FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 199801003

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
199801003 Narrative	Narrative
199801003 Response to the ISRP	Response
Blue Mountain: Snake Hells Canyon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Blue Mountain: Snake Hells Canyon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Spawning distribution of Snake River fall chinook salmon
Proposal ID	199801003
Organization	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Aaron P. Garcia
Mailing address	P.O. Box 18 Ahsahka, ID 83520
Phone / email	2084762249 / aaron_garcia@fws.gov
Manager authorizing this project	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Review cycle	Blue Mountain
Province / Subbasin	Blue Mountain / Snake Hells Canyon
Short description	Monitor the status and distribution of Snake River fall chinook salmon, determine if yearling-released supplemented hatchery fish spawn where intended, and gather information on the spawning distribution of fish released as subyearlings and natural fish.
Target species	Chinook salmon (Snake River fall-run ESU)

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.8042	-116.6835	Snake River (middle) near Dug Bar
45.771	-116.75	Imnaha River at Cow Creek
46.0305	-117.2517	Grande Ronde River at Bogans
45.629	-116.4738	Pittsburg Landing Acclimation Facility (Upper Snake River)
46.1345	-116.9305	Captain John Acclimation Facility (Lower Snake River)
46.0528	-116.5507	Big Canyon Creek Acclimation Facility (Clearwater River)

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Hydro RPA Action 107
RM&E RPA Action 182
RM&E RPA Action 184

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 184	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for a hatchery research, monitoring, and evaluation program consisting of studies to determine whether hatchery reforms reduce the risk of extinction for Columbia River basin salmonids and whether conservation hatcheries contribute to recovery.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1997	Completed the pilot year using one-ocean males to prove the methodology was sound.
1998	Radio-tagged and tracked the first group of adult returns to spawning locations.
1998	Determined that fish released in the upper section of the Snake River mainly spawned within that section of river, providing the first emperical evidence that the current release strategy may distribute spawners as intended.
2000	Nearly complete with the sample for fish from Pittsburg Landing. Collected data from first adult fish to return from releases at Captain John.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199801004	Monitoring and Evaluation of Yearling Snake River Fall Chinook	This project (199801004) has the task of making the overall assessment of fall chinook supplementation. Our project provides data on spawning distribution of the supplemented fish.
199900300	Evaluate spawning of salmon below the four lowermost Columbia River Dams	Share data for Snake and Columbia river fall chinook salmon habitat use
199406900	A Spawning Habitat Model to Aid Recovery Plans for Snake River Fall Chinook	Share expertise and distribution data
199102900	Life History and Survival of Fall Chinook Salmon in the Columbia River basin	Data from our project guides research activities for project 199102900
25033	Evaluate Restoration Potential of Mainstem Habitat for Anadromous Salmonids in the Columbia and Snake Rivers	Share data for Snake and Columbia river fall chinook salmon habitat use
25035	Evaluate adult fall chinook salmon fallback at Priest Rapids Dam, Columbia River	Our findings will be useful for comparative purposes.
	Hydro RPA Action 107: Assess survival and losses of upstream migrating salmonids.	Findings from our work will contribute to the understanding of fallback at Lower Granite Dam.
	RME RPA Action 182: Determine reproductive success of hatchery fish.	Findings from our work will contribute to determining the spatial and temporal distribution of hatchery-origin spawners.
	RME RPA Action 184: Contribution of conservation hatcheries to recovery.	Finding from our work contribute by monitoring the adult life stage of hatchery fall chinook salmon.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Provide researchers and managers with accurate counts of fall chinook salmon redds upriver of Lower Granite Dam,	a. Conduct aerial redd searches in the Snake, Grande Ronde, and Imnaha rivers and report findings.	ongoing	$77,362
	b. Conduct underwater searches in the Snake River and report findings.	ongoing	$53,541
2. Determine whether or not the current use of three acclimation-and-release facilities distributes spawners throughout the habitat normally used by Snake River fall chinook salmon.	a. Continue collecting data on the spawning distribution of fish released at the three acclimation-and-release sites, and publish findings.	1	$34,659
	b. Conduct telemetry surveys in the roaded sections of the Snake River.	1	$8,600	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Provide researchers and managers with accurate counts of fall chinook salmon redds upriver of Lower Granite Dam,	2003	2006	$530,155

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$130,900	$130,900	$134,175	$134,175

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 1.7	$76,785
Fringe		$21,383
Supplies		$27,931
Travel		$8,060
Indirect		$31,403
Subcontractor		$8,600
		$174,162

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$174,162
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$174,162
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$180,646
% change from forecast	-3.6%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Improved software reduced the time needed to work up the telemetry data.

Reason for change in scope

N.A.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
US Forest Service	Helicopter rental	$2,000	cash
Idaho Power Company	Redd searches	$100,000	in-kind
University of Idaho	Radio tags	$30,000	in-kind
Bureau of Land Management	Helicopter rental	$5,500	cash
Nez Perce Tribe	Redd searches	$70,000	in-kind
USGS - Biological Resources Division	Radio telemetry receivers	$80,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-9)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

Response requested. This project includes telemetric monitoring of movements of returning adult fall chinook from the three acclimation facilities described in 199801005 and from Lyons Ferry releases. Overall, this is a good proposal with excellent cost sharing and presentation of some data and results. The proposal and presentation addressed previous comments that better description and interpretation of results to date was needed to support continued funding.

A response is requested to two issues: First, the proposal states that "on average we successfully track 30% of all fish tagged to the spawning grounds." This loss of 70% was not noted in the briefing and generates questions about prespawning mortality, spawning locations, tag retention, etc. Are these tags monitored for a period and lost or how would you explain this loss of information? Second, the proposal also refers to adaptive management, but this would imply a planned response or experiment given certain outcomes of this study. Where is this documented, or was the response to be determined at the time of these results?

A related issue is that the distribution of the fall chinook spawners is not an adequate indicator of supplementation. Presumably, once the fish return to these spawning areas there will be a need to determine whether the population is self-sustaining and what the sustainable harvest rates can be on the population. This is not immediately related to this proposal but should be considered in LSRCP evaluations.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

This project addresses RPA 184.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-12A)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable - adequate response. The ISRP recommends that this project be terminated within the three-year funding duration as the project has reached its objectives. The next logical step would be to develop an M&E program for the naturally spawning population to determine whether or not it is sustainable.

This project includes telemetric monitoring of movements of returning adult fall chinook from the three acclimation facilities described in 199801005 and from Lyons Ferry releases. The proposal and response include excellent cost sharing and presentation of some data and results. The proposal and presentation addressed previous comments that better description and interpretation of results to date was needed to support continued funding. The response explains the high loss of tagged fish as including elevated loss of recycled tags. Although the cost of tags is relatively high, the use of recycled tags seems to be a false economy as it significantly increases the error in the data (due to high proportion of unknown fates) and thus makes the data significantly less conclusive and convincing. Distinguishing whether a result is within acceptable bounds of a target and distinguishing between competing interpretations of results [or competing hypotheses] are problematic in monitoring of anadromous fishes. If the error could be significantly reduced to a significantly more discriminating level for a needed evaluation, then the use of recycled tags and higher loss of tracked fish would be a bad move.

We note that the project's "big picture goals" go well beyond what can be understood and reviewed from the proposal and response. It would be very useful to reviewers to have more concrete information on ultimate project goals that are mentioned in the response: success of supplementation, developing indicators for de-listing, and potential harvest options. Although these are ultimate goals for evaluation, neither the conceptual framework against which data are to be evaluated nor the formal evaluation procedures (e.g., tests and interpretations of possible outcomes) are presented in adequate detail for reviewers to offer useful comments. How data will be tested to draw conclusions as to ultimate goals is an important element of experimental design and needs to be better presented in this and many other proposals.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Part of an ongoing M&E program associated with artificial propagation in the Blue Mt. province of the SR. Necessary work regarding contribution of hatchery escapement to naturally spawning population, as well as distribution of supplemented spawners throughout SR basin.

Comments
A good proposal that generates necessary data to assess the impacts and success of supplementation programs.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Recommend. This project should be considered for inclusion under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.

BPA RPA RPM: NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
184

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Fund

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Scope change downward. Is there a connection back to the original project? Need to follow up with sponsor on who depends on this information.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

We have been documenting spawning distribution by counting redds from a helicopter during weekly surveys of the Snake, Imnaha, and Grande Ronde rivers (components of Objective 1, Task a), and using a submersible camera to search areas of the Snake River that are too deep to be observed from the air (Objective 1, Task b). The FY04 request is less than originally estimated because we now plan to discontinue aerial searches of the Grande Ronde and Imnaha rivers (~$25,000 reduction in expenses), and discontinue searches using cameras (~$54,000 reduction). The Grande Ronde and Imnaha rivers will be searched by another agency, and we have compiled enough data to estimate the number of redds constructed in deep-water areas. The project now focuses on long-term monitoring in the Snake River, sharing the work with the Idaho Power Company (IPC). IPC and other managers have encouraged our continued involvement to ensure data credibility and consistency. Thus we are seeking funding for FY04 and beyond.

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$52,000	$52,000	$52,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website