FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200309300

Additional documents

35040 Narrative Narrative
35040 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation
35040 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDetermination of post-release survival of spring chinook salmon in a mark-selective sport fishery
Proposal ID200309300
OrganizationPacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameGeoffrey A Mcmichael
Mailing addressPO Box 999, MSIN K6-85 Richland, WA 99352
Phone / email5093720804 /
Manager authorizing this projectG McMichael
Review cycleMainstem/Systemwide
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide /
Short descriptionDetermine the effects of capture and release by angling on the post-release survival of spring chinook salmon and steelhead. Different groups (one control, one treatment) will be radio-tagged and tracked through spawning.
Target speciesspring chinook salmon, steelhead
Project location
46.25 -119.25 Yakima River Basin (between rkm 40 and 80)
46.2131 -119.7687 Prosser Broodstock Collection Facility, Prosser Dam on the Yakima River (for tagging controls)
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)


168. Crediting Harvest Reforms
167. Estimating incidental mortality in fisheries
164. Selective fishing methods

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS Action 167 NMFS The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS, USFWS, and Tribal and state fishery management agencies to develop improved methods for estimating incidental mortalities in fisheries, with particular emphasis on selective fisheries in the Columbia River basin, doing so within the time frame necessary to make new marking and selective fishery regimes feasible. The Action Agencies shall initiate studies and/or develop methods by the 3-year check-in.

Section 2. Past accomplishments


Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
199506325 YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation for the Yakima Subbasin Data from this project will be used by YKFP staff to adjust survival estimates and set harvest regulations with WDFW.
199701725 YKFP Operation and Maintenance for the Yakima River Subbasin "
198812025 YKFP Management "

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 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 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Determine post-release survival of sport-caught spring chinook salmon a. Mark 100 sport caught fish with radiotransmitters and PIT tags 3 $42,727 Yes
b. Mark 50 control fish with radiotransmitters and PIT tags 3 $22,909 Yes
c. Track sport caught and control fish to determine their ultimate fate 3 $164,794 Yes
2. Prepare annual report a. Analyze data and produce report/paper 3 $38,315
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Determine post-release survival of sport-caught spring chinook salmon 2002 2004 $493,579
2. Prepare annual report 2002 2004 $82,473
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004FY 2005

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 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 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: .58 $40,175
Fringe $10,445
Supplies $54,144
Travel $4,958
Indirect $76,377
PIT tags # of tags: 500 $1,125
Subcontractor $81,521
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$268,745
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$268,745
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$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.

Fundable only if response is adequate
Aug 2, 2002


A response is needed. This proposal presents a generally very good study design for the purposes intended with a good technical background and thorough knowledge of past literature and current issues. Highly relevant to NMFS RPA's. The selection of the Yakima as study site is appropriate since the facilities exist to capture the fish, to track them throughout the system, and to assist in concerns about fishery impacts in this system (as noted in the proposal). Further, these tags would aid in the study of spring Chinook use of the upper river for holding. Although this study may have several benefits, the proposed variations for future years do not seem as justified. Why should the study be multiple-year? Funding this year should not be automatically committed to a multiple year study unless researchers have defined the rationale. Out-year rationale is inadequate in this proposal.
  1. Given the multiple studies that have been conducted on hooking mortality, discuss the potential for estimating losses in terms of existing mortality data rather than collecting more field data. For example, the proposal references a study on hooking mortality of recreationally caught fish on the Willamette. Why is this study not sufficient to answer the question about the effect of catch-and-release on spawning success? Using existing data and literature, suggest you establish best and worst case scenarios (for example pre-spawn mortality is twice as high as worst hooking mortality and equivalent to best survival rates). Then estimate the acceptability of hooking losses on different run sizes. This would enable some a priori hypotheses about the impacts of hooking mortality. The proposal does not address the fact that in low run years, sport harvest of wild and even hatchery fish may have far greater impact than on high run years. Thus, harvest should be keyed to a worst-case scenario and limited such that sufficient escapements occur, especially in low run years. Comments?
  2. The proposal does not address whether mortality might vary by timing of the run. It assumes that mortality will be constant over time. Is this reasonable? Will the timing of tags allocated to the control fish be matched to the tagging of the angled fish? How will the tags be allocated through the season? In Task 1a, Methods states that fish length would be estimated to the nearest 10 cm. Is this correct and if so, what is the value of such a broad size range?
  3. There will be concerns expressed about the use of selected anglers as opposed to the use of public anglers that may not handle the fish as carefully, etc. How will the anglers used be instructed to fish and what gear would be used? The length of time a fish is played and handled by experts and science techs may be less of an impact than inexperienced fisherman that take longer to handle and may grab fish by gills and flop it on the bank. How can the study control for differences between experiment and reality? How do you separate effect of tagging from angler handling when assessing post-release survival? It is not clear in the methods whether every sport caught fish would be tagged, or how the tagged fish would be chosen? Will this be a random selection process or will certain wounds be eliminated from the study?
  4. The study has potential for coordination and cooperation from Law Enforcement perspectives and studies. For example, public outreach programs, publicity, tracking ultimate fate of fish. And catch and release of wild fish. Could you integrate efforts with Law Enforcement proposals?
  5. Existing PIT tags from smolts may provide additional information upon return as adults. Discuss the potential value of this information.
  6. Discuss the alternative value of live capture and spawning of some wild fish in the hatchery as opposed to release of wild fish. Are there some highly concentrated sport areas where wild caught fish could be taken live from anglers and transferred to hatchery? These anglers could be rewarded with money or receive two hatchery fish for one wild fish. This also could reap benefits in publicizing recovery and having the public actually have hands on support of such actions. It would also benefit some of the goals of the Law Enforcement programs of CRITFE.
  7. If passage is an issue at the dams, receivers upstream and downstream could provide valuable information on time to pass, fall back etc. and potentially provide data as to whether fish delay passing ladders/dams after hooking. Cost for additional equipment and analysis might be very cost effective and could be coordinated via passage studies by U of Idaho.
  8. Why are agencies using a variety of hook types in their regulations? Rationale? No analysis of different hook types was suggested. Are there no potential differences? Has this been studied.
  9. Harvest can be selective if more fish are caught early or late in the run. Additionally, since run size is not confirmed until mid to late in the season, it seems that harvest should be more restrictive early in the run to assure escapement goals will be met, then allow more fishing mid run. If the runs follow bell shaped curves, harvest in the middle of the run will create "stabilizing selection" rather than "directional selection" of run-timing.
  10. Water temperature is a key component of stress mortality. What temperature variations occur over the proposed time of the experiment? Should the experiment be restricted to conditions at or below 10 C or some comparable standard?
  11. Run sizes are anticipated to be adequate for experiment, but no data are provided for comparison (top of page 7). What are the expected run sizes for 2000 outmigrants versus 1998-99?
  12. Is the number of radio-tags sufficient? The sample sizes seemed small. The proposal refers to several classes of fish that would be considered in the analysis: marked vs. unmarked, size classes, sex and environmental conditions. There will be 100 sport tags allocated per year and only 50 controls. Given the number of categories potentially used in these analyses, how was a sample size of 100 tags determined? If there are widely distributed spawners, will there be no behavioral information for the time between catch and spawning.

Recommended Action
Oct 24, 2002


This project meets RPA 167 of the NMFS 2000 FCRPS BiOp.
Do Not Fund
Nov 5, 2002


Not fundable. Disagree with CBFWA's Recommended Action ranking. Although interesting and relevant, the study is not fundable due primarily to inadequate statistical design considerations to answer the questions or test the hypotheses as presented. No statistical treatment to demonstrate that even the primary hypothesis was likely to have sufficient sample size was delivered after this question was raised. Sub-hypotheses about the population structure appear even less likely to be adequately sampled. The proposed methods also did not address the potential that "real-world" catch and release impacts from average sportfishers could be very different from those impacts imposed by experimental "sportfishers".

Other concerns were:

Jan 21, 2003


Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Indirect benefit by improving estimated effects of selective fisheries. Direct benefit to the extent fishery techniques developed and employed that reduce incidental fishing mortality.

The development and deployment of selective fisheries is called for in the BiOp (164), as is research to improve estimates of incidental mortalities (167). The use of MS-222 (an anesthetic not approved for immediate consumption) in close proximity to a consumptive fishery should be reconsidered.

Already ESA Required?


Do Not Fund (Tier 3)
Jun 11, 2003


3. Other projects not recommended by staff