Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Early life history and survival of spring chinook salmon and steelhead in the Methow River Basin |
| Proposal ID | 29030 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Richard S. Brown |
| Mailing address | MS K6-85, P. O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093765002 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Richard S. Brown |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Methow |
| Short description | Investigate differential survival, behavior and habitat selection of juvenile spring chinook salmon and steelhead in relation to associated with warm groundwater presence, river ice, and other habitat parameters. |
| Target species | spring chinook salmon and steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 48.0501 |
-119.8933 |
mouth of Methow River |
| 48.91 |
-120.06 |
upper Chewuch River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
| NMFS |
Action 185 |
NMFS |
The Action Agencies shall continue to fund and expand, as appropriate, fish marking and recapturing programs aimed at defining juvenile migrant survival for both transported and nontransported migrants and adult returns for both groups. These studies shall also compare the SARs of transported and nontransported fish to calculate the differential delayed mortality (D), if any, of transported fish. |
| NMFS |
Action 193 |
NMFS |
The Action Agencies shall investigate state-of-the-art, novel fish detection and tagging techniques for use, if warranted, in long-term research, monitoring, and evaluation efforts. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
|
new project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Determine differential survival of juvenile spring chinook salmon and steelhead in relation to habitat quality and quantity. |
a. Collect and PIT tag approximately 500 wild juvenile spring chinook salmon and steelhead and release another 2000 each hatchery juvenile spring chinook salmon and steelhead in various habitats during fall and winter |
3 |
$93,364 |
Yes |
| 2. Describe fish behavior and quantify habitat use and prefences using underwater videography and snorkeling |
a. Perform bi-weekly surveys of the behavior of juvenile spring chinook salmon and steelhead during the late fall/winter period. Observe habitat positions and quantify habitat use, availability and selection. |
3 |
$91,308 |
Yes |
| 3. Investigate how life history and survival is associated with warm groundwater presence, river ice, and other habitat parameters to determine optimal areas for habitat protection and enhancement. |
a. Identify and quantify distinct habitat types. Delineate and mark macrohabitat areas (within reaches varying in gradient and groundwater availability) where fish may be captured and marked with PIT tags and differential survival may be determined. |
3 |
$48,131 |
Yes |
|
b. Quantify the extent and thermal properties of warm groundwater areas |
3 |
$58,937 |
Yes |
| 4. Prepare annual report |
a. Analyze data and produce report/paper |
3 |
$91,199 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Determine differential survival of juvenile spring chinook salmon and steelhead in relation to habitat quality and quantity. |
2002 |
2004 |
$94,000 |
| 2. Describe fish behavior and quantify habitat use and prefences using underwater videography and snorkeling |
2002 |
2004 |
$91,000 |
| 3. Investigate how life history and survival is associated with warm groundwater presence, river ice, and other habitat parameters to determine optimal areas for habitat protection and enhancement. |
2002 |
2004 |
$107,000 |
| 4. Prepare annual report |
2002 |
2004 |
$92,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $384,000 | $384,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 2003 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$79,929 |
| Fringe |
|
$34,255 |
| Supplies |
|
$41,502 |
| Travel |
|
$18,869 |
| Indirect |
|
$7,324 |
| PIT tags |
# of tags: 6000 |
$13,500 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$187,560 |
| $382,939 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $382,939 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $382,939 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Douglas County PUD |
Labor and equipment to trap juvenile fish |
$35,000 |
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:
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. Habitat selection by hatchery fish is likely not representative of habitat use of wild fish. The proposal focuses on survival overwinter, when major mortalities of juveniles are thought to occur. The objective is to identify features of the habitat that might be enhanced to improve survival. It is questionable whether they will be able to locate 500 wild juvenile spring chinook for tagging during the winter in the Methow River, as proposed on page 4. To find that many in different habitat types may be stretching it too far. As suggested on page 7, observed abundance may be related to habitat where warm groundwater infuses into the stream. This may not be indicative of true relative abundance because it has been observed that salmon juveniles may burrow into the substrate during the winter, where they would be difficult to sample. How will the above problems be overcome?
The proponents need to give more consideration to the overall sampling plan for selection of "study sites" and "sub-sampling for fish or habitat points" to observe. Is the "sample size" that will allow statistical inferences to the entire area the number of study sites, or the number of fish? Will sites be selected by a probabilistic method allowing statistical inferences to entire stream reaches, or is the plan to use more of a controlled "study" where sites are subjectively selected to represent different environmental conditions. Also, more consideration should be given to the required "sub-sample sizes" for the number of fish to observe in each task.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Fundable. The proposal focuses on overwinter survival, when major mortalities of juveniles are thought to occur. The objective is to identify features of the habitat that might be enhanced to improve survival. The response regarding the ISRP's question on hatchery vs. wild fish use of habitat seems adequate. Also, they have thought through the sampling problems raised by the ISRP.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect benefit. Will identify critical habitat features for the overwintering survival of Upper Columbia Chinook and Steelhead in the Methow River. Results will aid in future preservation/ restoration of overwintering habitat. Comments
A greater understanding of early life history survival is important. However, relying on hatchery fish to provide insight into wild fish behavior is not recommended. In addition, there are significant procedural and logistic concerns with this proposal with respect to winter conditions, sample size, and video logistics. Would partially implement these RPA actions.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Recommendation:
D
Date:
Jul 26, 2002
Comment:
Do not recommend.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: