FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200204900

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
28001 Narrative	Narrative
28001 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
Dynamics of Chinook Salmon Populations within Idaho's Frank Church Wildernes: Implications for Persistence, USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol-3. 2000	Response Attachment
Memo from R. Thurow (USFS) to T. Iverson (CBFWA) RE: Supplemental Request for within year funds, BPA project number 9902000	Narrative Attachment
Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Evaluate Factors Influencing Bias and Precision of Chinook Salmon Redd Counts
Proposal ID	200204900
Organization	USDA Forest Service- Rocky Mountain Research Station (USFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Russ Thurow
Mailing address	316 East Myrtle St. Boise, Idaho 83702
Phone / email	2083734377 / rthurow@fs.fed.us
Manager authorizing this project	Bruce Rieman
Review cycle	Mountain Snake
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Salmon
Short description	Results will assess redd count bias and precision and will have important implications for improving chinook salmon redd surveys across the Snake River basin. **Note: the most appropriate RPA for this project is RME Action 180.
Target species	Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Snake River ESU

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
44.77	-115.07	-Middle Fork Salmon River drainage, entire drainage centered on the listed Lat.-Long.
		-4th Code Hydrologic Units #17060205 (Upper Middle Fork Salmon) and #17060206 (Lower Middle Fork Salmon)

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 180	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003.
NMFS/BPA	Action 180	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
	New Project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199902000	Analyze the persistence and spatial dynamics of Snake River chinook salmon	Integrated, the new project will depend on data collected during the existing project.
89098000	Idaho supplementation studies	Collaborative, information sharing
199107300	Idaho natural production monitoring and evaluation	Collaborative, information sharing
	Lower Snake River Compensation Plan hatchery evaluations	Collaborative, information sharing
199405000	Salmon River enhancement M&E	Collaborative, information sharing

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

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Determine the true number of chinook salmon redds within study reaches.	a. Select study reaches. b. Create reach maps. c. Monitor and map newly constructed redds.	3	$77,882
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of a mark-resight approach for measuring the bias and precision of chinook salmon redd counts.	a. Mark redds. b. Resight redds. c. Apply the Lincoln-Petersen and Huggins mark-resight estimators.	3	$44,962
3. Quantify sources of error in ground-based chinook salmon redd counts.	a. Select and train observers. b. Quantify single pass redd count observer variability. c. Assess differences in accuracy between single-pass and multiple-pass redd counts.	3	$47,002
4. Evaluate the influence of environmental and habitat characteristics on sightability of chinook salmon redds.	a. Measure variables with the potential to influence redd sightability. b. Model the variables that most influence redd sightability. c. Assess interyear effects.	3	$28,892

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Determine the true number of chinook salmon redds within study reaches.	2003	2004	$167,641
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of a mark-resight approach for measuring the bias and precision of chinook salmon redd counts.	2003	2004	$96,781
3. Quantify sources of error in ground-based chinook salmon redd counts.	2003	2004	$101,172
4. Evaluate the influence of environmental and habitat characteristics on sightability of chinook salmon redds.	2003	2004	$62,190

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$208,675	$219,109

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: Temporaries and a PostDoc	$95,000
Fringe	20.55%	$19,522
Supplies		$25,000
Travel		$16,100
Indirect	18%	$30,316
Capital		$0
NEPA		$0
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor		$0
Other	Operating costs	$12,800
		$198,738

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$198,738
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$198,738
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
RMRS	Principal Investigator (3 mos) and supporting Biologist (6 mos) salary for field work and analysis	$43,775	cash
USGS	Principal Investigator salary (3 mos) for analytical support	$16,377	cash
RMRS	Computer hardware and software	$7,500	in-kind
USGS	Computer hardware and software	$2,500	in-kind
RMRS	GPS units and software	$18,650	in-kind
RMRS	Office space and administrative support for permanent biologists and temporaries	$13,400	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:

Responses to minor suggestions on improvement of study design are needed. This is an excellent research proposal to evaluate biases and variation in common methods of conducting redd counts. There is excellent cooperation with BPA project #199902000 (RMRS biologists plan to conduct annual aerial redd counts in the entire MFSR through 2004). Also, to assist collaboration and increase efficiency, some study reaches will be selected to coincide with index reaches that are monitored annually by IDFG, the tribes, and the USFS. The proponents appropriately identify their objectives as meeting the intent of Action 180 in the 2000 Biological Opinion that specifically calls for funding of Tier 1 and Tier 2 studies to collect data for population status monitoring The ISRP agrees that the insights derived from this research could have important applications for improving redd counts and assessing adult escapements currently conducted by other entities across the Snake River basin and, in fact, for the entire Columbia Basin.

