FY07-09 proposal 200733700
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Oregon Plan Monitoring of Steelhead Status, Trend, and Habitat in the Grande Ronde River Subbasin. |
Proposal ID | 200733700 |
Organization | Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) |
Short description | Implementation of Oregon Plan, EMAP monitoring for basin-wide steelhead status and trend. |
Information transfer | |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
James Ruzycki | Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife | jruzycki@eou.edu |
All assigned contacts | ||
James Ruzycki | Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife | jruzycki@eou.edu |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: /
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Grande Ronde River | Project encompasses entire Grande Ronde River basin |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Steelhead Snake River ESUsecondary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Section 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|---|---|---|
BPA | [no entry] | Grande Ronde Cooperative Salmonid Monitoring & Evaluation Project | Project personnel will cooperate to complete field data collections in Uper grande Ronde River watershed. |
BPA | 198810804 | Streamnet (CIS/NED) | Data will be provided to Streamnet |
BPA | 199202604 | Life Studies of Spring Chinook | Personnel will be shared and crosstrained |
BPA | 199402700 | Grande Ronde Model Ws Habitat | Proposed project will provide restoration project compliance monitoring |
BPA | 199405400 | Bull Trout Life History Projec | Provide presence/absence data of bull trout distribution |
BPA | 198402500 | Ne Oregon Habitat Projects | Proposed project will provide restoration project compliance monitoring |
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Habitat Status and trend | Basin-wide status and trend monitoring of anadromous salmonid habitat. Aquatic inventories sampling using EMAP framework. | Grande Ronde | Determine status and trends of habitat in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde subbasins. |
Juvenile Salmonid Monitoring | Basin-wide status, trend, and distribution monitoring of juvenile steelhead and Chinook using EMAP framework. | Grande Ronde | Understand the current status, trends, and distribution of focal species in the Grande Ronde |
Project Compliance | BACI monitoring of specific habitat restoration projects within subbasin for compliance with target objectives. | Grande Ronde | Methodology to quantitativelycompare fish production benefits from projects. Assess the effectiveness of restoration activities. |
Spawner Escapement | Basin-wide spawner escapement estimate for steelhead. | Grande Ronde | Fish Production/Population Strategies. Adult steelhead escapement. Understand the current status, trends, and distribution of focal species in the Grande Ronde |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | NEPA checklist and regulatory clearances to BPA | Annual ESA permitting and reporting to NOAA | 12/1/2006 | 12/31/2009 | $4,960 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Manage and Administer Projects | Provide June and September Accrual estimates | Contract accrual estimates submitted as required by BPA. Occurs annually. | 5/1/2007 | 8/31/2009 | $4,653 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Manage and Administer Projects | Scope of Work & Budget for FY 2008. | Provide annual SOW and contract budget to BPA. Occurs annually. | 6/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $4,340 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Annual technical report | Technical report of findings submitted annually to BPA. | 7/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $232,686 |
Biological objectives Habitat Status and trend Juvenile Salmonid Monitoring Project Compliance Spawner Escapement |
Metrics |
||||
Analyze/Interpret Data | Estimate fish and habitat metrics | Annual calculations of abundance, distribution, and trends of fish and habitat parameters. | 9/30/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $121,830 |
Biological objectives Habitat Status and trend Juvenile Salmonid Monitoring Project Compliance Spawner Escapement |
Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Adult spawner surveys | Conduct surveys of steelhead spawning activity | 3/1/2007 | 6/20/2009 | $337,430 |
Biological objectives Spawner Escapement |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Compliance monitoring of habitat restoration projects | Compliance monitoring of restoration projects using fish as response variables. Coordinated with restoration project personnel. | 6/30/2007 | 8/31/2009 | $9,300 |
Biological objectives Project Compliance |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Habitat and juvenile surveys | Conduct habitat and juvenile salmonid surveys. | 6/20/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $390,600 |
Biological objectives Habitat Status and trend Juvenile Salmonid Monitoring |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring |
||||
Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Develop EMAP sampling domain and site selections. | Determine sampling domain with area experts and use EMAP process to select sample site rotations. | 12/1/2006 | 2/28/2009 | $60,450 |
Biological objectives Habitat Status and trend Juvenile Salmonid Monitoring Spawner Escapement |
Metrics |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Personnel | [blank] | $147,178 | $153,800 | $160,700 |
Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $87,865 | $91,815 | $95,900 |
Travel | [blank] | $25,536 | $26,302 | $27,091 |
Supplies | [blank] | $10,978 | $11,307 | $11,646 |
Other | [blank] | $2,500 | $2,575 | $2,652 |
Overhead | [blank] | $98,304 | $102,750 | $107,350 |
Totals | $372,361 | $388,549 | $405,339 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $1,166,249 |
Total work element budget: | $1,166,249 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $423,500 FY 2011 estimated budget: $423,500 |
Comments: [Outyear comment field left blank] |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date:
Comments:
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The proposal is straight forward, to monitor steelhead populations and their habitat and thereby provide much needed quantitative data on status and trends of abundance, survival, and productivity. There is a definite need for a steelhead monitoring program in the Grande Ronde basin. This proposed work has the potential to provide such a program, but methodological questions need to be carefully considered. The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved be addressing the following comments. The proposed program could be sufficient for subbasin-wide monitoring, but monitoring must also be targeted specifically at individual tributaries. As the sponsors are aware, habitat quality and fish abundance vary significantly among tributaries in the subbasin. Habitat factors and fish population parameters in tributaries need to be assessed quantitatively with a rigorous sampling design, as will be done at the subbasin scale. Monitoring at the tributary scale will allow assessment of effectiveness of restoration projects within each tributary to accompany overall basin-scale monitoring. The proposal directly addresses needs identified in the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan, the Fish and Wildlife Program, and the Oregon Plan. It also incorporates monitoring recommendations made by the ISRP. The sponsors indicate that they will cooperate closely with personnel working under other BPA funded projects. They also say they will cooperate closely with landowners and managers, a necessity if the work is to be successful implemented. The sponsors indicate they will cooperate with the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP). What about with the Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program (CSMEP)? Aren't both important? The objectives are sentence fragments and could be stated more clearly. The intent of the objectives, however, is reasonably clear. In the Rationale section the sponsors say they will determine productivity, but they do not have an objective or methods for this work. Each objective statement should have been a sentence specifying a desired outcome, not just a phrase denoting an operation. An Objective 2 is missing. Was this just mis-numbering or was an intended objective actually left out? The methods are poorly explained. Numerous questions need to be considered by the sponsors: Objective 1-spawner surveys. How will the initial 50 sites be selected? How was the level of precision of the redd count estimate determined? With such a large error (40%), the actual estimate may not have much value. What can be done to reduce error? The method of transitioning between indexed redds and probabilistic sampling needs to be more thoroughly considered. Doesn’t the method for redd count expansion assume that redds will be spread throughout the range of fish distribution rather than patchily distributed in spawning areas? Objective 3-habitat surveys. How often will habitat surveys be conducted and at what time of year? The sponsors should consider thoroughly how sample size was determined. Approximately how much of the basin will be snorkelable? The presence, size, and depth of thermal refugia should be determined as it has been shown to influence fish distribution in the upper Grande Ronde (see Ebersole et al. 2003, CJFAS). Width-depth ratio should be determined (see Ebersole). The sponsors say that water quality and quantity will not be measured. What does this mean? Does this include metrics such as temperature, a factor that has been shown to impact salmon in the upper Grande Ronde? The sponsors will assess habitat only in snorkelable areas. Some important habitat measures such as temperature can be taken in larger mainstem areas that may not be snorkelable. These estimates may be important because high temperatures may create a barrier to salmonid movement, reduce holding areas for adults (see Torgerson et al. 1999), provide excellent habitat for non-natives, and force cold-water fishes into thermal refugia. Objective 4-juvenile salmon surveys. Why won’t the snorkel survey technique be cross-validated with electroshocking in some areas? Data analysis should involve all fish species, not just salmonids. The Grande Ronde has a relatively rich fish community composed of both cold- and cool/warm water species (e.g., pikeminnow, suckers, etc). The presence of cool/warm water species could serve as an indicator of habitat change. For example, cool/warm water species may have expanded their distribution upstream in tributaries as tributary temperatures increased due to riparian alteration, water withdrawal, etc. An indication of habitat recovery would be contraction of the distribution to more downstream, warmer reaches. Furthermore, some cool/warm water species such as pikeminnow could prey on juveniles and others such as redside shiners, a non-native, may be competitors (see Reeves et al. 1987). Assessment of the fish community probably would require some sampling of faster waters to detect species such as speckled dace.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The proposal is straight forward, to monitor steelhead populations and their habitat and thereby provide much needed quantitative data on status and trends of abundance, survival, and productivity. There is a definite need for a steelhead monitoring program in the Grande Ronde basin. This proposed work has the potential to provide such a program, but methodological questions need to be carefully considered. The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved be addressing the following comments. The proposed program could be sufficient for subbasin-wide monitoring, but monitoring must also be targeted specifically at individual tributaries. As the sponsors are aware, habitat quality and fish abundance vary significantly among tributaries in the subbasin. Habitat factors and fish population parameters in tributaries need to be assessed quantitatively with a rigorous sampling design, as will be done at the subbasin scale. Monitoring at the tributary scale will allow assessment of effectiveness of restoration projects within each tributary to accompany overall basin-scale monitoring. The proposal directly addresses needs identified in the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan, the Fish and Wildlife Program, and the Oregon Plan. It also incorporates monitoring recommendations made by the ISRP. The sponsors indicate that they will cooperate closely with personnel working under other BPA funded projects. They also say they will cooperate closely with landowners and managers, a necessity if the work is to be successful implemented. The sponsors indicate they will cooperate with the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP). What about with the Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program (CSMEP)? Aren't both important? The objectives are sentence fragments and could be stated more clearly. The intent of the objectives, however, is reasonably clear. In the Rationale section the sponsors say they will determine productivity, but they do not have an objective or methods for this work. Each objective statement should have been a sentence specifying a desired outcome, not just a phrase denoting an operation. An Objective 2 is missing. Was this just mis-numbering or was an intended objective actually left out? The methods are poorly explained. Numerous questions need to be considered by the sponsors: Objective 1-spawner surveys. How will the initial 50 sites be selected? How was the level of precision of the redd count estimate determined? With such a large error (40%), the actual estimate may not have much value. What can be done to reduce error? The method of transitioning between indexed redds and probabilistic sampling needs to be more thoroughly considered. Doesn’t the method for redd count expansion assume that redds will be spread throughout the range of fish distribution rather than patchily distributed in spawning areas? Objective 3-habitat surveys. How often will habitat surveys be conducted and at what time of year? The sponsors should consider thoroughly how sample size was determined. Approximately how much of the basin will be snorkelable? The presence, size, and depth of thermal refugia should be determined as it has been shown to influence fish distribution in the upper Grande Ronde (see Ebersole et al. 2003, CJFAS). Width-depth ratio should be determined (see Ebersole). The sponsors say that water quality and quantity will not be measured. What does this mean? Does this include metrics such as temperature, a factor that has been shown to impact salmon in the upper Grande Ronde? The sponsors will assess habitat only in snorkelable areas. Some important habitat measures such as temperature can be taken in larger mainstem areas that may not be snorkelable. These estimates may be important because high temperatures may create a barrier to salmonid movement, reduce holding areas for adults (see Torgerson et al. 1999), provide excellent habitat for non-natives, and force cold-water fishes into thermal refugia. Objective 4-juvenile salmon surveys. Why won’t the snorkel survey technique be cross-validated with electroshocking in some areas? Data analysis should involve all fish species, not just salmonids. The Grande Ronde has a relatively rich fish community composed of both cold- and cool/warm water species (e.g., pikeminnow, suckers, etc). The presence of cool/warm water species could serve as an indicator of habitat change. For example, cool/warm water species may have expanded their distribution upstream in tributaries as tributary temperatures increased due to riparian alteration, water withdrawal, etc. An indication of habitat recovery would be contraction of the distribution to more downstream, warmer reaches. Furthermore, some cool/warm water species such as pikeminnow could prey on juveniles and others such as redside shiners, a non-native, may be competitors (see Reeves et al. 1987). Assessment of the fish community probably would require some sampling of faster waters to detect species such as speckled dace.