Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2010-042-00 - Tucannon Expanded Pit Tagging Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2010-042-00 - Tucannon Expanded Pit Tagging
Project Number:
2010-042-00
Title:
Tucannon Expanded Pit Tagging
Summary:
w/o 00257845
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2010
Ending FY:
2015
BPA PM:
Stage:
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Snake Lower 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Bull
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Description: Page: 7 Figure 3: Location of the Tucannon River, and Lyons Ferry and Tucannon Hatcheries within the Snake River Basin (Gallinat et al. 2010).

Project: 2010-042-00

Document: P125747

Dimensions: 983 x 759

Description: Page: 8 Photo 1: Lower Tucannon River PIT Tag Array as redeployed in 2010.

Project: 2010-042-00

Document: P125747

Dimensions: 976 x 732


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

No Decided Budget Transfers

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2020
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2015
2014 $25,000 28%
2013 $23,400 26%
2012 $27,975 30%
2011 $27,000 29%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-005674 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Exp PIT Tagging FY11 Active $30,553 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
51112 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 201004200 EXP TUCANNON EXPANDED PIT TAGGING History $34,435 1/1/2011 - 12/31/2011
BPA-006403 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Exp PIT Tagging FY12 Active $25,206 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
55732 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-042-00 EXP TUCANNON EXPANDED PIT TAGGING History $39,004 1/1/2012 - 12/31/2012
BPA-006952 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Exp PIT Tagging FY13 Active $18,596 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
59993 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-042-00 EXP EXPANDED PIT TAGGING TUCANNON RIVER History $46,684 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2013
BPA-007747 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Exp PIT Tagging FY14 Active $19,485 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
63682 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-042-00 EXP TUCANNON RIVER: EXPANDED PIT TAGGING (COMBINE) History $45,635 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):4
Completed:3
On time:3
Status Reports
Completed:14
On time:8
Avg Days Late:1

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
BPA-005674 PIT Tags - Tucannon Exp PIT Tagging FY11 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51112 55732, 59993, 63682 201004200 EXP TUCANNON EXPANDED PIT TAGGING Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 01/2011 01/2011 History 14 19 4 0 0 23 100.00% 0
BPA-006403 PIT Tags - Tucannon Exp PIT Tagging FY12 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006952 PIT Tags - Tucannon Exp PIT Tagging FY13 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007747 PIT Tags - Tucannon Exp PIT Tagging FY14 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 14 19 4 0 0 23 100.00% 0


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: Fast Track ISRP Review 2010

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-042-00-ISRP-20100622
Project: 2010-042-00 - Tucannon Expanded Pit Tagging
Review: Fast Track ISRP Review 2010
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 2/24/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:
This is a well-justified project that will help to fill important data gaps for natural origin summer steelhead in the Tucannon River. If critical assumptions are met and objectives are successfully achieved, information will be available to improve management decisions for recovering Tucannon steelhead.

The ISRP cautions that analysis and interpretation of straying and migration data may prove difficult because (1) a certain % of straying for steelhead is common/normal, and (2) not all detected cases of unexpected migration may be attributed to hydrosystem effects. (See comments in Section 3, below.)

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
This project proposes to PIT tag emigrating natural origin summer steelhead collected from the Tucannon smolt trap and utilize an existing PIT tag detection array to estimate smolt to adult (SAR) of summer steelhead and thus escapement as a measure of population status. As this is a critically depressed population and accurate estimates are not available, this appears to be a high priority and well justified project. The data collected by this project are also expected to contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between hatchery and natural fish abundance in the Tucannon. The proponents note that past smolt monitoring results have been effective in obtaining a relative measure of natural origin steelhead production from the Tucannon River. Part of the justification is that adult numbers are needed to meet management and population VSP monitoring criteria. An additional justification is that these data will contribute to continued monitoring of unexpected migration patterns to aid in understanding hydrosystem effects on the Tucannon River steelhead population for management decisions in the future.

This project appears consistent with the 2008 Washington State Steelhead Management Plan, the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion (BiOp) (RPAs 50.6, 50.7, and 62.4), and the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for Southeast Washington (2006).

Only one project (#201002800 currently proposed) is specifically stated as related to this one in the narrative, but the Administrative Form lists four other projects that this project is related to. The relationships of how this coordination and data sharing with these projects will be done are adequately described.

2. Project History and Results
This is a new project but will use an existing PIT tag array installed in the Tucannon River by the USFWS for monitoring bull trout behavior. The array was given to WDFW because the bull trout work has been completed. Efficiency of detections by array (for bull trout if available) would be helpful to compare with steelhead detection data.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The primary objective of the proposed project is to estimate the annual abundance of natural origin summer steelhead returning to the Tucannon River. The objective is clearly stated and measurable, the methods brief, but adequate, and the ISRP liked to see that the critical assumptions were included.

Secondary objectives are:
(1) monitor the straying of natural origin Tucannon steelhead within the Snake River and its tributaries;
Comment: However, a certain percent of straying for steelhead is common/normal so interpretation may be difficult.

(2) describe and quantify the hydrosystem effects on this population;
Comment: For this secondary objective it seems that all detected cases of unexpected migration may be attributed to hydrosystem effects, and this may not be a valid interpretation.