In 1999, two of the current proponents submitted a proposal entitled "Evaluation of a Mark-Resight Survey for Estimating Numbers of Redds" with BPA Project #20055. The ISRP recommended the project for funding and commented: "A strong proposal that provides a comparison between aerial and ground surveys of redds. This research is much needed and should result in improved technique." We continue to support this improved proposal. Funding for the project was deferred, in part, because of the extremely low escapements in 1999 and 2000. With anticipated increased escapements in the future, the proponents should be able to meet their objectives.

The proponents should address the relationship of this project to the NPT/PNNL hydroacoustic proposal No. 199703000. If the NPT/PNNL hydroacoustic proposal numeration were funded and proves to be successful, would redd counts become obsolete?

Minor suggestions for improvement of the proposal:

Success of this project apparently depends on funding of Project #199902000. Are other projects that include redd counts also necessary?
In Task 2, the proponents note that different observers should be used in the ground surveys and the aerial surveys. The ISRP notes that different observers should also be used to prepare the "ground truth map of redd locations" in objective 1.
The proponents note that the role of aerial and ground surveys may be reversed. It seems that two analyses should always be conducted regardless of the outcomes, i.e., consider the redds detected by one survey as "marked" and determine if those are or are not detected by the other survey.
A third analysis would also seem to be useful. Consider the Study reaches in Objective 1 with the "complete maps of redds" as of the date of following standard ground and aerial surveys. That is, the maps are the first sample of a Lincoln-Petersen survey, with covariates measured on the redds, etc. Then consider the standard ground survey or aerial survey as the second sample and determine if the redds on the map were or were not sighted. Probability of sighting redds during the ground survey or aerial survey could be estimated by logistic regression on covariates. These correction factors might then be evaluated for potential use in "correcting" other ground or aerial surveys for visibility bias.
Data and metadata should be made available via Streamnet or other suitable electronic database.
Finally, if effort can be allocated to measure the above covariates on a sample of stream points "available" for constructing redds, then a model (resource selection function of the covariates) for prediction of the relative probability that a point in the stream will be used as a redd site could be developed.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

RPA 180 - Over 50% of the redd counts in the Middle Fork of the Salmon River are conducted via air. This ongoing research is allowing for the estimation of the precision that is associated with aerial and ground counts. The ability to identify the factors that could be influencing the precision of the counts is essential due to the fact that an aerial approach to counting redds is the only feasible method to count redds in the Middle Fork. The managers have identified this research as essential for future management activities.

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

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable as amended with high priority. Project sponsors provided thoughtful responses to reviewer comments. We note that success of this project apparently depends on funding some tasks in project #199902000.This is an excellent research proposal to evaluate biases and variation in common methods of conducting redd counts. The proponents appropriately identify their objectives as meeting the intent of Action 180 in the 2000 Biological Opinion that specifically calls for funding of Tier 1 and Tier 2 studies to collect data for population status monitoring.

The insights derived from this research could have important applications for improving redd counts and assessing adult escapements currently conducted by other entities across the Snake River basin and, in fact, for the entire Columbia Basin.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Increased reliability in assessments and evaluations through the development of new techniques. Supports adaptive management approach to improving productivity of listed populations. Applies particularly to SR SSCH, but also to all stream-type chinook. Proposed work seeks to improve spring/summer chinook redd counts by investigating bias and precision in redd count surveys in the Snake River Basin. Well designed study, would produce important improvements in estimating populations.

Comments
Very important work on measurement and sampling error associated with standard survey techniques (redd counts). Absolutely necessary for the development of accurate Tier 2 monitoring programs.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Recommend as critical to implement RPA 180. BPA notes that the project might be improved by incorporating some of the BPA-funded surveys being conducted by SBT, NPT, and IDFG in the Middle Fork of the Snake River, because their surveys provide the population data most heavily relied upon by managers.

BPA RPA RPM:
180

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
180

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Fund to implement RPA 180. BPA notes that the project might be improved by incorporating some of the BPA-funded surveys being conducted by SBT, NPT, and IDFG in the Middle Fork of the Snake River, because their surveys provide the population data most heavily relied upon by managers.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

05 5% increase over 04. New contract in the works. This project was originally established to be completed in FY 04. Funding in 05 would allow …see sponsor comment. SCOPE CHANGE

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

This project was originally established to be completed in FY04. Funding the project for an additional year in FY05 would allow us to accomplish two important tasks: 1. it would allow us to evaluate inter-year effects among four years (2002-2005) 2. it would allow us to develop and test crew training procedures across two years (2004-2005) instead of a single year (2004).

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:
$35,000	$0	$0

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website