FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199902000
Contents
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
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Analyze the Persistence and Spatial Dynamics of Snake River Chinook Salmon |
| Proposal ID | 199902000 |
| 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 advance current understanding of the relationship between the distribution, pattern, and persistence of chinook salmon and landscape patterns. **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 |
|---|---|---|
| 44.88 | -114.74 | -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/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. |
| 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. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1995 | Drainage-wide redd count. |
| Began aerial mapping of potential spawning patches. | |
| 1996 | Drainage-wide redd count. Aerial and ground mapping of spawning patches. Measures of patch quality. |
| 1997 | Drainage-wide redd count. Aerial and ground mapping of spawning patches. Measures of patch quality. |
| 1998 | Drainage-wide redd count. |
| Aerial and ground mapping of spawning patches. | |
| Measures of patch quality. | |
| 1999 | Drainage-wide redd count. |
| Ground mapping of spawning patches. | |
| Measures of patch quality. | |
| 2000 | Drainage-wide redd count. |
| Ground mapping of spawning patches. Measures of patch quality. Plotting of redd and spawning patches |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 89098000 | Idaho supplementation studies | Collaborative, information sharing |
| 199107300 | Idaho natural production monitoring and evaluation | Collaborative, information sharing |
| 0 | 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 | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Map the annual distribution of chinook salmon redds in the study area. | a. Select study streams. b. Annually count and map chinook salmon redds. | 3 | $39,967 | |
| 2. Map the distribution of potential chinook salmon spawning areas. | a. Aerially map potential spawning patches. b. Validate aerial surveys with ground-based surveys. c. Develop a comprehensive patch map. | 3 | $38,064 | |
| 3. Describe spawning patch quality. | a. Measure indices of patch quality. | 3 | $5,634 | |
| 4. Relate the location, size, and quality of spawning patches to basin geomorphic features. | a. Compile databases to describe basin landscape features. b. Develop models to predict patch distribution and empirically validate models. | 3 | $11,845 | |
| 5. Evaluate the influence of patch size, quality, and context on the distribution of chinook salmon redds. | a. Explore various regression and discriminate function analyses approaches. | 3 | $16,900 | |
| b. Select the analysis and complete. | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Map the distribution of chinook salmon redds. | 2003 | 2004 | $86,029 |
| 2. Map the distribution of potential spawning patches. | 2003 | 2004 | $80,288 |
| 3. Describe patch quality. | 2003 | 2004 | $11,884 |
| 4. Relate the location and quality of spawning patches to basin geomorphic features. | 2003 | 2004 | $24,984 |
| 5. Evaluate the influence of patch size, quality, and context on redd distribution. | 2003 | 2004 | $35,647 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $117,015 | $121,817 |
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 only | $41,515 |
| Fringe | 20.55% | $8,531 |
| Supplies | $5,000 | |
| Travel | $6,039 | |
| Indirect | 18% | $17,147 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | Operating costs, Helicopter rental, etc. | $34,178 |
| $112,410 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $112,410 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $112,410 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $114,190 |
| % change from forecast | -1.6% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
In the original forcast I assumed a 5% increase in salaries, travel, etc. The actual increase is about 3.6%.
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 | in-kind |
| 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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. The intent of the project is to understand the factors determining the distribution of spawning chinook salmon, based on observations made in the Middle Fork Salmon River. The proposition is that spawning distribution depends on the amount of habitat, the quality of habitat, and its proximity to other habitat.This project has been underway since 1995, and has received BPA funding since 1999. The proposal contains no description of results obtained to date. Reviewers' support for the proposal would be strengthened by a discussion of results obtained to date and plans for publication. The proposal states that the "project will require additional years to follow a complete generation or more of spawning fish to complete the analysis of spatial structure". Please elaborate, and describe why field data from years 2002-2004 would be pivotal.
Comment:
This project addresses RPA 180. During this past year, this project has been funded at 1/2 the required budget (i.e., $50,000 of the needed/approved $100,000). The sponsors indicated is they only receive $50,000/year in the upcoming years the funding level will be insufficient to allow them to continue the proposed work in the original proposal. Reviewers suggest that the Project meets critical needs for long-term monitoring, indexing, acquisition of life history information, and analysis of the spatial structure of a wild chinook salmon population. The reviewers identified simulates between Objective 4 and work proposed in proposal 28035. Sponsors of Project 199902000 recognized that the existing tasks (i.e., strategies to achieve the task) were inadequate to meet Objective 4. Although completing the existing tasks under Objective 4 would produce useful preliminary information, the analysis would be incomplete and difficult to defend in the physical sciences community. As a result, Objective 4 was refined into a Proposal 28035. The refined approach for addressing Objective 4 examines the physical controls of basin hydrology and sediment supply on spawning habitat availability at watershed scales. The extensive spawning habitat data available for the Middle Fork Salmon River through Project # 199902000 provides an excellent test site for the physical model. The model is robust, however, and once validated can be applied to any river basin. The model could have immediate use for identifying critical habitats and examining scenarios for best management practices for maintaining or optimizing spawning habitat. Moreover, the model would provide a physically-based, defensible method for assessing spawning habitat and prioritizing management actions at watershed scales.Per the reviewers request, the following tasks from Proposal 28035 should be considered for funding through Objective 4 of 199902000:
- Objective 4. Relate the location, size, and quality of spawning patches to basin geomorphic features.
- Task a. Compile databases to describe basin landscape features.
- Task b. Develop models to predict patch distribution and empirically validate models.
- Subtask b.1. Predict grain size and the spatial distribution of suitable spawning habitat as a function of channel hydraulics and boundary shear stress.
- b.1.1. Determine baneful flow depth and channel slope at watershed scales.
- b.1.2. Determine grain sizes suitable for chinook spawning.
- Subtask b.2. Modify predictions of grain size and spawning habitat availability to account for channel type and consequent hydraulic roughness.
- b.2.1. Predict and field verify channel type, hydraulic roughness, and consequent modification of surface grain size.
- Subtask b.3. Quantify the effects of sediment supply on surface grain size and spawning habitat availability.
- b.3.1. Identify sources and magnitudes of sediment supply.
- b.3.2. Model the long-term effects on spawning habitat availability due to sediment input and routing through the channel network.
- Subtask b.4. Validate predictions of grain size and spawning habitat availability.
Comment:
Fundable in part. The intent of the project is to understand the factors determining the distribution of spawning chinook salmon, based on observations made in the Middle Fork Salmon River. The proposition is that spawning distribution depends on the amount of habitat, the quality of habitat, and its proximity to other habitat. This project has been underway since 1995, and has received BPA funding since 1999.The proposal contained no description of results obtained to date and the response's brief repeat of results from the proposal and a copy of a technical report published in a conference proceedings in 2000 are minimally acceptable. Reviewers' support for the proposal might have been strengthened by a discussion of results obtained to date and plans for publication. More importantly, the proposal states that the project would require additional years of field work, through 2004, to follow a complete generation or more of spawning fish to complete the analysis of spatial structure. The scientific justification for such continuation of this project is weak. The current seven years of data on distribution of spawning activity contains substantial variation in total numbers of spawners. This variation seems to be a necessary component for study of the author's hypotheses, not a limiting factor. There is no assurance that the number of spawners will continue to increase beyond that in 2001, and thus the data collected through 2001 may be the best available in the near term to meet the author's objectives. The ISRP recommends that funding should not be provided for additional on the ground data collection.
Reviewers recommend funding in part, to conduct aerial surveys in support of project 28001 and to analyze and prepare for publication the data from 1995-2001.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. Assist in the development of conservation and restoration strategies for Chinook salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River by advancing the current understanding of the relationship between landscape characteristics and their distribution, pattern, and persistence.
Comments
This is another important contribution to the design of a comprehensive monitoring program in the SR basin. It is particularly important for two reasons: continuing a key data set; associating a high quality redd survey data set with potentially explanatory environmental characteristics.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend funding only aerial surveys (task 1.b) in support of project number #28001, analysis, peer review and publication of data from 1995 to present for implementation of RPA 180. Past project results need to be presented, peer reviewed, and progress shown. This project should be evaluated when regional RM&E plan is completed. BPA RPA RPM:
180
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
180
Comment:
Council recommendation: The Council recommendation relies heavily on the NMFS comments that call this project "an important contribution to the design of a comprehensive monitoring program in the Snake River basin. NMFS stated that the project is "particularly important" in that it continues a key data set and associating redd survey data with explanatory environmental characteristics. NMFS states that the project responds to RPA 180. Bonneville supports only limited elements of the proposal. The ISRP would like to see the results from past year's efforts analyzed and reported and recommended partial funding to accomplish those tasks. The sponsor notes that this project has been funded at a 50% or less level the last two years, leaving inadequate resources to do the sort of reporting desired by the ISRP.The Council recommends partially funding this project (see Table 1 for totals) for what appears to be important and unique Biological Opinion responsiveness. The Council does not recommend that the project be limited to aerial surveys and reporting as recommended by Bonneville and the ISRP. There are limited projects that correspond to the monitoring and evaluation RPAs of the Biological Opinion presented in this province, and very few that come with the sound endorsement that is provided here by NMFS. The Council's general funding considerations put a premium on addressing Biological Opinion needs, and this project appears to be important in advancing that objective. Further, should NMFS determine that additional monitoring and evaluation work needs to be completed in this area of the basin to respond to the Biological Opinion's monitoring and evaluation provisions, the Council recommends that they investigate working with and through this project to accomplish at least some of those needs. As a condition of this funding recommendation, the Council recommends that Bonneville require the sponsor to provide to at least a preliminary analysis and report of its research and data collection since its efforts were initiated in 1995 as recommended by the beginning of Fiscal Year 2003, and that this be a condition of contracting for Fiscal Year 2003. The report should be provided to Bonneville and the Council, and made available to Streamnet.
Comment:
Fund objectives 1, 2, 3 and partially fund objectives 4 and 5 as recommended. This project should be evaluated when regional RM&E plan is completed.Comment:
FY 02 and 03 funding was received too late to hire field crews to accomplish tasks within Obj 2 and 4. As a result, sponsor requests an additional 45K to double up crews in 04 to catch up on objectives. "reschedule" 05 assumes 04 catch up and 4% increaseComment:
FY02 and FY03 funding was received too late to hire field crews to accomplish tasks within Objectives 2 and 4. As a result I request that an additional $45,000 be added to the base in FY04 so that we might double up the crews in FY04 to accomplish all Project objectives.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $160,491 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website