Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199102900

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 Life History and Survival of Fall Chinook Salmon in Columbia River Basin
BPA Project Proposal Number 199102900
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division
Business acronym (if appropriate) USGS
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Dennis W. Rondorf
Mailing Address 5501A Cook-Underwood Rd.
City, State, Zip Cook, WA 98605
Phone 5095382299
Fax 5095382843
E-mail dennis_rondorf@usgs.gov
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mainstem/Systemwide
Subbasin Systemwide
 
Short Description Facilitate implementation of federal and tribal fall chinook salmon recovery plans by monitoring and evaluating post-release attributes and survival of natural and hatchery juvenile fall chinook in the Snake River and Hanford Reach of the Columbia River.
Target Species Fall 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: 7.5B.3, 7.3B.5, 7.5B.1, 2.2A, 5.7, 5.0F, 7.1A.1, 7.6A.2
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: NMFS BO RPA 13f: “The BPA shall evaluate juvenile survival during downstream migration and desired level of flow augmentation.”
Other Planning Document References Wy Kan Ush Me Wa Kush Wi Artificial Production Actions for the Snake River Mainstem Action 8: Monitor and evaluate all artificial production actions. Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan measures 4.1.2 (supplementation), 2.1.d.3 (survival and flow augmentation), and 2.8.b.2. (predator and salmonid interactions).


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
1992 Refined field technique for PIT tagging juvenile fall chinook salmon
1992 Minimum Snake River flows established for spawning, incubation, and emergence
1993 Development of underwater video system for counting fall chinook redds in deep water
1993 Detailed habitat maps produced for a major spawning location in the Snake River.
1993 1991 Annual Project Report to BPA
1994 Completed juvenile marking study at McNary Dam
1994 1992 and 1993 Annual Project Reports to BPA
1995 Completed assessment of variables that define juvenile fall chinook rearing habitat
1996 Annual fall chinook redd counts in the Snake River have been made for 1991 through 1996 by this project.
1996 1994 Annual Project Report to BPA
1997 1995 Annual Project Report to BPA
1997 Summary of three years of radio telemetry data describing fall chinook migratory behavior.
1998 Run timing forecasts for Snake River fall chinook have been provided to TMT from 1991 through 1998
1998 1996-97 Annual Project Report to BPA


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9302900 Survival estimates for juvenile salmonids through lower Snake River Collaborative effort to estimate survival of hatchery and natural fall chinook in the Snake River No
9403400 Assessing summer/fall chinook salmon restoration in the Snake River basin Collaborative effort to estimate survival of hatchery and natural fall chinook in the Snake and Clearwater rivers No
9701400 Hanford Reach fall chinook stranding evaluation Coordinating survival estimation, and cost sharing of a bathymetric survey of Hanford Reach No
9800401 Assess impacts of development and operation of Columbia R. hydroelectic sys Mainstem habitat GIS work complements our juvenile rearing habitat assessments No
9801003 Monitor and evaluate spawning distribution of Snake R. fall chinook salmon Yes
9801005 Pittsburg Ldg., Capt. John Rapid, & Big Canyon fall chinook acclimation fac Yes
9801004 M&E of yearling Snake R. fall chinook released upstream of L. Granite Dam Yes
9403400 Assessing summer and fall chinook restoration in the Snake River Yes
20541 Snake River fall chinook salmon studies/Umbrella Proposal Yes
9102900 Life history and survival of fall chinook salmon in the Columbia R. basin Yes


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Determine the effects rearing area, flow, and temperature on natural fall chinook salmon survival and migration timing to the tail race of Lower Granite Dam. a. Capture and PIT tag natural fall chinook salmon rearing in different areas of Hells Canyon.
1. b. Provide annual run-timing estimates for juvenile Snake River fall chinook for the Smolt Monitoring Program and Fish Passage Advisory Committee and summer flow augmentation decisions.
1. c. Test for differences in detection patterns at Lower Granite Dam of fish tagged in different rearing areas.
1. d. Determine if survival of release groups is related to rearing area, flow, temperature, and travel time.
2. Investigate the occurrence of yearling emigration (i.e., residualism) in Snake River fall chinook salmon. a. Determine the prevalence of subyearling holdover using PIT tag detection data.
2. b. Correlate the prevalence of holdover with environmental and genetic data.
2. c. Determine the feasibility of estimating the origin of holdover fish using genetic and scale pattern data.
3. Evaluate the effect of fish size at release and environmental attributes on survival of Lyons Ferry subyearling fall chinook salmon. a. Obtain and release sufficient numbers of hatchery fall chinook salmon to determine the effects of size at release on survival through lower Snake River dams.
3. b. Estimate survival of each hatchery release group using the SURPH model (Smith et al. 1994)
3. c. Use multivariate statistics and analysis of variance techniques to determine if differences in survival are related to fish size, temperature, flow, and travel times.
4. Determine habitat use and migratory behavior of hatchery and natural fall chinook salmon in the Snake River. a. Determine post-release dispersal patterns of hatchery fish in Hells Canyon.
4. b. Describe post-release habitat use by hatchery fish to determine the extent of hatchery-wild overlap in nearshore rearing areas.
4. c. Use radio telemetry to describe the migratory behavior and thermal history of active migrants in the lower Snake River.
5. Assess the relationship between growth rate and predation risk for hatchery treatment groups and natural fall chinook salmon. a. Modify and use an existing chinook salmon bioenergetics model to predict food consumption and growth of hatchery and wild fish in nearshore rearing areas.
5. b. Determine the extent and size selectivity of predation by smallmouth bass on hatchery and wild subyearling fall chinook in the Hells Canyon Reach.
5. c. Use an individual-based modeling approach (Jager et al. 1993) to synthesize predation risk and growth advantage as it relates to survival, supplementation scenarios, and environmental conditions.
6. Determine the effect of seaward migration timing on natural Hanford Reach fall chinook salmon survival to the McNary and John Day dam tailraces, and compare findings to those for the Snake River from Objective 1. a. Capture and PIT tag natural fall chinook salmon rearing in the Hanford Reach.
6. b. Test for differences in seaward migration timing among weekly releases.
6. c. Test for differences in survival to the tailrace of McNary and John Day dams among the weekly releases.
6. d. Determine the relation between survival and flow, temperature, and turbidity.
6. e. Test for differences in early life history (i.e., emergence timing, growth, and migration timing) and survival between Snake River and Hanford Reach fish.
7. Determine the effects of flow fluctuations on the quantity and quality of juvenile fall chinook rearing habitat in the Hanford and Hells Canyon reaches for a comparison of healthy and depressed stocks. a. Produce a bathymetric map of rearing areas in the Hanford Reach and Hells Canyon.
7. b. Collect water velocity information for surveyed areas for use as a criterion to define quality rearing habitat, and for flow modeling.
7. c. Choose a two-dimensional flow model that will predict water surface elevations given river discharge.
7. d. Synthesize the above information with variables that define quality juvenile fall chinook rearing habitats into a predictive model.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 04/01/91 05/01/02 Early life history survival and run timing Annual run timing estimates 20.0%
2 08/01/95 07/01/97 Quantify occurrence of residualism Complete except for analysis 2.0%
3 05/01/95 08/01/98 Determine effect of fish size on survival Complete except for analysis 3.0%
4 05/01/95 05/01/01 Determine effects of environmental variables and behavior on survival 5.0%
5 05/01/95 05/01/01 Determine effects of growth and predation of survival Complete except for analysis 5.0%
6 06/01/00 05/01/02 Estimate survival of Hanford Reach fall chinook 35.0%
7 06/01/00 05/01/02 Effects of flow fluctuations on fall chinook rearing habitat 30.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $335,600
Fringe $102,800
Supplies $ 31,500
PIT tags 9250 $ 26,825
Travel $ 23,700
Indirect Administrative overhead $199,000
Other Vehicle leasing and boat operation and maintenance $ 30,100
Subcontractor U.S. Army COE - LIDAR survey $ 50,000
Total Itemized Budget $799,525


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $799,525
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $799,525
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
All Phases $799,525
Total Outyear Budgets $799,525
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: A LIDAR habitat survey in the Hanford Reach is potentially limited by contractor availability


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Bevan, D. and several co-authors. 1994. Snake River Salmon Recovery Team: Final Recommendations to the National Marine Fisheries Service. No
Bugert, R.M., G.W. Mendel, and P.R. Seidel. 1997. Adult returns of subyearling and yearling fall chinook salmon released from a Snake River hatchery or transported downstream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:638-651. No
Burnham, K.P., D.R. Anderson, G.C. White, C. Brownie, and K.H. Pollack. 1987. Design and analysis methods for fish survival experiments based on release-recapture. American Fisheries Society Monograph 5, Bethesda, Maryland. No
Connor, W.P., H.L. Burge, and D.H. Bennett. 1998. Detection of PIT-tagged subyearling chinook salmon at a Snake River dam: Implications for summer flow augmentation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:530-536. No
Dauble, D.D., and D.G. Watson. 1997. Status of fall chinook salmon populations in the mid-Columbia River, 1948-1992. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:283-300. No
Hansel, H.C., S.D. Duke, P.T Lofy, and G.A. Gray. 1988. Use of diagnostic bones to identify and estimate original lengths of ingested prey fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:55-62. No
Huntington, C., W. Nehlsen, and J. Bowers. 1996. A survey of healthy native stocks of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and California. Fisheries 21(3):6-14. No
Irving, J.S., and T.C. Bjornn. 1981. Status of Snake River fall chinoook salmon in relation to the Endangered Species Act. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. No
Jager, H.I., and seven coauthors. 1993. An individual-based model for smallmouth bass reproduction and young-of-year dynamics in streams. Rivers 4:91-113. No
Lavoy, L. 1995. Stock composition of fall chinook salmon at Lower Granite Dam in 1994. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Anadromous Fish Division - Columbia River, Progress Report 95-6, Battle Ground, Washington. No
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1992. Threatened status for Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon, threatened status for Snake River fall chinook salmon. Final rule, April 22, 1992. Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 78. No
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1995. Proposed recovery plan for Snake River salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Portland, Oregon. No
Roseberg, R., H.L. Burge, W. Miller, and D. Diggs. 1992. A review of coded-wire tagged fish released from Dworshak, Kosskia, and Hagerman National Fish Hatcheries, 1976-1990. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fishery Resource Office, Ahsahka, Idaho No
Shively, R.S., T.P. Poe, and S.T. Sauter. 1996. Feeding response by northern squawfish to a hatchery release of juvenile salmonids in the Clearwater River, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:230-236. No
Smith, S.G., J.R. Skalski, J.W. Schlechte, A. Hoffman, and V. Cassen. 1994. Statistical survival analysis of fish and wildlife tagging studies. SURPH.1 Manual. Center for Quantitative Science, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. No
Smith, S.G., W.D. Muir, E.E. Hockersmith, and W.P. Connor. 1996. Passage survival of natural and hatchery subyearling fall chinook salmon to Lower Granite, Little Goose, and Lower Monumental dams. Chapter 1 in Annual Report to BPA and COE. No
Stewart, D.J., and M. Ibarra. 1991. Predation and production by salmonine fishes in Lake Michigan, 1978-88. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:909-922. No
Tabor, R.A., R.S. Shively, and T.P. Poe. 1993. Predation on juvenile salmonids by smallmouth bass and northern squawfish in the Columbia River near Richland, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:831-838. No
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1988. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as ammended through the 100th Congress. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. No
Waples, R.S., R.P. Jones, B.R. Beckman, and G.A. Swan. 1991. Status review for Snake River fall chinook salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-201. Portland, Oregon. No
Winton, J., and R. Hilborn. 1994. Lessons from supplementation of chinook salmon in British Columbia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:1-13. No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund in Part
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund in part, do not expand into objectives 6 and 7 until they have reported on previous results from Snake River basin research. Objective 6 and 7 should be developed as independent proposals with specific rationale, hypotheses, and study design.

