FY 2000 proposal 198712702
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Comparative Survival Rate Study (CSS) of Hatchery Pit Tagged Chinook |
| Proposal ID | 198712702 |
| Organization | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Michele Dehart, Fish Passage Center, |
| Mailing address | 2501 SW First Ave., Suite 230 Portland, OR 97201-4752 |
| Phone / email | 5032304288 / mdehart@fpc.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / 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
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|
| 9008000 |
PITAGIS |
Critical Component |
| 8712700 |
Smolt Monitoring |
Critical Component |
| 94033 |
Fish Passage Center |
Critical Component |
| 960200 |
Marking Spring Chinook |
Critical Component |
| 20552 |
Smolt Monitoring Program |
|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. 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 |
| $936,201 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 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% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: None known at this time.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on programmatic review. This entire set of smolt monitoring projects needs to receive a programmatic review with one of the goals to develop and justify a program-wide design that really is capable of delivering enough data, of high enough precision, to answer the management questions.
Comments:
The proposal adequately describes the connection of the work to the PATH recommendations. The need for addressing the problem is clear. The objectives are clearly stated but not all expected outcomes are well defined. More details are necessary for the project design, specific tasks to meet the objectives, and provisions for evaluating the results. In particular, objective 5 to evaluate growth patterns is vague and the expected outcomes are not clear. The project is scientifically sound regardless of the uses intended by the authors for the data. It is an effective application of the PIT tag technology to hatchery fish prior to release that produces survival and behavior information through the hydroelectric system and beyond to points down river such as Rice Island. This project has created the most extensive PIT tag data set in the basin. The data can be used to evaluate the efficacy of program measures, such as juvenile transportation, and survival of hatchery fish to the point of entry into the hydroelectric system. The data set has the potential to permit at least a qualitative comparison of juvenile survival by passage route; spill, turbine, and bypass. These data are expected to help decide critically important management issues on the use of spill and transportation in salmon recovery. Based on the proposal, it is not clear that the design is adequate. They need to explicitly address adult recovery localities and methods. Specifically, they need to examine nearby spawning localities outside the hatcheries for the presence of tagged fish. It is good that they make attempts to address sampling and study design.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Part of SMP.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? Yes - Continuing study
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]