be evaluated by a statistician before tagging is initiated.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

In the executive summary of the proposal a brief summary of the project history is given along with a list of significant accomplishments including: (1) PIT-tag systems have been installed at almost all of the dams for both juvenile and adult salmonids, (2) development of a short 9-mm tag that performs well for its size, (3) completion of evaluations of the orifice-based PIT-tag systems that showed that because of fish behavior, detection was lower for surface oriented species (e.g., summer Chinook salmon) and subsequent evaluations demonstrated that the vertical-slot and counting-window PIT-tag systems were able to detect the surface oriented species that were not detected by the orifice-based PIT-tag systems, (4) development of the full-flow systems that now enable tagged fish to be detected when the bypass facilities are not active.
These PIT tag system additions have made it possible to make more accurate SAR and reach survival estimates for different salmonid stocks.

Reporting of results and progress has been limited and the project needs to improve on timely release of information to a wider audience via annual reports, published research papers, and web site postings. A timeline for completion of reports, papers, and postings should be scheduled during contracting.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The project directly interacts with the PTAGIS Project (#199008000) and Development and Evaluation of Fish-Tracking Technologies (#1983311900). More information is needed on how the project is coordinated with the USACE and others developing PIT tag detection systems. Is there unnecessary overlap and duplication of work?

The proponents do not believe that emerging limiting factors, such as climate change, will have a direct effect on their work, but limiting factors regarding new applications for PIT tag detector arrays are very well described. That is what this project is about.

This is an RME tagging project with a long history of mostly successful deliverables, which have improved the PIT tag systems, and RME data collected. However, under the study design section, the proponents state that they do not do RME. This needs clarification.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project needs to improve by submitting reports in a timely manner. Reports also need to be referenced in the accomplishments section of the proposal. The project has a fair record on deliverables, including reasonable explanations for late submissions. Reports appear to vary widely in details and quality.

More detailed methods need to be provided in the proposal for each of the proposed deliverables (location maps and diagrams would help). Metrics for evaluation of effectiveness of project deliverables need to be developed.

The ISRP believes that this project, along with companion project 198331900, has assisted in providing significant monitoring tools for listed salmonids and other stocks and species in the Columbia River Basin, and there is a continuing need for further development, testing, and evaluation of these PIT tag technologies. The project proponents have a long history of involvement that contributes to collection of valuable data, and the proposed expansions of PIT tag detection systems and capabilities are welcomed. However, the ISRP has two qualifications that the project proponents need to address: Qualification 1: The project proponents need to provide more supporting data in the proposal to back up detection efficiency test results for new systems. The ISRP especially recommends that sample sizes for supplemental tagging should be statistically evaluated prior to initiating tagging. Qualification 2: Reporting of results and progress has been limited, and the project proponents need to improve on timely release of information to a wider audience via annual reports, published research papers, and web site postings. A timeline for completion of reports, papers, and postings should be scheduled during contracting. The ISRP does not need to review a response on these two items. Other ISRP comments: 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives Adequate descriptions are provided of how this project responds to the 2008 FCRPS BiOp, the Fish and Wildlife Program, and RME planning. Since all of the projects in the mainstem RME group rely to a large extent on information gathered from PIT-tagged fish, their success are dependent on the successful implementation of this project and two other projects (companion project -198331900 and PITAGIS - 199008000) that provide the fundamental structure for the network of PIT-tag systems. The evaluations of the technologies provided by this project are critical because they determine the accuracy and precision of the data that will be collected by future users. The Technical Background section needs more detail regarding the designs for new installations, and the plan to use previously tagged salmonids for evaluating newly installed or adopted PIT-tag technologies is applauded. The plan to tag 300 spring Chinook salmon at Bonneville Dam to determine if this is sufficient number to give statistically meaningful results should be evaluated by a statistician before tagging is initiated. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management In the executive summary of the proposal a brief summary of the project history is given along with a list of significant accomplishments including: (1) PIT-tag systems have been installed at almost all of the dams for both juvenile and adult salmonids, (2) development of a short 9-mm tag that performs well for its size, (3) completion of evaluations of the orifice-based PIT-tag systems that showed that because of fish behavior, detection was lower for surface oriented species (e.g., summer Chinook salmon) and subsequent evaluations demonstrated that the vertical-slot and counting-window PIT-tag systems were able to detect the surface oriented species that were not detected by the orifice-based PIT-tag systems, (4) development of the full-flow systems that now enable tagged fish to be detected when the bypass facilities are not active. These PIT tag system additions have made it possible to make more accurate SAR and reach survival estimates for different salmonid stocks. Reporting of results and progress has been limited and the project needs to improve on timely release of information to a wider audience via annual reports, published research papers, and web site postings. A timeline for completion of reports, papers, and postings should be scheduled during contracting. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The project directly interacts with the PTAGIS Project (#199008000) and Development and Evaluation of Fish-Tracking Technologies (#1983311900). More information is needed on how the project is coordinated with the USACE and others developing PIT tag detection systems. Is there unnecessary overlap and duplication of work? The proponents do not believe that emerging limiting factors, such as climate change, will have a direct effect on their work, but limiting factors regarding new applications for PIT tag detector arrays are very well described. That is what this project is about. This is an RME tagging project with a long history of mostly successful deliverables, which have improved the PIT tag systems, and RME data collected. However, under the study design section, the proponents state that they do not do RME. This needs clarification. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The project needs to improve by submitting reports in a timely manner. Reports also need to be referenced in the accomplishments section of the proposal. The project has a fair record on deliverables, including reasonable explanations for late submissions. Reports appear to vary widely in details and quality. More detailed methods need to be provided in the proposal for each of the proposed deliverables (location maps and diagrams would help). Metrics for evaluation of effectiveness of project deliverables need to be developed.