FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 32006

Additional documents

TitleType
32006 Narrative Narrative
32006 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
32006 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleCompare the parr-smolt transformation of nonanadromous and anadromous populations of Oncorhynchus mykiss
Proposal ID32006
OrganizationIdaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameAlan Byrne
Mailing address1414 East Locust Lane Nampa, ID 83686
Phone / email2084658404 / abyrne@idfg.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this projectSteve Yundt
Review cycleMiddle Snake
Province / SubbasinMiddle Snake / Weiser
Short descriptionDetermine if O. mykiss populations that were were historically accessible to the ocean but are now blocked by dams can produce smolts.
Target speciesOncorhynchus mykiss
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
44.553 -116.6931 Little Weiser River
44.1036 -115.9999 MF Payette River
46.8619 -115.4329 Collins Creek
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
175

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
199005500 Steelhead supplementation studies share personnel and equipment
199107200 Redfish Lake sockeye salmon captive broodstock rearing and research share personnel and equipment
199700100 Captive rearing initiative for Salmon River chinook salmon share personnel and equipment
199800200 Snake River native salmonid assessment project collect bull trout and other resident fish data that is valuable for this project

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Quantify smolt production of nonanadromous O. mykiss populations in streams that were historically accessible to anadromous steelhead but are now blocked by dams. a1. Operate fish traps in the Little Weiser River and Collins Creek during the fall and spring to trap migrating O. mykiss. Estimate the number of fish migrating with mark-recpature metodology. PIT-tag O. mykiss > 125mm. 3 $35,710
1. a2. Transport trapped O. mykiss migrants to rearing facilities (Little Weiser River migrants to Oxbow Hatchery and Collins Creek to Clearwater Hatchery) and for release in-river. 3 $17,671
1. b1. Determine the number of PIT-tagged O. mykiss migrants released in-river that are detected at lower Snake River and Columbia River dams and estimate the potential smolt production in each stream. 3 $4,585
1. c1. Hold 200 wild O. mykiss migrants in circular tanks at the rearing facilities throughout the winter. Hold 200 anadromous hatchery steelhead and 200 nonanadromous hatchery rainbow in separate tanks at each facility. 3 $26,337
c2. Sample fish from each group at the rearing facilities on five occasions beginning March 1 and ending June15 for the smolt physiological tests and analysis. This work will be done in FY2004 and FY2005 only at a cost of $25,000/year. 2 $0 Yes
1. d1. Prepare an annual report(s) and a final report of the research findings (done in cooperation with Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho). 3 $6,227 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Quantify smolt production of nonanadromous O. mykiss populations in streams that were historically accessible to anadromous steelhead but are now blocked by dams. 2003 2005 $286,287
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004FY 2005
$111,667$84,090

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 1.6 $22,718
Fringe $8,745
Supplies $3,620
Travel $5,430
Indirect overhead (20.9% of personnel and operating) $8,467
Capital 1 screw trap and 30 circular tanks $28,050
PIT tags # of tags: 2,000 $4,500
Subcontractor Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho $9,000
$90,530
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$90,530
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$90,530
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

The budget for FY2003 includes the one time cost of capitol outlays (screw trap and circular tanks to hold fish) and fall trapping. The FY2004 budget includes spring and fall trapping and cost of the smolt physiology tests and analysis. FY2005 includes cost of spring trapping, smolt physiology tests and analysis, and preparing final reports and journal articles. All budget amounts were calculated using constant dollars, no adjusts were made for inflation.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. Please address more fully the question of whether the sample size of PIT-tagged fish in tasks a and b is large enough for detection of possible differences. Also, describe the specific hypotheses that would be tested in tasks a-c.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable, in the sense that this is a well-designed study and it would be interesting to know the answer to the question posed in the proposal. If passage problems in the Hells Canyon reach can ever be solved, this information would be of value. The lab component monitoring physiological attributes, however, seems very low priority. The response adequately addressed the questions of whether the sample size of PIT-tagged fish in tasks a and b is large enough for detection of possible differences and also the specific hypotheses that would be tested in tasks a-c.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: