Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 198712702

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Comparative Survival Rate Study (CSS) of Hatchery Pit Tagged Chinook
BPA Project Proposal Number 198712702
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Business acronym (if appropriate) PSMFC
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Michele Dehart, Fish Passage Center,
Mailing Address 2501 SW First Ave., Suite 230
City, State, Zip Portland, OR 97201-4752
Phone 5032304288
Fax 5032307559
E-mail mdehart@fpc.org
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mainstem/Systemwide
Subbasin Systemwide
 
Short Description Adult and juvenile PIT tag recovery data are analyzed to compare survival estimates for transported fish of known origin, downriver stocks, wild and hatchery transported fish and fish handled and not handled at dams.
Target Species Spring Chinook Salmon


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 3.6F.10, Sections 303, 403b, 1408.2.8
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: RPA Section 13 A, C and RPA Section 17
Other Planning Document References NMFS Biological Opinion RPA 13 (a) & RPA 17


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1997 Completed all tasks planned for 1997
1998 Completed all tasks planned for 1998; provided data base for analysis of down stream migration


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9008000 PITAGIS Critical Component No
8712700 Smolt Monitoring Critical Component No
94033 Fish Passage Center Critical Component No
960200 Marking Spring Chinook Critical Component No
20552 Smolt Monitoring Program Yes


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Develop a long-term index of transport survival rate (smolt-to-adult) to inriver survival rate (smolt-to-adult for Snake River hatchery spring & summer chinook smolts. a. Compute annual ratio of transport survival rate to inriver survival rate
1. b. Test if the annual ratio of transport survival rate to inriver survival rate (measured at LGR w/associated confidence intervall
1. c. Evaluate inriver controls obtained from fish PIT tagged at the hatcheries have higher smolt-to-adult survival rates to LGR than inriver controls from migrating fish that were collected, handled, and PIT tagged at LGR
2. For Snake River basin hatcheries, develop a long-term index of survival rates from release of smolts at hatcheries to return of adults to hatcheries. a. Partition survival rates (i) from hatchery (smolts) to Lower Granite Dam (smolts), (ii) from Lower Granite Dam (smolts) back to Lower Granite Dam (adults), and (iii) from Lower Granite Dam (adults) to the hatchery (adults).
2. b. For the combined Snake River hatcheries, compute the annual survival rate of smolts transported at Lower Granite Dam to adult returns to the hatcheries.
2. c. For the combined Snake River hatcheries, compute the annual survival rate of smolts migrating inriver to adult returns to the hatcheries.
2. d. Explore the feasibility of increasing mark sizes to improve precision in the annual ratio of transport survival rate to inriver survival rate [Task 1(a)] measured back to the hatchery.
3. Compute and compare overall smolt-to-adult survival rates for selected upriver and downriver spring and summer chinook hatcheries. a. Compute annual hatchery survival rates (adjusted for terminal harvest rates) using both CWT and PIT tags for selected upriver and downriver hatchery stocks. Compare survival rates of CWT and PIT tag estimates. Estimate survival rates (smolt-to-adult) fo
3. b. Compute an annual ratio of downriver hatchery survival rate to upriver hatchery survival rate (all measured at the hatcheries and adjusted for terminal harvest) with associated confidence interval.
3. c. Test if the annual ratio of downriver hatchery survival rate to upriver hatchery survival rate (all measured at the hatcheries) is greater than 2.0 with sufficient power to provide a high probability that the ratio is greater than 1.0.
3. d. Test aggregately & individually the annual ratio of downriver hatchery survival rate to upriver hatcheries transported smolts survival rate is greater than 2.0 with sufficient power to privide a high probability that the ratio is greater than 1.0.
3. e. Explore the feasibility of developing lower river wild index stocks (e.g., Warm Springs, John Day, and Klickitat rivers) to measure smolt-to-adult survival rates.
4. Begin a time series of smolt-to-adult survival rates for use in the PATH hypothesis testing process and in the regional long-term monitoring and evaluation program, which is under development. .
5. Begin a time series of smolt-to-adult survival rates for use in the PATH hypothesis testing process and in the regional long-term monitoring and evaluation program, which is under development. a. Collect and catalog scales from PIT tagged adults detected at Lower Granite Dam adult trap or at the upriver hatcheries.
5. b. Coordinate with the downriver hatcheries to collect and catalog scales from CWT groups that are representative of the production lots from which the PIT tagged fish were taken.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 01/01/00 12/01/00 20.0%
2 01/01/00 12/01/00 20.0%
3 01/01/00 12/01/00 20.0%
4 01/01/00 12/01/00 20.0%
5 01/01/00 12/01/00 20.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $113,689
Fringe $ 34,990
Supplies Included in Operations & Maint. $ 0
Operating $ 45,645
PIT tags 221,500 $642,350
Travel $ 7,802
Indirect $ 62,061
Other Oversight Committee $ 29,664
Total Itemized Budget $936,201


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $936,201
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $936,201
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $983,011 $1,012,501 $1,042,876 $1,074,162
Total Outyear Budgets $983,011 $1,012,501 $1,042,876 $1,074,162
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: None known at this time.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Boregerson, L.A. 1991. A determination of the hatchery and wild ratios and selected life history characteristics from scales of transported and non-transported groups of spring chinook and steelhead in the Snake River. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildl No
Boregerson, L.A. 1992. Life history studies of spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead from the Snake River using scale analysis. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Annual Progress Report, Portland. No
Burnham, K.P., D.R. Anderson, G.C. White, C. Brownie, and K.H. Pollock. 1987. Design and analysis methods for fish survival experiments based on release-recapture. American Fisheries Society Monograph 5. ISSN 0362-1715. Bethesda, Maryland. 437 p. No
Snedecor, G.W. and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical methods. Sixth edition. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa. 593 p. No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

This project has not yet been reviewed

Return to top of page