FY 2000 proposal 20011
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Whole System Effects on Migration and Survival of Juvenile Salmon |
| Proposal ID | 20011 |
| Organization | Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (OCFWRU) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Carl B. Schreck |
| Mailing address | Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, OSU; 104 Nash Hall Corvallis, OR 97331 |
| Phone / email | 5417371938 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Our goal is to understand how salmon smolts may be managed to minimize loss in the Columbia River estuary. Physiological impacts during outmigration may affect behavior and survival in the estuary. Tissue sampling and radiotracking will be used. |
| Target species | Juvenile spring/summer 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
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 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 |
2 Research Aides, 2 Grad. Students, and 6 Seasonal Aides |
$125,880 |
| Fringe |
Rate varies from 1-52% of wages, depending on position |
$33,334 |
| Supplies |
Hydrolab |
$10,200 |
| Operating |
Includes radiotags, flight time, boat charter, model validation, datalogger upgrade, sample analysis |
$109,305 |
| Travel |
Includes field housing and vehicles |
$17,500 |
| Indirect |
43% for 9 months and 26% for 3 months, excluding Hydrolab and tuition |
$93,019 |
| Other |
Tuition (2 for 3 terms) |
$11,460 |
| $400,698 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $400,698 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $400,698 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| USGS-Biological Resources Division |
15% PI's time |
$30,000 |
unknown |
| Oregon State University |
Administrative Assistant |
$20,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: ESA permitting may constrain schedule.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund, technically inadequate proposal.
Comments:
This proposal presents an ambitious project to relate fish "quality" or condition to behavior and survival in the near-shore and Columbia River estuary. The proposal apparently builds on past research in the lower river. This work is only briefly referenced and is without adequate supporting materials. The project appears to be an extension of previous works with location (e.g., estuary/river mouth) the only new component. The progress of the earlier work should be more fully summarized. The proposal would attempt to relate a complex of factors to variation in marine survival. The proposal refers to barged and run-of-the-river fish, variation in stock of origin (possibly known from PIT tags) and time of tagging, and several measures of fish health. However, given the sample sizes and short duration of the project (2 years to measure annual variability), it is questionable whether the investigators will unravel the complexity of early marine smolt survival. Insufficient information is provided to allow evaluation of the experimental design (e.g., number and timing of aircraft flights, surveys of physical parameters, etc.). The number of fish which are expected to be tracked with depth-sensitive tags is so small (5 each for ROR and barge per group), that it is questionable if the results will be meaningful or convincing (e.g. statistically significant). The authors state that the "condition of fish is highly variable when they reach the dam", which indicates that much larger sample sizes are likely to be required. Further, it is not clear how fish conditions in a batch or groups of fish would be related to the survival of individual fish (which would be tagged and tracked). The authors also refer to validating a computer model with these data but the application/use of the model is not explained. The linkages to other BPA projects and priorities should be more clearly identified (only a list of projects is provided).
The proposal does not provide a convincing argument that this work is of high priority and actually needs to done. With an expected cost of $800k over two years, the expected benefits should be more clearly identified. The authors do not convince, or at least provide evidence, that they can evaluate fish health and relate how it will affect smolt behavior and survival in the marine environment. How will the information be applied to obtain an increase in survival rates? For example, it is not clear how the information on predation rates by birds will be useful in improving survival rates. The proposed topic is clearly of programmatic value, but the project appears too ambitious for the resources requested, making successful delivery of all components doubtful. In our assessment, this proposal involves too many unknowns and not enough information upon which to make inferences; therefore, we can not recommend support of this proposal.
We recommend that the project be reduced in scope and focus on either the physiological or behavior/predation (but not both). Costs should also be reduced accordingly. The modeling should be more thoroughly explained or omitted. A larger sample size of smolts is likely required given the depth of explanation provided.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Does not appear to address a direct management need, but might be addressing an important uncertainty. Not well coordinated with other research. This work could be tied with other BPA funded tagging and collection projects.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? Yes - Question the management application of the proposal. Don't feel there is much you can do to manipulate either transport, or run of river smolts.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];