FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28006

Additional documents

TitleType
28006 Narrative Narrative
28006 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
28006 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleTag and evaluate PIT-tag retention in sub-yearling chinook salmon
Proposal ID28006
OrganizationBiomark, Inc. (Biomark, Inc.)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMatthew R. Dare
Mailing address134 N. Cloverdale Road Boise, ID 83713
Phone / email2083784900 / mattdare@biomark.com
Manager authorizing this projectDean Park, Biomark
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionWe 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 speciesChinook salmon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
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 IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
na $0
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
na 0 0 $0
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
na $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
na 0 0 $0
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
na $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
na 0 0 $0
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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
Date:
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.


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

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.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

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.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits 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


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

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:
--


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: