FY07-09 proposal 200733300
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Timing and survival of PIT tagged juvenile fall Chinook from the Hanford Reach. |
| Proposal ID | 200733300 |
| Organization | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) |
| Short description | [left blank] |
| Information transfer | Data on PIT tags implanted as part of this project will be uploaded to the PTAGIS database. Annual reports detailing downstream migration timing and survival of Hanford Reach fall chinook salmon will be published. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Jeffrey Fryer | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission | fryj@critfc.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Jeffrey Fryer | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission | fryj@critfc.org |
| Jeffrey Fryer | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission | fryj@critfc.org |
| Jeffrey Fryer | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission | fryj@critfc.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Columbia Lower Middle
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 46.588 | 119.382 | Columbia River | Hanford Reach |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESUSection 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other: Pacific Salmon Commission | [no entry] | Hanford Reach fall chinook coded wire tagging | Most of the fish capture required for our proposed PIT tagging project is already done for the coded wire tagging project. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate downstream survival and migration timing | PIT tag 20,000 natural origin juvenile Hanford Reach fall chinook and estimate run timing and migration survival through the hydrosystem. Survival and timing can then be correlated with management actions. | Lower Middle Columbia | Improve juvenile passage conditions at The Dalles, John Day and McNary dams though water management actions, including extending summer spill. |
| Estimate SAR and upstream survival | Estimate smolt to adult survival on a brood-year basis to Bonneville Dam and then determine reach-specific survival on the upstream migration. This survival can then be correlated with migration conditions. | Lower Middle Columbia | Improve adult passage conditions by restoring features of the normative hydrographs to improve migration conditions. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | 2.1 Produce environmental compliance document for fall Chinook tagging activities | Annual ESA permit reports to NOAA, along with any permit modifications. | 1/1/2007 | 2/1/2010 | $2,336 |
|
Biological objectives Estimate downstream survival and migration timing Estimate SAR and upstream survival |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | 2.2 Subcontracting with tribes and agencies | Administering subcontracts to tribes and agencies | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $4,518 |
|
Biological objectives Estimate downstream survival and migration timing Estimate SAR and upstream survival |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | 2.3 Manage and Administrate project | General project administration | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $2,336 |
|
Biological objectives Estimate downstream survival and migration timing Estimate SAR and upstream survival |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | 2.5 Produce annual reports | These annual reports will summarize downstream migration/mortality rates, smolt to adult survival rates, and upstream surviva/migration rates | 10/1/2007 | 1/1/2010 | $4,673 |
|
Biological objectives Estimate downstream survival and migration timing Estimate SAR and upstream survival |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | 2.4 Produce quarterly milestone reports | Produce quarterly reports | 1/1/2007 | 10/31/2009 | $3,738 |
|
Biological objectives Estimate downstream survival and migration timing Estimate SAR and upstream survival |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | 1.4 Estimate survival and migration timing | Use SURPH to estimate migration timing and survival to downstream dams. Also, estimate smolt to adult return rates for data available as well as upstream survival and timing. | 6/10/2007 | 11/1/2009 | $14,018 |
|
Biological objectives Estimate downstream survival and migration timing Estimate SAR and upstream survival |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | 1.1 Capture and grade our 20,000 juvenile fall chinook of proper size for PIT Tagging | Capture sufficient extra juvenile fall chinook of appropriate size to PIT tag 20,000 fish. Also, grade these fish from undersized fish. | 5/25/2007 | 6/10/2009 | $109,701 |
|
Biological objectives Estimate downstream survival and migration timing Estimate SAR and upstream survival |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Prepare 20,000 appropriate-sized fish for PIT tags |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | 1.3 Upload PIT tag data | Upload PIT tag data to PTAGIS database. Summarize data will appear in annual reports | 5/27/2007 | 1/31/2010 | $4,673 |
|
Biological objectives Estimate downstream survival and migration timing Estimate SAR and upstream survival |
Metrics |
||||
| Mark/Tag Animals | 1.2 PIT Tag Hanford Reach juvenile fall chinook | PIT Tag 20,000 juvenile fall chinook salmon and record appropriate data for upload to PTAGIS | 5/27/2007 | 6/10/2009 | $305,000 |
|
Biological objectives Estimate downstream survival and migration timing Estimate SAR and upstream survival |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: PIT Tag 20,000 Hanford Reach fall Chinook |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 0.24 FTE annually | $12,662 | $13,041 | $13,432 |
| Travel | Travel to Hanford Reach for CRITFC Personnel | $1,320 | $1,360 | $1,401 |
| Supplies | Supplies for field activities | $5,750 | $964 | $992 |
| Other | Contract with WDFW, YIN, CTUIR and Kelly Services for capture crews and tagging crew staff | $22,852 | $23,538 | $24,244 |
| Other | Contract for PIT tagging labor and materials (expected to be with USFWS) | $55,000 | $56,650 | $58,350 |
| Fringe Benefits | Fringe for CRITFC personnel | $1,465 | $1,509 | $1,555 |
| Overhead | CRITFC indirect | $7,610 | $6,058 | $6,240 |
| Supplies | 20000 PIT tags annually | $45,000 | $45,000 | $45,000 |
| Totals | $151,659 | $148,120 | $151,214 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $450,993 |
| Total work element budget: | $450,993 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pacific Salmon Commission | Funding for fish capture activities for coded wire tagging project | $120,029 | $123,630 | $127,339 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Totals | $120,029 | $123,630 | $127,339 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $155,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $155,000 |
Comments: PIT tagging of this important stock should continue, though the numbers tagged may be adjusted. |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date:
Comments:
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $151,659 | $148,120 | $151,214 | $450,993 | Expense | Basinwide | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $151,659 | $148,120 | $151,214 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
|
Comments: Funded in the basinwide. |
||||||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The authors propose PIT-tagging 20,000 Hanford Reach fall Chinook aimed at improving survival and informing management. Given the large investment in PIT-tagging throughout the basin and the infrastructure to monitor PIT-tagged fish, this project seems well justified. The proposal summarizes PIT tagging of Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon over the past decade or so, indicates that tagging is not currently scheduled, and uses this as a rationale to justify PIT-tagging 20,000 juvenile salmon. The complexity of evaluating management options for improving survival of fall Chinook salmon is briefly mentioned. The PIT-tags cannot only be used to track dam-to-dam movement and survival, but they can be picked up as returning adults ascend the river. The infrastructure is largely in place to do this, and the proposal aims to take advantage of the PIT-tag sensing equipment located at key locations where Hanford fall Chinook are likely to show up. The ISRP’s qualifications include: PIT-tagging only the larger fish might yield different results from the smaller component which is 80 - 90% of the population. Larger fish are known to survive at higher proportions. Some consideration should be given to incorporating these known differences into the interpretation of the results of the investigation, before it begins. Perhaps some work has already been done on size-related movement and mortality. There was also no mention of whether there will be any attempt to determine PIT-tagging mortality rates.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The authors propose PIT-tagging 20,000 Hanford Reach fall Chinook aimed at improving survival and informing management. Given the large investment in PIT-tagging throughout the basin and the infrastructure to monitor PIT-tagged fish, this project seems well justified. The proposal summarizes PIT tagging of Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon over the past decade or so, indicates that tagging is not currently scheduled, and uses this as a rationale to justify PIT-tagging 20,000 juvenile salmon. The complexity of evaluating management options for improving survival of fall Chinook salmon is briefly mentioned. The PIT-tags cannot only be used to track dam-to-dam movement and survival, but they can be picked up as returning adults ascend the river. The infrastructure is largely in place to do this, and the proposal aims to take advantage of the PIT-tag sensing equipment located at key locations where Hanford fall Chinook are likely to show up. The ISRP’s qualifications include: PIT-tagging only the larger fish might yield different results from the smaller component which is 80 - 90% of the population. Larger fish are known to survive at higher proportions. Some consideration should be given to incorporating these known differences into the interpretation of the results of the investigation, before it begins. Perhaps some work has already been done on size-related movement and mortality. There was also no mention of whether there will be any attempt to determine PIT-tagging mortality rates.