FY07-09 proposal 200735800
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Estimating the detection efficiency of snorkeling for detecting anadromous salmonid parr |
| Proposal ID | 200735800 |
| Organization | US Forest Service (USFS) - Rocky Mt Research Station |
| Short description | Although snorkeling is widely used to monitor anadromous salmonids, the bias and precision of snorkeling has rarely been assessed. We propose to develop sampling efficiency models to allow correction of extant and future data with systemwide application. |
| Information transfer | Studies will result in publishable contributions to the fields of fish biology and management, ecology, population biology, and conservation biology. Information will be distributed via contract reports; peer-reviewed publications in professional journals; oral papers presented at professional meetings, technical conferences, and workshops; in response to information requests; and at informal meetings with state and federal agencies, tribes, and university scientists involved in co-management of anadromous salmonids within the Columbia River basin. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Russell Thurow | USDA Forest Service: Rocky Mt. Research Station | rthurow@fs.fed.us |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Tim Copeland | Idaho Department of Fish & Game | tcopeland@idfg.idaho.gov |
| Tim Copeland | Idaho Department of Fish & Game | tcopeland@idfg.idaho.gov |
| James Peterson | [organization left blank] | peterson@smokey.forestry.uga.edu |
| Russell Thurow | USDA Forest Service: Rocky Mt. Research Station | rthurow@fs.fed.us |
| Russell Thurow | USDA Forest Service: Rocky Mt. Research Station | rthurow@fs.fed.us |
| Russell Thurow | USDA Forest Service: Rocky Mt. Research Station | rthurow@fs.fed.us |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 462531 | 1170210 | Clearwater River | Clearwater River sub-basin |
| 455123 | 1164733 | Salmon River | Salmon River sub-basin |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESUprimary: Steelhead Snake River ESU
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Interior Redband Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199107300 | Idaho Natural Production Monit | Project #200735800 will take advantage of sites being snorkeled under Project #199107300 at no cost and apply that data to estimate snorkel sampling efficiencies. Results of #200735800 will help improve the quality of extant and future parr monitoring data. |
| BPA | 200303600 | CBFWA Monitor/Eval Program | Project #200735800 fully compliments the CBFWA program and will be applicable to improve the quality of data collected. |
| BPA | 200301700 | Integrated Status/Effect Progr | Project #200735800 fully compliments Project #200301700 and will be applicable to improve the quality of data collected by examining bias and precision of methods. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Empirically estimate snorkel detection efficiency | We will mark fish prior to snorkel surveys, complete snorkel surveys, and measure habitat characteristics at field sites. Although we use the Salmon and Clearwater Subbasin Plans to illustrate the relevance of this objective, this work has system-wide utility and will apply to any sub-basin plan that uses parr density, resident fish abundance, fish assemblage composition, or local abundance as performance measures. | Salmon | 1A2, 1B4, 3A2, 3C2, 3C3, 4A5 (also Clearwater strategies A2 [p14}, D4 [p21]). |
| Model factors influencing detection efficiency | We will apply statistical models to examine the influence of fish species and size and habitat features on snorkel detection efficiency. As noted for Objective 1, although we illustrate the relevance of this objective to the Salmon and Clearwater Subbasin Plans, this work has system-wide utility and will apply to any sub-basin plan that uses parr density, resident fish abundance, fish assemblage composition, or local abundance as performance measures. | Salmon | 1A2, 1B4, 3A2, 3C2, 3C3, 4A5 (also Clearwater strategies A2 [p14}, D4 [p21]) |
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 | Project permitting | Obtain permits to capture and mark Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Project planning and management | Schedule and coordinate project activities | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $119,663 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Project reporting | This element includes all annual progress reports, quarterly status reports, and professional communications, such as presentations and peer-reviewed publications | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Data analysis | Use statistical models to examine effects of fish movement, influences on snorkeling efficiency, and evaluate model accuracy | 8/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $150,425 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Complete snorkel surveys | Snorkel stream sites, count all marked and unmarked fish by species and size | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: critical uncertainties research |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Measure habitat variables | Delineate sites, install thermographs, measure physical habitat features | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $174,201 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Database management | Manage and maintain the database. | 8/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Mark/Tag Animals | Mark fish | Capture, fin-clip, and mark fish with Visible Implant Elastomer | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $454,262 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: critical uncertainties research |
||||
| Submit/Acquire Data | Data entry and proofing | Transfer data from field forms to computer files and summarize. | 8/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $48,794 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Includes 12 field crew members, 5 mos. of data entry, 5 mos. for field sampling oversight, and 6 mos for a Postdoctoral research associate | $163,042 | $171,194 | $179,754 |
| Fringe Benefits | rate of .2055 | $33,505 | $35,180 | $36,939 |
| Supplies | Includes fish marking, snorkel, and habitat measurement gear, and crew camping supplies in year one. Supply costs diminish in year 2 and 3. | $21,600 | $5,000 | $5,500 |
| Travel | Crew travel costs | $36,950 | $38,798 | $40,737 |
| Capital Equipment | Includes two two complete boat-mounted electrofishing units in year one | $36,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Overhead | 17.8% | $51,815 | $44,530 | $46,801 |
| Totals | $342,912 | $294,702 | $309,731 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $947,345 |
| Total work element budget: | $947,345 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IDFG General Parr Montioring - funded via BPA | GPM parr snorkel counts that will be used to estimate sampling efficiencies | $415,630 | $430,410 | $458,230 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| US Forest Service: Rocky Mt Research Station | PI salary for 3 mos. | $28,404 | $29,824 | $31,315 | Cash | Confirmed |
| US Forest Service: Rocky Mt Research Station | Office space and Administrative support | $10,000 | $10,500 | $11 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| US Forest Service: Rocky Mt Research Station | Computer hardware and software | $8,000 | $8,400 | $8,820 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Totals | $462,034 | $479,134 | $498,376 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $80,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $80,000 |
Comments: We anticipate that all field data will be collected from 2007-2009. |
Future O&M costs: We will hire a Postdoctoral research associate for 12 mos. in 2010 to complete all data analysis and modeling.
Termination date: December 2010
Comments: See above, we anticipate that all field data collection will be completed in 2009. We will hire a Postdoctoral research associate in 2010 to complete all data analysis and modeling.
Final deliverables: Studies will result in publishable contributions to the fields of fish biology and management, ecology, population biology, and conservation biology. Information will be distributed via contract reports; peer-reviewed publications in professional journals; oral papers presented at professional meetings, technical conferences, and workshops; in response to information requests; and at informal meetings with state and federal agencies, tribes, and university scientists involved in management of native fishes.
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 | Basinwide | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: The scientific requirement for accurate and precise estimates of juvenile salmon abundance is well explained. Snorkeling is widely used as a juvenile salmonid census technique, especially in areas with listed species, because it does not involve handling individuals. However, in many cases there is no basis for estimating the degree to which snorkeling underestimates the actual number of fish present (it will likely always be an underestimate). This proposal outlines a study that will facilitate statistical models that allow snorkeling estimates to be corrected to provide more precise and accurate population censuses. The approach to resolving the uncertainty of the estimates appears sound. The ability to more accurately census juvenile salmonid populations is critical to status and trend monitoring, as well as estimating restoration effectiveness. This project has the potential to significantly improve monitoring accuracy by providing tools to correct snorkel estimates. Table 1 provides a very nice summary of the uses of juvenile abundance data in management. The proposal describes its general relevance to other projects that involve snorkel estimates (there are apparently 17) and also the major monitoring efforts such as CSMEP, the NOAA Fisheries Pilot projects, and INPMEP. Methods were thoroughly explained, especially the techniques used to construct the statistical models. This project will use ten-fold cross validation to evaluate model accuracy. It was nice to read a proposal that provided an adequate description of product quality. The sampling plan and analysis was excellent. The sequence of decision-making on the statistical analysis is the appropriate way to proceed in these circumstances. The presentation of the sampling, analysis, and decision-making is the best among other comparable systemwide proposals. With regard to the effects of water clarity on snorkel enumeration, why not just use a turbidimeter instead of the secchi-disk method? It might be a bit less subjective. Many of the habitat measurements described on pages 10-11 were not related explicitly to the goals of the proposal. How will this information factor into model development?
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: The scientific requirement for accurate and precise estimates of juvenile salmon abundance is well explained. Snorkeling is widely used as a juvenile salmonid census technique, especially in areas with listed species, because it does not involve handling individuals. However, in many cases there is no basis for estimating the degree to which snorkeling underestimates the actual number of fish present (it will likely always be an underestimate). This proposal outlines a study that will facilitate statistical models that allow snorkeling estimates to be corrected to provide more precise and accurate population censuses. The approach to resolving the uncertainty of the estimates appears sound. The ability to more accurately census juvenile salmonid populations is critical to status and trend monitoring, as well as estimating restoration effectiveness. This project has the potential to significantly improve monitoring accuracy by providing tools to correct snorkel estimates. Table 1 provides a very nice summary of the uses of juvenile abundance data in management. The proposal describes its general relevance to other projects that involve snorkel estimates (there are apparently 17) and also the major monitoring efforts such as CSMEP, the NOAA Fisheries Pilot projects, and INPMEP. Methods were thoroughly explained, especially the techniques used to construct the statistical models. This project will use ten-fold cross validation to evaluate model accuracy. It was nice to read a proposal that provided an adequate description of product quality. The sampling plan and analysis was excellent. The sequence of decision-making on the statistical analysis is the appropriate way to proceed in these circumstances. The presentation of the sampling, analysis, and decision-making is the best among other comparable systemwide proposals. With regard to the effects of water clarity on snorkel enumeration, why not just use a turbidimeter instead of the secchi-disk method? It might be a bit less subjective. Many of the habitat measurements described on pages 10-11 were not related explicitly to the goals of the proposal. How will this information factor into model development?