FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28009
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 |
|---|---|
| 28009 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28009 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 28009 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Smolt Condition and Adult Returns: An Indirect Method of Assessing the Potential Mitigation Benefits of Nutrient Enhancement Projects |
| Proposal ID | 28009 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IDFG/IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | David Teuscher |
| Mailing address | 1414 E Locust Lane Nampa, ID 83686-8451 |
| Phone / email | 2084658404 / dteusche@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Steve Yundt |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Proposes the development of a standard weight equation for chinook salmon and steelhead trout smolts. The equation will provide a method to determine if the condition of Snake River smolts is poor due to the lack of marine-driven nutrients. |
| Target species | spring/summer chinook and steelhead trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| This project will analyze data collected throughout the Mountain Snake Province | ||
| 45.56 | -115.36 | Mountain Snake province |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 190 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall continue to fund studies that monitor survival, growth, and other early life history attributes of Snake River wild juvenile fall chinook. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Fish Passage Center Data -PTAGIS | The analysis will use data from PTTAGIS |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Determine through indirect methods if a negative-feedback loop (poor growth or survival in freshwater rearing habitat) is a significant limiting factor for Snake River chinook salmon and steelhead trout. | Task 1a. Develop a standard weight (Ws) equation for spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead trout smolts | 1 | $30,000 | Yes |
| Ojective 2: Determine if a significant proportion of the variation in SAR survival of spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead trout can be explained by the relative condition (Wr) of smolts leaving their natal habitat | Task 2a. Describe the proportion of variation in SAR that can be explained by smolt condition. | 1 | $14,600 |
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 |
|---|
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 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: 0.2 | $9,000 |
| Fringe | $3,100 | |
| Indirect | $2,500 | |
| Subcontractor | $30,000 | |
| $44,600 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $44,600 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $44,600 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. This is a proposal to develop a tool for assessing whether a population of salmonids could benefit from nutrient enrichment. The sponsors do not describe how they will account for differences in population density on smolt size. The proposal needs to show that the work will provide information beyond what we already know from size-at-release studies at hatcheries.Comment:
Although the reviewers expressed concern regarding a lack of reference (in the proposal) as to how the results from this work would be transferred, the sponsors indicated that it was an oversight. The sponsors acknowledged that cooperation from the states, federal agencies, and tribes will be required to collect the required data. As a result, dissemination of the information to the cooperators as well as the rest of the Columbia River Basin will be expected. Project addresses RPA 190.Comment:
Not fundable. The sponsors acknowledge that population density, and many other variables are likely to affect smolt size and condition, but they did not show how they would assess their relative influences; an assessment that must be addressed before the project is technically credible. The data could be examined and assessed, in at least a preliminary way to see if they show some promise given the plethora of confounding variables. Such an examination should be possible in much less than a year and within the agency's existing program. If that analysis shows some real promise and attracts the attention of managers, a proposal to develop a more rigorous analysis could be developed. Establishing a relative weight equation is a good idea, but it would be better done by one of the more comprehensive nutrient enhancement projects.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. Indirectly assesses effects of nutrient enhancement projects by comparing smolt condition and adult returns of Snake River spring/summer chinook and steelhead to those of other regions. Applies particularly to SR SSCH, but also SR SH.
Comments
It is unclear how investigators will answer the questions they pose. Also, they do not specify what data are available to answer the questions. Furthermore, they have not identified how alternative processes/mechanisms might also explain differences in size or survival.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. The project could be reconsidered when a regional RM&E plan is completed and the need for the project can be properly assessed. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
190
Comment: