FY 2000 proposal 199102900

Additional documents

199102900 Narrative Narrative
199102900 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLife History and Survival of Fall Chinook Salmon in Columbia River Basin
Proposal ID199102900
OrganizationU.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division (USGS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDennis W. Rondorf
Mailing address5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605
Phone / email5095382299 / dennis_rondorf@usgs.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionFacilitate 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 speciesFall chinook salmon
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

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 IDTitleDescription
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
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
9701400 Hanford Reach fall chinook stranding evaluation Coordinating survival estimation, and cost sharing of a bathymetric survey of Hanford Reach
9800401 Assess impacts of development and operation of Columbia R. hydroelectic sys Mainstem habitat GIS work complements our juvenile rearing habitat assessments
9801003 Monitor and evaluate spawning distribution of Snake R. fall chinook salmon
9801005 Pittsburg Ldg., Capt. John Rapid, & Big Canyon fall chinook acclimation fac
9801004 M&E of yearling Snake R. fall chinook released upstream of L. Granite Dam
9403400 Assessing summer and fall chinook restoration in the Snake River
20541 Snake River fall chinook salmon studies/Umbrella Proposal
9102900 Life history and survival of fall chinook salmon in the Columbia R. basin

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 estimated budget
Total FY 2000 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

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

Reviews and recommendations

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

Fund in Part
Jun 15, 1999


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?

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


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 -

Aug 20, 1999


The project sponsor has agreed to modify Objective 4 in order to reduce the budget by $55,967.
Oct 29, 1999


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.

Nov 8, 1999


Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$356,375 $356,375 $356,375

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website