FY 2000 proposal 20067

Additional documents

TitleType
20067 Narrative Narrative
20067 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEffects of Supersaturated Water on Reproductive Success of Adult Salmonids
Proposal ID20067
OrganizationU.S. Geological Survey, Western Fisheries Research Center, Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJohn Beeman; Dr. Alec Maule
Mailing address5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605
Phone / email5095382299 / john_beeman@usgs.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionThis study will determine in-situ exposures of adult salmonids to total dissolved gas supersaturation (TDGS) and conduct laboratory assays to determine the effects of TDGS exposure on their reproductive performance.
Target speciesSpring/summer chinook salmon, steelhead and sockeye salmon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9300802 Symptoms of gas bubble trauma induced in salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) by ... We will determine TDGS exposure and reproductive effects, they monitor adults for gbt signs
Migration of adult chinook salmon and steelhead past dams and through ... Cooperative use of equipment and study fish
The above project is funded by USACE, conducted by Ted Bjornn of U of Idaho See Section 8c for details.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel base salaries plus overtime $341,643
Fringe $64,247
Supplies $17,500
Operating $68,380
Capital telemetry receiver upgrades $4,500
PIT tags 200 RADIO TAGS $120,000
Travel $8,000
Indirect $215,623
$839,893
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$839,893
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$839,893
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
None $0 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Costs may be reduced substantially by reducing species examined


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund. This project is likely to benefit fish in the Columbia River basin. If successful, the project would start the process of filling an important information gap that now precludes relating mainstem management action of controlled spill to spawning success in salmon.

Comments: It is not clear that objective 1 should be evaluated before a study of objective 2 is conducted. If there is no measurable effect of supersaturated water on reproductive success over a range of realistic exposures to TDGS, then 90% of the cost of this study is saved. If exposure to TDGS can be demonstrated to affect reproductive performance, an assessment of in-situ exposure could be conducted in a future study. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that laboratory conditions can recreate the complex exposure history that adult fish experience. If the in-situ exposure data is collected, analysis should focus on the entire distribution of TDGS and depths, not only a comparison and estimation of central tendency. Extreme exposures may be more indicative of a reproductive response than average exposure. Justification for samples sizes selected to address objective 2 should be included. The proposal is technically sound to the extent it has identified an important information gap that now precludes relating mainstem management actions to spawning success in salmon. The lack of connection between the measures employed in mainstem hydroelectric system monitoring and research for adult salmon and success on the spawning grounds has been identified as a problem by the ISAB (ISAB 99-3). The measurements to be taken in the field, depth, temperature, total dissolved gas TDG (estimated), by location date and time, are a reasonable complement to those to be taken in the laboratory, gonadosomatic index, absolute and relative fecundity, percent of fertilized eggs hatched, by level of TDG exposure. But on the other hand, the study does not identify the relative likelihood of exposure of species and stocks to TDG. It proposes to tag three species with different timings, therefore different likelihood's of exposure, but there is no rationale based on TDG for the distribution of tags. Results are expected to be more critically important for stocks migrating in the early to mid-Spring, such as spring chinook salmon, and less important for stocks migrating during the late spring and summer, such as steelhead and sockeye. Levels of TDG in the spring are often quite high, declining as the summer progresses. There are some serious questions remaining about how well the proposed methods would actually yield useful depth and temperature measures. It appears that temperature at depth will be inferred from measures of surface temperature, which could be inaccurate. If the tag records or transmits ambient temperature, the proposal did not so indicate. Further, the probability of detecting each individual will be partially dependent on depth due to the attenuation of radio signals in water. Hence, there are unexplained problems of accuracy and precision with the depth measurement method. Precision is possibly impacted because the variance of the estimated proportion at depth is inversely proportional to depth, and since actual detection of fish at depth could be less numerous than fish at shallower depths. Accuracy would be impacted if the fish reach a depth at which they cannot be detected at all. The proposal is silent about the prospect that fish could reach depths below the detection threshold of the receivers. Since depth is a critical component of the study, this is a major shortcoming.

There is also the problem of relating laboratory studies of the effects of TDG on the hatching success of embryos to the performance of spawners in the wild. The levels of TDG exposure to be simulated in the laboratory at shallow depths would probably not accurately reflect the levels of exposure in the wild since fish traveling at depth would be able to avoid some of the ill effects of TDG (declines 10% per m of depth). Given that so little information exists on the effects of TDG on adult salmon, this information should be of value in allowing managers to assess how serious the problem may be, even without direct applicability of the research results to population level effects. If successful, the project would start the process of filling an important information gap that now precludes relating mainstem management action of controlled spill on spawning success in salmon. Further, the project could help understand how episodes of uncontrolled spill and high TDG may impact spawning success, regardless of management actions. The work is related well to other projects. The objective of determining exposures would be approached cooperatively with an existing telemetry study (Bjornns COE work). Sings of GBT would be assessed in cooperation with an ongoing study of signs in smolts (9300802). The telemetry methods for depth selection are well established and appropriate for the objective. The laboratory exposures to test conditions of gas supersaturation are appropriate. The study uses standard hatchery culture procedures for meeting the reproductive goals, which is appropriate (although one aspect of reproduction, behavior, will be missing). The several specific measures of reproductive performance are good. The budget is appropriate and the staff has demonstrated ability to do excellent research. Sonic tags will provide more complete data at depth than radio tags. They need to include a behavioral component in the study. The allocation of tags may be better focused on the spring chinook, which are subject to more chronic exposure. The statistical procedures for estimation of the distribution of fish at depths should be described, because unequal probability of detection at depth will invalidate standard statistical techniques.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Important question regarding effects of many factors on reproductive success, but this study addresses only one factor among the many. How do you separate the other factors? Question the applicability of fall chinook results to spring chinook present when spill is likely. Management action is to meet existing WQ standards and this study won't provide input for that action.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Criteria all: Met? Inc - Need to structure work to be part of comprehensive study not only TDG. Fall chinook from Spring Creek and Abernathy proposed as test species. Question application for in-river fish (spring/summer chinook).
Recommendation:
Rank 22
Date:
Oct 8, 1999

Comment:

Rank Comments: This important project would monitor the effects of dissolved gas exposure on adults. The results could improve existing projects and have systemwide significance. Within the sphere of dissolved gas research that needs to be done, this project would help answer one of the major uncertainties.
Recommendation:
Rank 22
Date:
Oct 8, 1999

Comment:

This important project would monitor the effects of dissolved gas exposure on adults. The results could improve existing projects and have systemwide significance. Within the sphere of dissolved gas research that needs to be done, this project would help answer one of the major uncertainties.
Recommendation:
Fund as innovative
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

27. Projects recommended by ISRP, but rated tier 2 or tier 3 by CBFWA/Innovative projects.

There are two groups of projects that the Council considered for funding. First, the ISRP recommended projects for funding that were rated as either tier 2 or tier 3 by CBFWA (the "elevated projects"). Two law enforcement projects were added to this "elevated" list because they did not receive a funding recommendation from CBFWA, but were rated as "fund" by the ISRP. The second group of projects are those that the ISRP identified in its report as "innovative" and offering promising new techniques or approaches (the "innovative projects").

All of the projects that the ISRP found to be "innovative" (and also meeting the scientific review standards) were included in first list of "elevated" projects by the ISRP. The Council itself did not combine the project lists.

In past reports, the ISRP has expressed concern that new and innovative project proposals were not receiving sufficient attention in the funding process. Two years ago, the Council created a targeted request for proposals process for certain areas of interest that had not otherwise received funding recommendations, and a relatively small amount of funding was provided for qualifying projects. The Fiscal Year 2000 solicitation for proposals indicated that an "innovative proposal fund" would be established to support new initiatives of this type.

However, no criteria were specified for "innovative" proposals and most new projects were not proposed as "innovative." The Council requested that the ISRP prioritize the list of "elevated" projects (42 total). The Council also asked the ISRP to consider four specific criteria in its rankings. They were asked to determine if the project: 1) dealt with an unimplemented program area; 2) improves existing projects; 3) has systemwide significance; and 4) advances critical watershed assessment work. The ISRP ranked the projects from 1 to 42 based on their assessment of the overall worth of each project and indicated which of the criteria were met by each. The Council reviewed the ranked list of 42 projects, and determined that it would not recommend funding for all of them. The Council established $2 million as a planning target for funding projects on this list. In order to bring discipline to the selection process, the Council decided what type of projects it wanted to recommend the limiting funding for. The Council determined that it wished to focus on research-oriented projects that the ISRP found to be innovative, and also met two or more of the four criteria identified above (as determined by the ISRP). At the February 1, 2000 work session meeting in Portland, the Council recommended possible funding for eleven projects from the list of 42 elevated projects. Those projects are:

20045, 20057, 20034, 20102, 20106, 9803500, 20064, 20006, 20067, 20076, and 20054.

Review of the ISRP rankings shows that only these projects were identified by the ISRP as fulfilling an unimplemented program area and having systemwide significance. These 11 projects were mainly in the upper half of the overall ranking; the lowest-ranked project on the list ranks 24 out of 42. All 11 projects are research-oriented and, by definition, fulfill part of our current fish and wildlife program and have importance for the system as a whole. The Council found that this seems a reasonable subset of projects to be funded as "innovative."

The Council has previously indicated its desire to cover all of the initial costs for "innovative" projects at the time they are selected, allowing a new competition for funding of innovative projects to be held each year without creating a burden on future years' budgets. Unfortunately, the proposed budgets for these eleven projects, over the next four years, would exceed $8 million. (The budgets for the first four projects alone would exceed $4 million.) Rather than fully fund a few projects, the Council's proposal is to provide initial funding for preliminary research, prototyping, and proof of concept for all 11 projects. Specifically, the proposal is to offer each project $200,000 (or the amount initially requested by the sponsor if that amount is less than $200,000), for a total of $2,119,000. After completion of the initial work and a final report on that work, project sponsors would be free to seek additional funding as a part of the regular project selection process.

While $200,000 is much less than the sum requested for most of these projects, it is still a substantial amount by the standards of most research grants and should lead to meaningful results. This approach also allows us to gain further information on the value of research before making a large, long-term investment.

Project sponsors designated to receive this funding are being asked to prepare a revised plan of work reflecting the reduced funding. The revised plan would be reviewed by Council staff and the chairman of the ISRP to assure that the revised plan still represents valuable research that is consistent with the proposal originally reviewed by the ISRP. In summary, the staff proposal is as follows:

After the Council and ISRP representatives review the revised plans for the eleven projects noted above, and confirm that valuable innovative research can be conducted and reported under the funding and other conditions discussed above, the Council will advise Bonneville under separate cover of its final recommendations for these projects. The Council anticipates that it can provide final recommendations for these projects to Bonneville in late March. Bonneville should refer to that separate letter on this issue for the final Council recommendations on these projects.

Note: Unless the context indicates otherwise, "fund" means that the Council would recommend to the Bonneville Power Administration that a project be funded. The Council's fish and wildlife program is established by statute for implementation by Bonneville, and the Council itself does not directly fund fish and wildlife mitigation. However, in recent years, Bonneville has followed the Council recommendations closely.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting]; Eligible for $200,000 as an innovative project