FY 2000 proposal 199801600

Additional documents

TitleType
199801600 Narrative Narrative
199801600 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleMonitor Natural Escapement & Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook
Proposal ID199801600
OrganizationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameRichard Carmichael
Mailing address211 Inlow Hall, EOU, 1410 ā€œLā€ Avenue La Grande, OR 97850
Phone / email5419623777 / odfw2@eou.edu
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / John Day
Short descriptionMonitor and assess natural escapement and productivity of John Day River Basin spring chinook salmon. This project is in direct response to recommendations and needs of the PATH project.
Target speciesSpring chinook salmon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1998 Conducted multiple and extensive spawning surveys in John Day subbasin.
1998 Sampled over 300 carcasses of spawned spring chinook salmon to determine sex and age.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9600800 PATH Provide the PATH project with annual estimates of spawner escapement, age-structure, and smolt-to-adult survival rates for this index population for assessing the effects of alternative future management actions on salmon stocks in the Columbia Basin
8810804 StreamNet This project will provide data for StreamNet.
20514 John Day River Subbasin Umbrella

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $61,500
Fringe $23,300
Supplies $10,000
Operating $8,100
Capital jet boat, 2 notebook computers, 2 portable balances $27,600
PIT tags 3,000 $8,700
Travel $3,000
Indirect $37,600
$179,800
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$179,800
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$179,800
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: High water during smolt outmigration may limit our ability to capture adequate number of smolts for objective 4.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Delay funding until the survey procedures are expanded to include basin wide valid finite sampling procedures.

Comments: The proposal is considered appropriate for multi-year funding, if expanded to include a basin-wide valid sampling procedure. One reviewer balked at funding for the current year because of the statement "Extensive surveys will cover all areas where spawning is believed to occur", but endorsed multi-year funding if adequate sampling plans are developed to cover potential spawning areas. If spawning activity and smolt production can be successfully sampled, expansion of the project should afford better comprehension of production in various reaches and watersheds over time and space in the last major subbasin without dams.

One of the most vital aspects of the proposal is the PIT tagging element, which warrants expanded description to better determine representative smolt-to-adult survival for the entire watershed. Further, as written it is unclear that this project will provide optimum monitoring for effectiveness of other John Day projects. The proposal is short sighted and inadequate by seeking to survey only areas where spawning is believed to occur, as opposed to a basin-wide effort that would include monitoring of future increases as habitat is improved and escapement numbers increase. As habitat is improved in the John Day Basin, it is anticipated that the number of spawners will increase and migrate to presently unoccupied reaches.

Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed: The sampling plan should include PIT-tagged adults returning to spawning grounds, given that PIT-tagged adults can avoid detection at mainstream dams and straying occurs. Should not plans be expanded to include valid sampling for spawning and production of steelhead?

More detail is required regarding sampling methodology and calculating smolt-to-adult survival rates that would be representative for the entire watershed. How frequently will high stream flows be expected to impact sampling and observations of smolts and adults? Are counts of adults adequate to estimate parent-to-progeny production? What about other factors that impact success including stress, egg quality, condition index, etc.

While this effort appears to collect and analyze aggregate data for the entire subbasin, many of the other projects apply to discrete reaches. There should be an attempt to coordinate this research with other projects and to provide useful disaggregated data to researchers on those projects. In Objective No. 1, why is the Imnaha River to be used for estimates of fish per redd?


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Criteria all: Met? yes -
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Can funding for Objective 4 be deferred given the fact it comprises 33% of the budget and partially occurs in out years. We encourage the proponents to find alternatives for some of the capital acquisitions listed in the project. When questioned, the project sponsor determined that the jet boat for this study could be borrowed or leased for FY00, although a jet boat will be necessary for future work. The budget should be reduced by $20,000 to reflect delaying the purchase of the jet boat.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund. However, it is the opinion of the ISRP that the sampling plan for monitoring natural escapement and productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook is short sighted. This project called for extensive spawning surveys for spring chinook. Surveys were expanded to include 54 miles of stream segments in 1998 contiguous to the traditional index areas (55 miles of stream segments). Given that the length of the John Day River from the mouth on the Columbia to the headwaters of the mainstem is approximately 280 miles, there are several hundreds or thousands of miles of stream reaches in the John Day Basin which have no possibility of being surveyed. In so far as the initial index areas were selected by ad hoc subjective judgment, the extensive surveys added are ad hoc and subjective. The current sampling plan may be adequate for the immediate future, if it is correct that current flow and temperature prevents spawning in all but the surveyed 109 miles and the main objective is to be able to document a decline in spawners.

The current sampling plan will not adequately monitor the effects of habitat improvement projects in the future. Experience with coho sampling on coastal streams by ODFW using the same methods proposed here greatly overestimated abundance and the experience should not be repeated in the John Day Basin or other basins. The project should also be improved by including steelhead. Wild steelhead populations in the John Day are very valuable and survey data on these fish is critically needed. The sponsors should develop a valid stratified random sampling plan or other basin wide sampling plan for both chinook and steelhead that selects survey reaches from all areas which are not blocked to spawners by natural features.

The ISRP is concerned that the project, as presently designed, cannot provide adequate monitoring information on anadromous fishes to other habitat improvement projects in the basin. If the project managers only survey where the fish are known to exist, the ISRP doubts that useful information can be provided to monitor effects of, for example, Project #9605300 (Upper Clear Creek Dredge Tailings Restoration), Project #20131 (Enhance North Fork John Day River Subbasin Anadromous Fish Habitat), Project #9801700 (Eliminate Gravel Push-Up Dams On Lower North Fork John Day), and Project #9801800 (John Day Watershed Restoration).

The project sponsors are depending on complete detection of PIT-tagged adults at downstream dams for estimation of smolt-to-adult return rates. Presently, only Bonneville Dam has adult detection facilities, and the detection rates at Bonneville Dam are quite low. Significant improvements are not expected in the immediate future. Even with perfect detection rates at Bonneville, the estimated numbers of PIT-tagged adults to the John Day River would be suspect because of straying and mortality of adults before they enter the mouth of the John Day River. Detection of PIT-tagged adults returning to the basin will be a challenge, but can potentially be improved by methods such as use of hand held scanners for PIT-tags on the spawning grounds.

Other concerns of the ISRP in the original review have been adequately addressed by the sponsors.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]
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:
$880,000 $880,000 $880,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website