FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28006
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 28006 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28006 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 28006 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Tag and evaluate PIT-tag retention in sub-yearling chinook salmon |
| Proposal ID | 28006 |
| Organization | Biomark, Inc. (Biomark, Inc.) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Matthew R. Dare |
| Mailing address | 134 N. Cloverdale Road Boise, ID 83713 |
| Phone / email | 2083784900 / mattdare@biomark.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Dean Park, Biomark |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | We propose to PIT tag 12,000 sub-yearling chinook salmon as part of an IDFG NATURES study being conducted in 2002. Additionally, we will determine the rate of PIT-tag shedding in sub-yearling salmonids from 24 hours post-tagging to 30 days post-tagging. |
| Target species | Chinook salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.1517 | -114.8843 | Sawtooth Fish Hatchery, Stanley, Idaho |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Hatchery RPA Action 174 |
| RM&E RPA Action 185 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2001 | PIT tagged approximately 117,000 juvenile chinook salmon as part of a study to assess juvenile passage and survival through Wanapum and Priest Rapids Dams. Duties included tagging, release supervision, data management, and report writing. |
| 2000 | PIT tagged approximately 72,000 juvenile steelhead as part of a study to assess survival through the Well Hydroelectric Project. Duties included tagging, release supervision, data management and report writing. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9705700 | Salmon River Production Program, Shoshone-Bannock tribe. | Project funded to examine supplementation programs, strategies, and potential problems associated with supplementation. |
| 8909803 | Idaho Supplementation Studies, Shoshone-Bannock tribe. | Funded to evaluate "critical uncertainties" associated with supplementation. Delayed shedding of PIT-tags may be one of these uncertainties. |
| 8909802 | Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers, Nez Perce tribe. | Funds a variety of large- and small-scale programs associated with supplementation. |
| 8909800 | Idaho Supplementation Studies, IDFG. | Identical objectives and strategies as in No. 8909803. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. PIT tag 12,000 sub-yearling chinook salmon at Sawtooth Fish Hatchery in June or July 2002. | a. Site visit and coordination, Spring 2002. | 1 | $4,387 | |
| b. Purchase 12,000 PIT tags | 1 | $27,000 | ||
| c. Tagging fieldwork. | 1 | $22,616 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| na | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2. Monitor post-tagging shedding rates for 30 days, data analysis, report writing. | a. Collect shed tags every 24 hours on days 1-7 post-tagging and every 72 hours on days 8-30 post-tagging. | 1 | $10,441 | |
| b. Data analysis. | 1 | $4,000 | ||
| c. Report and manuscript preparation. | 1 | $8,000 | ||
| 3. Tagging file preparation. | a. Data compilation and file preparation. | 1 | $5,600 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| na | 0 | 0 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| na | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| na | 0 | 0 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| na | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| na | 0 | 0 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1 project manager, 1 senior fisheries biologist, 1 fisheries biologist, 2 fisheries technicians. | $42,356 |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | Includes implanters, data collection equipment, and miscellaneous supplies. | $5,500 |
| Travel | Includes vehicle rental and mileage. Food and lodging for personnel also included. | $7,188 |
| Indirect | $0 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 12000 | $27,000 |
| $82,044 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $82,044 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $82,044 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. The technical review suggests there is need for a thorough exploration of the factors contributing to differences between recent studies and earlier studies. The authors state "Biomark personnel collected a substantial number of shed tags in raceways (10 days after tagging) at Priest Rapids dam." The ISRP learned that a "substantial number" of tags is from 2 to 6 percent! The ISRP recommends that a workshop be convened to examine the significance of the perceived problem, and to make recommendations for addressing the problem and analysis of existing results using PIT tags. The response should describe the applicability of the study across species and the basin?The Council should consider whether this study is associated with Biomark's product development. If so, perhaps this would be better done through an independent RFP with Biomark providing guidance.
Comment:
Thousands of fish of this size are tagged and released on a yearly basis; however, the managers have not expressed a concern regarding tag retention during this time period. Some reviewers suggest that research similar to what is being proposed may have already been performed by the agencies or tribes. Addresses RPA 174.Comment:
Fundable at medium priority. They should sub-sample with a group held longer; e.g. at least 6 months. The study will apparently provide information on tag loss over time for one realization of levels of these factors (i.e., one species, a fixed hatchery practice, limited range on size, etc.). The rate of tag loss and time at which tag loss becomes negligible may depend on these factors. If data are collected on individual fish (size, fat content, etc.) there may be sufficient variation to evaluate the effects of some of the factors, but not all. The present study may serve as a pilot project, but apparently a more comprehensive experimental design is needed for full evaluation of the problem.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. Although not a listed species, the results may be applicable to listed species
Comments
While this proposal is not specifically called for in the RPA and does not directly benefit any ESU, it is an important project. The magnitude of potential tag shedding needs to be understood to account for it in subsequent data analysis.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Do not recommend. The project could be reconsidered when a regional RM&E plan is completed and the need for the project can be properly assessed. This project is not a NMFS BiOp priority. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--
Comment: