FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200310900

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Itemized equipment budget for FY 2003 Operation and maintenance of PIT tag units: Replacement transceiver $6,000 Oscilloscope $2,000 Current probe $800 Battery backup $500 Solar chargers $2,860 Satellite service for remote site $840 Underwater video $2,000 Total: $15,000

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

As with proposal #35063, this is the second time we have reviewed this proposal recently. The value we see in this work is in Objective 1 to assess "abundance and natural production of juvenile, smolt and adult salmonids while developing and providing standard protocols for stock monitoring programs." If standard methods, tools, and protocols can be established for small stream assessments in the Basin, this could have significant general value outside of the immediate stream. We encourage the proponents to prioritize their work with emphasis on population assessment methods and sampling protocols.

Ms. Zydlewski has made a significant contribution through her work to develop stationary remote and portable detectors for PITs, and is now developing a proposal to utilize that technology. But in reviewing the objectives of this proposal, their Regional value seems limited to the development of sampling protocols for small stream assessments (useful), examination of tagging impacts on growth (assessed within a hatchery environment and with hatchery fish ... limited value), or otherwise mostly of local value in Abernathy Creek. Her reference to life history stages is really limited to pre-migratory, at migration and following in freshwater (residualism), and at adult return. For each of these stages, population size and survivals would be estimated but the methods for estimation are not fully described.

For example, in the three stages:

1. in-river, pre-migration population size would be estimate by depletion methods (for 3 sites), but how is this sample expanded to the total stream and species;
2. during migration, smolts population estimates would be estimated with the fixed array and/or smolts traps, but it is not clear how the fixed array provides a population estimate;
3. at the adult stage (and assuming the new fish barrier is installed), all fish would be sampled but how would all the hatchery fish be identified (presumably associated with #35063).

In objective 2, they propose to assess frequency and magnitude of ecological interactions between hatchery-released and naturally produced salmonids. "Frequency and magnitude of individual interactions will be continually monitored at the stationary units and will be discontinuously monitored, but on a regular basis, with the portable unit." Page 13 of Section 9). However, these detections may monitor the movement and co-occurrence of these fish, but is this an adequate assessment of interactions? Objective 3 refers to novel tagging techniques but what is novel and important is not elaborated.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

STATUS MONITORING SUBGROUP -- This proposal seeks to evaluate stock status, distribution, and abundance of juvenile and adult salmonids using new PIT tag techniques.

The proposal does not indicate applicability to either RPA 180 or RPA 181. None of the target species in the study area belong to ESUs covered by the NMFS 2000 FCRPS BiOp. The project proposes to study, among other things, the effects of PIT-tag size on juvenile fish survival and growth, which could be considered testing of tools (i.e., PIT tags) that are widely used in some monitoring activities that do satisfy RPA 180. Therefore, while the proposal does not directly meet RPA needs, the methodological aspects of the work, as well as its potential contribution to the development of Biological Opinion status monitoring performance standards merit consideration.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The ISRP and RME group comments are consistent.

Comment:

Comment:

The project sponsor has made a significant contribution through her work to develop stationary remote and portable detectors for PIT tags, and is now developing a proposal to utilize that technology. However, in reviewing the objectives of this proposal, their value to the region seems limited to the development of sampling protocols for small stream assessments (useful), examination of tagging impacts on growth (assessed within a hatchery environment and with hatchery fish ... limited value), or otherwise mostly of local value in Abernathy Creek.

If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods, and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA proposal #35033.

Comment:

Comments
This proposal concerns the evaluation of stock status, distribution, and abundance of juvenile and adult salmonids using new PIT tag techniques. Objective 1 of the proposal appears to be specific to small streams and Abernathy Creek, in particular, and does not target ESA listed-species that belong to ESUs covered by the NMFS 2000 FCRPS BiOp. However, the results could be easily transferable to listed species. Objective 2 of the proposal would assess frequency and magnitude of ecological interactions between hatchery-released and naturally produced salmonids. It is not certain that monitoring the movement and co-occurrence of these fish (using PIT tag monitors) will provide a complete assessment of hatchery/wild interactions. However, it is an issue of biological importance to ESA-listed species.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments: