FY07-09 proposal 200725800

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDevelopment of reliable ESU-specific estimates of escapement, harvest, and straying for adult anadromous salmonids migrating through the Federal Columbia River Power System.
Proposal ID200725800
OrganizationUniversity of Idaho
Short descriptionWe will use telemetry monitoring of wild returning adult Chinool salmon and steelhead of known (PIT tagged as juveniles) and unknown origins to obtain timely systemwide and sub-basin specific escapement, harvest and straying estimates.
Information transferRaw data and data summaries from this project will be posted to a public-access queriable website. Annual reports will be distributed electronically to regional managers and posted to websites hosted by University of Idaho and NOAA Fisheries. Peer-reviewed publications will be prepared from the resulting data sets.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Form submitter
Chris Peery University of Idaho cpeery@uidaho.edu
All assigned contacts
Chris Peery University of Idaho cpeery@uidaho.edu

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: None Selected / None Selected


Section 3. Focal species

primary: Chinook All Populations
secondary: Steelhead All Populations

Section 4. Past accomplishments


Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
Other: USACE AFEP Evaluation of adult anadromous salmonid passage at FCRPS dams. Telemetry equipment purchased by the USACE for AFEP evaluations will be used jointly for the proposed project.
Other: Pacific Salmon Commission CTC Evaluation of adult fall Chinook salmon escapement in the Columbia River PSC CTC has verbally agreed to support the fall Chinook salmon portion of the proposed project.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Objective 1. Escapement estimates. Monitor stock-specific, inter-dam reach and tributary specific escapement, harvest and unknown loss of ESA-listed wild salmon and steelhead. None [Strategy left blank]
Objective 2. Straying estimates. Evaluate straying rates for known-source salmon and steelhead and assess effects of such variables as fish origin (hatchery vs. wild for known-source fish), stock, and transport history on straying rates. None [Strategy left blank]
Objective 3. Count adjustments. Provide fishway count adjustment factors that account for fallback at Lower Columbia and Lower Snake River dams. None [Strategy left blank]

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Analyze/Interpret Data Task 1e, Objectives 2-3. Analyze and interpret telemetry data. Using telemetry data, develop reliable estimates of systemwide and sub-basin specific escapement, harvest, and loss, straying, and count adjustements at dams. 8/31/2007 8/31/2010 $661,561
Biological objectives
Objective 1. Escapement estimates.
Objective 2. Straying estimates.
Objective 3. Count adjustments.
Primary R, M, and E Type: Escapement, straying, harvest, and loss estimates.
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Task 1c. Basin-wide telemetry monitoring. Conduct basin-wide monitoring of radio-tagged anadromous salmon and steelhead using array of fixed-site receivers, mobilt tracking by truck, and by conducting tag recapture-reward program. 3/15/2007 12/31/2009 $604,034
Biological objectives
Objective 1. Escapement estimates.
Create/Manage/Maintain Database Task 1d. Create and maintain telemetry database. Create and maintain comprehensive relational and queriable database of all tag, telemetry, mobile track and recapture infoirmation collected from basin-wide monitoring efforts. 4/1/2007 12/31/2009 $445,416
Biological objectives
Objective 1. Escapement estimates.
Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results Task 1d. Post data to website. Raw data and data summaries and analysis reports will be posted to a queriable website accessible by regional managers and public. 4/1/2007 12/31/2009 $72,327
Biological objectives
Objective 1. Escapement estimates.
Mark/Tag Animals Tasks 1a and 1b. Radio tagging adult anadromous salmonid. Collect and outfit adult Chinook salmon and steelhead at Bonneville Dam, adult fish facility. Costs include price for radio transmitters (~1300) not covered by other entities. 4/1/2007 10/15/2009 $1,093,014
Biological objectives
Objective 1. Escapement estimates.
Secondary R, M, and E Type: Number of fish tagged

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
Personnel UI and NOAA salaries $285,590 $294,158 $302,982
Fringe Benefits UI and NOAA combined $107,164 $110,379 $113,690
Supplies Field and office materials $81,471 $83,914 $86,432
Travel UI and NOAA travel $9,415 $9,697 $9,988
Capital Equipment none $0 $0 $0
Overhead UI and NOAA overhead combined $154,792 $159,435 $164,218
Other NOAA genetic analysis $23,400 $24,102 $24,825
Other 1300 transmitters $276,900 $276,900 $276,900
Totals $938,732 $958,585 $979,035
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $2,876,352
Total work element budget: $2,876,352
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
Pacific Salmon Commission Funds for additional transmitters $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Cash Under Development
USACE Use of radio telemetry receivers and equipment $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $250,000
FY 2011 estimated budget: $250,000
Comments: Wrap up costs

Future O&M costs: It will be desirable to complete monitoring of summer steelehad during the spring of 2010 and to wrap up analyses and final reporting from the 2009 field season.

Termination date: 08/31/2010
Comments: Steelhead tagged during the summer of 2009 will spawn the spring of 2010. Project wrap-up and final reporting will take approximately 6 to 8 months.

