FY 2000 proposal 199005500
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
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199005500 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199005500 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers |
| Proposal ID | 199005500 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Alan Byrne |
| Mailing address | 1414 E. Locust Lane Nampa, ID 83868 |
| Phone / email | 2084658404 / abyrne@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Evaluate the feasibility of using artificial production to increase natural steelhead populations and to collect life history, genetic, and disease data from wild steelhead populations in Idaho. |
| Target species | steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1992 | I submitted a detailed experimental design to BPA for this project |
| 1993 | We outplanted adult hatchery steelhead from Sawtooth Hatchery in Beaver and Frenchman creeks |
| 1993 | SF Red River was stocked with 50,000 hatchery fingerlings. |
| 1993 | Crews snorkeled 8 streams to obtain juvenile steelhead densities. |
| 1993 | Crews PIT-tag 2,870 juvenile steelhead in 6 streams. |
| 1994 | We outplanted adult hatchery steelhead from Sawtooth Hatchery in Beaver and Frenchman creeks. |
| 1994 | SF Red River was stocked with 50,000 hatchery fingerlings. |
| 1994 | Crews snorkeled 8 streams to obtain juvenile steelhead densities. |
| 1994 | Crews PIT-tag 6,314 juvenile steelhead in 12 streams. |
| 1994 | Crews collected scales from juvenile steelhead in 5 stream and adults from 3 streams |
| 1995 | We outplanted hatchery adult steelhead from Sawtooth Hatchery in Beaver Creek |
| 1995 | Stock 50,000 hatchery fingerlings in SF Red River |
| 1995 | We installed a temporary weir in Fish Creek and counted the adult escapement. |
| 1995 | Crews snorkeled 8 streams to obtain juvenile steelhead densities. |
| 1995 | Crews PIT-tag 3,431 juvenile steelhead in 7 streams |
| 1995 | Crews collected scales from juvenile steelhead in 4 streams and adults from 5 streams. |
| 1996 | We outplanted hatchery adults from Sawtooth Hatchery in Beaver Creek |
| 1996 | Stock 50,000 hatchery fingerlings in SF Red River |
| 1996 | We stocked 5,000 hatchery smolts in Red River |
| 1996 | We installed a temporary weir in Fish Creek and counted the adult escapement. |
| 1996 | Crews PIT-tag 7,998 juvenile steelhead in 11 streams. |
| 1996 | Crews snorkeled 12 streams to obtain juvenile steelhead densities. |
| 1996 | Crews collected scales from juvenile steelhead in 2 streams and adults in 1 stream |
| 1997 | We outplanted hatchery adults from Sawtooth Hatchery in Beaver and Frenchman creeks |
| 1997 | We stocked 5,000 hatchery smolts in Red River |
| 1997 | We installed a temporary weir in Fish Creek to count adult escapement |
| 1997 | Crews snorkeled 13 streams to obtain juvenile steelhead densities. |
| 1997 | Crews PIT-tag about 9,200 juvenile steelhead in 11 streams |
| 1997 | We collected scales from juvenile steelhead in 4 streams and adults from 2 streams |
| 1997 | We collected fin samples for future DNA analysis from juvenile steelhead in 4 streams and adults in 2 streams. |
| 1998 | We outplanted hatchery adult steelhead from Sawtooth Hatchery in Beaver Creek |
| 1998 | We stocked 5,000 hatchery smolts in Red River |
| 1998 | We installed a temporary weir in Fish Creek to count adult escapement. |
| 1998 | Crews snorkeled 10 stream to obtain juvenile steelhead densities |
| 1998 | Crews PIT-tag about 6,700 juvenile steelhead in 11 streams |
| 1998 | We collected scales from juvenile steelhead in 3 streams and adults in 2 streams |
| 1998 | We collected fin samples for future DNA analysis from juvenile steelhead in 6 streams and adults in 2 streams. |
| 1998 | We mounted and aged 432 adult steelhead scales and 2,766 juvenile steelhead scales that were collected from 1993 to 1997. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8909800 | Idaho supplementation studies (ISS) | juvenile steelhead PIT-tagged and scales collected at ISS screw traps, obtain juvenile steelhead densities from their snorkel surveys. |
| 8909801 | Salmon supplementation studies in Idaho rivers-USFWS | juvenile steelhead PIT-tagged and scales collected at ISS screw traps, obtain juvenile steelhead densities from their snorkel surveys. |
| 8909802 | Salmon supplementation studies in Idaho rivers-Nez Perce Tribe | juvenile steelhead PIT-tagged and scales collected at ISS screw traps, obtain juvenile steelhead densities from their snorkel surveys. |
| 8909803 | Salmon supplementation studies in Idaho rivers-Shoshone-Bannock Tribe | juvenile steelhead PIT-tagged and scales collected at ISS screw traps, obtain juvenile steelhead densities from their snorkel surveys. |
| 9107300 | Idaho natural production monitoring and evaluation | this project uses steelhead PIT-tagged by SSS for smolt-to-adult survival analysis. SSS supplies GPM data. |
| 9600600 | PATH - Facilitation, Tech. Assistance & Peer Review | supply adult and juvenile steelhead density and escapement data for the PATH process |
| 9600900 | PATH - Participation by State and Tribal Agencies | supply adult and juvenile steelhead density and escapement data for the PATH process |
| 9700200 | PATH - UW Technical support | supply adult and juvenile steelhead density and escapement data for the PATH process |
| 8909600 | Monitor, evaluate genetic characteristics of supplemented salmon and steelh | Coordinate data collection and analysis. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | salaries for permanent and seasonal staff | $127,813 |
| Fringe | includes all employee benefits | $41,934 |
| Supplies | $12,060 | |
| Operating | $38,060 | |
| Capital | $2,000 | |
| PIT tags | 8,000 | $23,200 |
| Travel | includes travel for permanent staff and all subsistence needs for field work | $13,230 |
| Other | Agency overhead (22.5% of personnel and operating) | $52,447 |
| Subcontractor | genetic analysis of 2,500 steelhead juveniles for stock structure ($100/fis | $250,000 |
| $560,744 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $560,744 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $560,744 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Because steelhead are now listed under ESA, we must obtain permits from NMFS to continue the research we began in 1993, however IDFG does not anticipate any restrictions of the research in progress. The lack of wild adult returns has prevented us from initiating Objective 1 as planned, however IDFG has outplanted hatchery adults as outlined in tasks a - c . We are viewing this as a “case study” to determine if the Sawtooth Hatchery stock can be used to re-establish steelhead in vacant habitat in the upper Salmon River drainage.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund in part, but do not fund the new tasks related to the genetics subcontract due to lack of adequate review information. The proposal needs a better description of who the genetics subcontractor is and what they are going to do. The reviewers are not provided adequate description of the methods the subcontractor will use, let alone the subcontractor's qualifications. The proposal should be included in the programmatic review of supplementation.Comments: The proposal describes plans to develop a genetic database for steelhead in Idaho. If approved, the study should be closely coordinated and developed with Project 8909600. Findings reported under 8909600 include statements regarding progress in steelhead genetics, but it is not clear how these findings were incorporated into the present study plan. How does this work fit in with the genetic work done by Waples et al.?
The project is difficult to evaluate and confusingly written. There are too many objectives, and the objectives have flip-flopped during the project's history—apparently without having any of the "experiments" brought to completion. Each component of the project should be submitted as a separate proposal and reviewed on its own merits. The project history contains detail on activities but less information on results and their interpretation. The information is not put into a context of application. The objectives and tasks are not specific to FY2000. For example, one objective is to assess the performance of hatchery and wild brood sources to reestablish steelhead in streams. The results of such a study will no doubt depend to some degree on the source of the hatchery fish. The proposal, however, does not test supplementation because the fish being used are hatchery stock, not wild stock. It was planned to use wild stock, but wild populations were too small to permit it. If the proposed project cannot test the real objective of supplementation, the development of a more abundant population of naturally spawning wild fish, why do it? To some extent, the project seems to be planned as a testing of traditional hatchery practice against supplementation, but not a test of supplementation against unassisted wild reproduction as should be the case. Is this "reintroduction?"
The proposal is not clear about the end point. There is no termination date for the work. The proposal includes a statement that it will continue until steelhead are restored. Since it was initially and subsequently approved with such a statement included, there seems to be little room for any new evaluation.
The project should be subjected to a rigorous review to assess progress to date, to evaluate, and to determine whether survival rates are sufficient to provide the statistical power required to meet project goals.
Comment:
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? Yes -Comment:
This is an ongoing project and we recommend funding in order achieve management objectives in this region. We question whether all of the samples can be run within FY00. We recommend reducing the budget by $160,000 for sample analysis and associated costs that should be provided in future years.Comment:
Fund. The sponsors adequately addressed the ISRP comments. The sponsor's Attachment 2 is very helpful. The project proposes genetic monitoring to see if genetic change occurs in supplemented natural populations. With interbreeding, there will be mixing of genetic material whether or not the monitoring program detects it. The appropriate questions and the questions that will be asked even if they show some change is - so what? Genetic assessment may prove valuable in tracking directions and amounts of interactions, however, long-term evaluation should focus on life history traits that are thought to be related to fitness and adaptation. Does supplementation cause a significant loss of production from natural habitats? Is that loss related to the method of supplementation? How much productivity loss in reproduction is likely in the long-term? And, how much productivity loss is acceptable?Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]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: |
| $589,086 | $589,086 | $589,086 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website