(3) monitor the proportion of hatchery and wild steelhead returning to the river to assess the potential affects of the hatchery program on the natural spawning population structure (pHOS).
Comment: The length of the project is stated as 8 to 10 years, to cover two generations—why not three generations? At least three generations may be needed to assess full potential effects of hatchery fish on wild fish.

In sum, the monitoring of migration paths of adults at dams and PIT tag detectors in the Tucannon and other locations with subsequent evaluation appears to be well planned.

The project personnel appear highly qualified to carry out this project, and if critical assumptions are met, the project has a good likelihood for success.
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2010-042-00-NPCC-20101007
Project: 2010-042-00 - Tucannon Expanded Pit Tagging
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2010-042-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: See Programmatic Issue #2. Also see Fast Track Jan 2011 Council decision.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #2 Habitat effectiveness monitoring and evaluation—.

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-042-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2010-042-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2010-042-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: Power analysis should be conducted to determine how many fish to tag will deliver the desired precision. Furthermore precision could be increased by PIT-tagging adults instead of juveniles for the purposes of estimating escapement.

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ( 50.6 63.1 63.2 64.2 62.4 62.5 63.1 63.2)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( )
Proponent Response:

Sample Size Calculations for SARs

and Straying Rates at the Tucannon River

 

 

 

 

To:

Joseph D. Bumgarner

WDFW - Fish Biologist

Snake River Lab

401 S. Cottonwood

Dayton, Washington  99362

 

 

 

 

 

From:

John R. Skalski

Richard L. Townsend

Columbia Basin Research

School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences

University of Washington

1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1820

Seattle, Washington  98101-2509

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 December 2010

 

 

 

 

Introduction

This report provides sample size calculations for PIT-tag releases of wild steelhead and hatchery spring Chinook salmon in the Tucannon River.  For each stock, precision curves as a function of PIT-tag release size were derived for estimating smolt-to-adult ratios (SARs) and the conditional probability of straying given adult return.  Precision was defined as the anticipated half-width of either a 90% or 95% confidence interval.

Sample size calculations were based on anticipated (i.e., historical) SARs and straying rates.  For wild steelhead, the average historical SAR was 0.0182 with a conditional staying probability of 0.50.  For hatchery Chinook salmon, the average historical SAR was 0.0023 with a conditional straying rate of 0.25–0.50.

Statistical Methods

                The estimate of SAR is calculated as

                                                                                                                                                                                            (1)

where

                  = pit-tag release size,

                  = total number of adult returns,

with associated variance,

                                                                                   .                                                                            (2)

                The conditional straying probability is estimated as

                                                                                                                                                                                            (3)

where  = number of adult returns that strayed, with associated variance,

                                                                                   .                                                                             (4)

However, in sample size calculations,  is an unknown random variable, and as such, the uncertainty in the number of adult returns needs to be taken into account.

                The unconditional variance of the straying estimate  can be calculated in stages, where

                                                            ,

where

1 denotes binomial sampling of  given ,

                2 denote binomial sampling of  given .

It then follows

                                                                                                            (5)

The first term in Eq. (5) is associated with binomial sampling of straying given  adults returned.  The smaller second term in Eq. (5) is associated with the uncertainty in how many adult returns upon which  will be calculated.

                Precision of the SAR estimate will be defined in terms of absolute error where

                                                                               

and where

In other words, precision is defined in terms of the desired half-width of a 100% confidence interval (CI).  The precision of the straying probability will be defined analogously where

                                                                                       ,

where  is the square root of Eq. (5).

Precision Curves

                Figures 1 and 2 plot the anticipated half-widths of either a 90% of 95% CI for SARs as a function of PIT-tag release size .  For example, with a release size of 25,000 steelhead, the SAR will have an anticipated precision of 0.002 when  = 0.0182, 95% of the time.  For hatchery Chinook salmon, the anticipated precision with a release of 25,000 fish is 0.001 95% of the time when the true value of  = 0.0023,. 

                Figures 3 and 4 plot the anticipated half-widths of either a 90% of 95% CI for the conditional probability of straying  as a function of PIT-tag release size .  Again using a release size of 25,000, the steelhead should have an anticipated precision of 0.10 and hatchery spring Chinook salmon will have a precision of 0.15 for a 95% CI when the true straying rate is 0.50.  Precision levels for the other release sizes can be read directly from Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. 


 

 

 Figure 1

Figure 1.  Anticipated precision of SAR estimates as a function of PIT-tag release size for wild steelhead .  Precision defined as the anticipated half-width of a   100% confidence interval.

 

 

 

Figure 2.  Anticipated precision of SAR estimates as a function of PIT-tag release size for hatchery spring Chinook salmon.  Precision defined as the anticipated half-width of a   100% confidence interval.

 

 

Figure 3.  Anticipated precision of estimates of straying probability as a function of PIT-tag release size for wild steelhead.   Precision defined as the anticipated half-width of a  100% confidence interval

Figure 4.  Anticipated precision of estimates of straying probability as a function of PIT-tag release size for hatchery spring Chinook salmon.  Precision defined as the anticipated half-width of a 100% confidence interval.

 


Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Joe Bumgarner Supervisor Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Daniel Gambetta Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Andre L'Heureux Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Todd Miller Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)