FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28005

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Change from full implementation to 1 year pilot project

Reason for change in scope

Recommendation by review panel

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

As these two proposals are extremely similar, sharing staff, methods, and so on, we recommend that the study site be limited to either the Grande Ronde, or the Salmon River subbasin, and that a single proposal be developed as a pilot study to evaluate existing data, data collection methods, and the proposed habitat model. The sponsors need to show full coordination of proposal development with research presently underway with fish habitat and spring/summer chinook salmon at the study site of choice.

Although the proposals are clearly written and their authors are recognized leaders in habitat research, reviewers felt that a large volume of data, similar to what is sought here, presently exists in agency and researcher files. The subbasin summaries note numerous aquatic assessments already completed. If the proposal described how it would fill a significant void left by previous assessments, it would be more compelling. Additionally, reviewers believe the reasons for differences in chinook smolt production among subwatersheds are currently more clearly understood than the proposal would suggest.

The proposals are heavy on habitat sampling methodology but provide insufficient explanation of what biological data for salmonids will be obtained (is the data even available for Task A?) and how relationships between the biological data and habitat variables will be analyzed. Out-of basin factors could have a significant influence on salmon presence and abundance, yet these are not accounted for. Tasks A and B are unclear and require much further elaboration.

Stream temperature is listed in Table 1 as a variable to be measured in the field, but the methods are not shown. The temperature regime will have to be analyzed for each site, and the methods for measurement and analysis should be explained. Except for the latter shortcoming, the project is exemplary, and much information of kinds sorely needed in chinook habitat management should result.

Comment:

Comment:

Although the proposals are clearly written and their authors are recognized leaders in habitat research, reviewers felt that a large volume of data, similar to what is sought here, presently exists in agency and researcher files. The subbasin summaries note numerous aquatic assessments already completed. Additionally, reviewers believe the reasons for differences in chinook smolt production among subwatersheds are currently more clearly understood than the proposal would suggest. . At the suggestion of the ISRP, the authors in their response propose a pilot study intended to relate the presence of chinook salmon to habitat conditions in Snake River tributaries. A full proposal including a budget for the pilot study was not provided. The cost for the project was set at $100,000 but further details were not provided. Even for the pilot study, the authors have not satisfactorily addressed major shortcomings that were a problem with the original proposal. The original proposal was largely a detailed description of habitat methodology and the authors' responses to the ISRP's questions have done little to obviate this weakness.

This project has little chance of producing useful information. In particular, the biological component of the research is weak. The authors have failed to adequately address the ISRP's question concerning the biological dataset that will be used. The proposal would be stronger if it specified what fish dataset was intended for use, and how better measurement of habitat parameters would help that dataset yield new relationships. A critical element of the proposed research is the definition of occupied and unoccupied sites. The authors do not provide operational definitions of these terms. Furthermore, the approach of comparing habitat that is "occupied" with that "not occupied" may not be meaningful because the rearing habitat is not close to being fully seeded. Presence or absence of juvenile chinook salmon depends not only on habitat conditions but also on other factors including whether successful spawning of adults had occurred in the area, whether a significant storm event occurred during incubation, and, for naturally produced fish, whether fish have been stocked in the area. The authors do not consider these and other out-of-basin factors in their proposal.

What would be the measure of "run strength" or "molt outmigration?" What is the nature of the "index of chinook populations" that would be derived? Tasks A and B remain unclear and would require much further elaboration.

The authors could develop their approach more fully and submit future proposals. Subsequent proposal should more specifically address land-use-related habitat hypotheses such as that recently identified by Paulsen and Fisher (Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, May 2001) regarding chinook parr-to-smolt survival. The panel suggests that proponents consider making future aquatic habitat data measurement protocols consistent with recommendations provided in:

Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. Jones, P. Roger, T. A. O'Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 211 pp.

Comment:

Comments
This project is important because it addresses some of the fundamental stream ecology questions we need to investigate (such as primary productivity) in order to determine habitat quality, and relate the quality with fish distribution and abundance. This work will help with future questions about population dynamics, protection and restoration.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comments on Project 27007 (Blue Mountain), which has been merged with Project 28005:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Project would evaluate and compare attributes of streams utilized and not utilized by chinook salmon within the subbasin. Evaluated habitat characteristics would describe low gradient stream segments which foster chinook salmon production.

Comments
This project #27007 has been merged with project #28005 in the Mountain Snake Province. The main project goal is to test the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences between habitat utilized & not utilized by chinook. The alternative hypothesis is that there are significant differences. Suggest that the project proponents 'better' link the extensive habitat database on this subject to evaluating present population status info for chinook populations as part of this proposal.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
155

Comment: