FY07-09 proposal 199107300

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Salmon

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This project may have out-lived its usefulness. It needs better justification for its continuance at this level of activity. In response, please consider scaling down to provide only the data needed for regional RME needs. Please include in the response, how past performance justifies continuation of the project. In response, please provide a clear description of need for the genetic and life-history aspects of the proposal, and within the context of what is already known, why it is important to fill the "gaps" that are perceived to exist. The authors argue that expanding data to describe genetic structuring of Chinook salmon in the Basin is important. This claim should arise from a detailed study of what problems would benefit from such an expansion, and from a thorough analysis to show that existing data do not meet the perceived need. In response, please describe the basis for concluding that presently available data do not meet the needs. The project is fundable to get analysis of past data collections, but otherwise the proposal should be treated as a new project and reviewed as such. This project has been in existence for more than two decades. The abstract (details in text) should include what benefits have resulted and provide a strong basis for the project to be continued. The authors do describe a stock-recruit relationship that they have successfully developed, but there is no discussion of the significance of this potentially program-altering relationship for management of Chinook salmon. A response is requested to provide details what specific objectives and goals are driving accumulation of these data. On page 6, Table 1, the proposal is identified as contributing to identifying hatchery spawner relative to natural spawners, but no work elements support that contribution. Similarly "effects (hatchery) on natural populations and recovery contribution by hatcheries is identified, but work elements do not clearly link to those needs. In response, please clarify these apparent missing elements. A major proposed new task is to incorporate and evaluate probabilistic sampling, a commendable effort. It would be done with available spawning habitat in the upper Salmon River, which seems less critical than testing population estimation. However, in response, please provide details of year-by-year plans and provide a firmly established completion date. In response, please explain and clarify your objectives and the reasons for having them. Some objectives seem to be in the proposal as carryover from the past. Some tasks will help fine tune data management and run forecasting, for example. That’s nice but instead there could be a major thrust to identify and deal with the factors limiting salmon and steelhead quantity and quality. One work element is to genotype the spring and summer Chinook at several microsatellite loci to corroborate the independent population status evaluations by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team. Please show, in response, how duplication between this project and 198909600 Genetic Monitoring Snake River Chinook salmon and steelhead is to be prevented, and how these projects will be coordinated. In response, please provide extensive background and justification for collecting more genetic diversity data, more life-history data, etc. Use of words such as "potentially useful" does not help to clarify the important reasons and need for these data.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: The sponsors responded to clarify the primary questions raised by the ISRP. The adequacy and depth of the clarification varied across the questions raised. In response to the ISRP questions of whether the project could be scaled to provide only the data needed for regional RME needs, and how past uses of the data justify continuation, the sponsors provided a succinct and sufficient response. The ISRP recognizes that the Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation project has been instrumental in providing critical data for assessing the status and trends of salmonids (principally spring and summer Chinook) in the Salmon River subbasin. The response provided by the sponsors clarified how their objectives relate to recovery planning in general. It is clear that valuable data has been generated and that the project has added value to these data in the past through appropriate analyses. The ISRP appreciates the perspective concerning the project changing due to information demanded by regional decision-makers. In response to questions on the need for additional genetic and life history data on Chinook salmon, the sponsors respond, "The details of life history and genetic structure of Chinook salmon populations in Idaho are not well-known on the scales required for population-level recovery planning and monitoring. INPMEP should be the main source of this information for groups like the ICBTRT. Many of the population delineations made by the ICBTRT were made using professional judgment and not backed by hard data." The ISRP recognizes that microsatellite and SNP genotypes are not available for all the spring and summer Chinook in the Snake River region. At the same time NOAA Fisheries and others have been using microsatellite genotyping to evaluate a number of salmon management problems in the Snake River system. Sponsors did not show how any of this new data had altered the understanding of Chinook salmon metapopulation structure and how additional data was essential to management decisions. It is not clear if this data would do little more than reinforce the existing understanding of population structure. While more data would almost always be useful, sponsors have not identified what management decisions hinge on the data. This should be made evident before undertaking further genotyping to define Chinook salmon metapopulations. The ISRP’s intent is that the management questions and the sponsors' methods and tasks to address them be made explicit. The purpose is to help ensure that the data collected is the most useful. Further explanation of the need for describing the fine-scale genetic structure of Chinook salmon in Idaho is necessary before this component of the project is justified. The sponsors clarify that they are not involved in the investigation of hatchery effects on natural spawners and natural populations, but that data they collect on natural populations is used by projects that are conducting those investigations. This response is appreciated by the ISRP, and the importance of that effort is understood. The sponsors’ clarification of objective 1) Describe the population structure of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, and 4) Evaluate life cycle survival and the freshwater productivity/production of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, were unconvincing. The ISRP comment on 1 is found in the paragraph above on genetic and life-history investigations. For objective 4, the primary purpose of engaging in life cycle survival estimation is to support tributary habitat restoration effectiveness monitoring. The proposal is insufficient to evaluate whether this is the suitable vehicle to accomplish that task. The proposal does not discuss tributary habitat restoration in the subbasin and provide a connection between this project and those efforts. The sponsors' clarification of objective 2 and 3, estimation of juvenile and adult abundance and distribution is sufficient. Fundable in part to conduct the essential juvenile (parr and smolt) abundance data collections and the essential adult redd and age distribution information. The genetics work component is not scientifically justified in the proposal or response.