Final deliverables: Two annual reports (2007, 2008) and a final report summarizing three years of effort. Data sets and summary tables will be posted to the NOAA website indefinitely, as resources allow. We anticipate a minimum of 2 to 3 publishable paper to result from this dataset.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Revised Narrative for Proposal 200725800 Jul 2006
Responce to ISRP for 200725800 Jul 2006
Fall Chinook esc and harvest 2005 Jul 2006

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget FY08 budget FY09 budget Total budget Type Category Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 Expense Basinwide Do Not Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 Basinwide


Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: There are several items identified below that the project sponsors need to respond to for the ISRP to complete an evaluation. In addition to responding to ISRP questions, the ISRP recommends that sponsors clearly articulate and prioritize the objectives and try to narrow down the objectives to 2 or 3 that may be manageable. As a first comment, however, this proposal reads as though the past projects that had been radio tagging adult salmon at Bonneville and monitoring their upstream migration to various points in the hydrosystem were winding down, and the sponsors of those past projects were searching for a use of the antenna array. It would be unfortunate if the array fell into disrepair and would be unavailable in the future. In the end, a decision to maintain the array when there is not an immediate use for a management purposes is an administrative decision. In the proposal it is not clear who is going to use the data or who is calling for the data. Past projects (or agencies) that have used data on radio-tagged salmon are identified, but not by project. Only one project 200714400 is clearly identified as needing radio telemetry monitoring of salmon, at this time. The proposal does not do a good job of justifying the need to gather the radio telemetry observations. The uses of past data are not well covered. A response should indicate who wants the data and how it is going to be used in management. A response should also explain the statistical basis for the design for testing escapements into different subbasins. The design for testing escapements and straying into various tributaries and reservoirs is descriptive. A discussion on a design for testing differences (e, g., ANOVA or an alternative) is needed. There are multiple options for collecting data to estimate the various parameters that the sponsors indicate need to be determined - abundance, harvest rate, straying, fallback. The sponsors propose using the existing telemetry array and radio tagging fish to accomplish the task. There is inadequate justification of the benefits and costs of various options to collect the data - PIT tags versus radio tags, etc. The budget includes the cost of 1,300 radio transmitters but no additional antennas, so the comment in the proposal (page 8) that "fixed aerial antennas will be installed in all major Columbia River tributaries..." was confusing. Regarding tagging and sampling effort, the numbers to be tagged and the choice of fish were vague. For example, "known-source" fish with PIT tags (but unmarked so presumably natural) are preferred, but some hatchery-origin fish may be tagged. "Exact numbers of tagged fish for these studies will be determined by research needs and resources available." It seems like the purpose for radio tagging these fish is not yet established. The critical research questions (needs above) are not decided, so the numbers of fish to be tagged is not yet determined. This does not convince a reviewer of the essential need to use the array and radio tagging to obtain data on fish abundance and estimate vital fish population statistics from it. The methods for biotelemetry work seem appropriate and established. The proposal would benefit from a back up plan if low escapements result in fewer fish to work with. How would smaller number affect variances? Studies proposed under Objectives 4 (spill effects) and 5 (removable spillway weir, marine mammals) require specific experimental designs. These are complex topics and the present proposal gives only simplistic designs to study them. Methods for objective 4, regarding spill effects are not explained. More details on the design of experiments are needed as well as more information on the "innovative modeling" (proportional hazards regression). Were the results of the past research on this topic subjected to peer review? Assignment of fish stock to "unknown-source" radio-tagged fish - Lundrigan et al. 2004 - was not in the citations. NOAA Fisheries is identified in the proposal as a contract provider to genotype fish and perform assignment of individuals. There is no evidence that NOAA knows it is a contract service provider for this proposal. Regarding calculation of vital rates, the biggest question is the magnitude of the unknown losses and whether those overwhelm the precision of the estimates of real interest. There is little supporting documentation from the earlier investigations to put confidence limits on the estimates. Data from earlier work could be used to provide an idea about the sample sizes required and the quality of the data.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: The response to the ISRP addressed the questions posed in the preliminary review, but for the most part the answers were unconvincing and affirmed the initial concerns. In the preliminary review, the ISRP noted that it appeared that the Corp projects that had installed and used a radio-tagging array to monitor upstream migration of adult salmon had been finalized and that scientists using the array were searching for a purpose to continue to collect radio-telemetry data. The sponsors affirm the ending of this project funded by the Corp and argue that radio-telemetry is a useful way to collect important vital statistics on adult salmon including data on in-river harvest, pre-spawning mortality, and "turn-off" into tributaries. The sponsors provide some detail on the limitation of other methods to enumerate these parameters using PIT tags and redd counts. The responses to ISRP's concern were not very concise and leave a lingering concern that the proponents are doing work that might be more suitable for agencies that are directly concerned with harvest management. As the proponent states: "Generating reliable harvest estimates within the Columbia River is problematic but is critical to NMFS, Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), TAC, States and Tribes for effective management and recovery of salmon/steelhead stocks" and if so, these agencies should step up to the plate. Perhaps they are already involved in funding or in-kind support, but this was not clear from the response. While the radio tagging studies will no doubt provide some very interesting and useful data on straying, pre spawn mortality, fall back etc, some of these questions could be addressed with specific hypotheses and investigations. Perhaps a subset of the large array of devices could be used in such studies. The project sponsor did a reasonable job of elaborating on the justification for radio tagging adult salmon to assess certain survival, harvest, and straying questions. There was insufficient explanation of the sample sizes and the number of stocks that would be evaluated. The 600-800 transmitters for spring-summer Chinook and steelhead, respectively, seems to be a rather small sample of the total number of fish passing Bonneville. If they don't achieve a 25% recovery rate of deployed tags as anticipated, they may be looking at a transmitter shortage. There is a lack of specificity about which stocks they will monitor and why. Specifically, sponsors suggest that 600 to 800 tags are needed per stock to evaluate straying, pre-spawn mortality, etc. Yet they are only asking for only 1300 tags, and hope to re-use 200 or so from early in the season. This means only two stocks will be evaluated each year. With eight or so listed ESUs, migrating above Bonneville, they don't justify how this effort will be sufficient, how the monitoring will be sequenced by stock over the years. This certainly cannot be sufficient to support a basinwide estimate of adult survival. It is not clear that this will have direct linkage to management decisions that provide benefits to fish.