Comments: This proposal addresses a wide scope of studies on fall chinook in the upper river. The proposed project is very large and ambitious, both in terms of scope and schedule for delivery. The objectives of this proposal are clearly described, but it not clear what should actually be done next due to the large backlog of data and insufficient reporting of previous work. The scope of these investigations seems to detract from the methods detailed for each objective. The testability of some objectives and the experimental designs presented are quite variable resulting in a range of possible criteria scores. The proposal identifies only two more years of research to address these objectives. It is doubtful that all the objectives can be successfully accomplished with the requested resources.

Overall, this is an enormous effort (approximately $7.5x10^6 in previous funding) with far too many different and specific objectives for any individual reviewer to provide much overall perspective. Previous efforts appear to have been directed primarily to Snake River fall chinook while the current proposal calls for a contrast of the performance of Hanford Reach fall chinook with the poorly performing Hell's Canyon fall chinook population. However, given that a large amount of data has been collected in previous years which has not yet been reported along with the potential importance of this work to the understanding/recovery of Snake River fall chinook, the reviewers recommend an independent peer review panel to examine this program before any expansion of work is supported.

The reviewers were also uncertain about what was meant by the use of "Assumptions". Are these working hypotheses? They also questioned the value of using the time of tagging (page #1003) as a variable to study survival, migration timing, or relation to environmental variables. What is the evidence that time of tagging is an informative variable and what can be inferred from time of tagging?


CBFWA: Nonwatershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? yes - This is an ongoing study that is significantly changing direction.

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? no - Questionable whether sample sizes will allow the comparisons between Snake and Mid Columbia fish suggested in this proposal.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? no - Same comment as above.

Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -


CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
The project sponsor has agreed to modify Objective 4 in order to reduce the budget by $55,967.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$744,000
Comment:

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fund. The scope of this work and the variety of publications argue for a full programmatic review of this project. The new "province" review approach suggested for future ISRP reviews may be more effective in analyzing a wide scope project such as this.

The sponsors have adequately addressed the concerns of the ISRP. The need and ability to proceed with objectives 6 & 7 were addressed and the status of reporting to date clarified. The latter could be more fully clarified if the reports/papers were associated with the objectives that were investigated.

Without arguing whether the ISRP or the proponents "missed the mark …", the ISRP wishes to clarify the basis of our comments on assumptions stated in the proposal. The assumptions involved in an objective or an hypothesis are not a statement of what you expect to learn, or why an objective was investigated (e.g., see Objectives 1,5,6,7), but should be a statement necessary in order to test an hypothesis or to make inferences from results. Examples of these latter assumptions were also contained in the proposal, for example;

  1. Objective #3 "surrogates for natural fish" … i.e., the size-survival relations estimated for hatchery fish are assumed to be representative of associated natural populations.
  2. Objective #4 … this objective assumes equal catchability of hatchery and wild fish in order to sample representatively.

The distinction between these "types" of assumptions should be clearly differentiated in future proposals.

The out-year budgets in this proposal have not been reduced for the completion of Objectives 2 through 5 (15% of current budget) and should be adjusted accordingly. We further noted that 80% of this budget are for salaries, benefits, and administrative overhead. A detailed breakdown of the tasks and associated costs would seem advisable.


NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$743,558
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$356,375
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$356,375
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$356,375
Sponsor (USFWS) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page