FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28031
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 |
|---|---|
| 28031 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28031 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Memo from H. Burge (USFWS) to Files RE: Background material on the proposed 2000 release of un-clipped summer steelhead into the Clearwater River drainage, Idaho | Narrative Attachment |
| 28031 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluation of Unclipped Hatchery Steelhead Released in the Clearwater and Salmon River Basins |
| Proposal ID | 28031 |
| Organization | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Aaron P. Garcia |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 18 Ahsahka, ID 83520 |
| Phone / email | 2084762249 / aaron_garcia@fws.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Determine if outplanted unclipped steelhead: (a) return at higher rates than fish from other artificial propagation programs, (b) spawn where intended, and (c) increase the natural juvenile population. |
| Target species | Steelhead in the Clearwater and Salmon river basins, part of the Snake River Basin ESU. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.1458 | -115.9798 | Mouth of South Fork Clearwater River |
| 45.4168 | -116.3132 | Mouth of Little Salmon River |
| 46.659 | -117.4304 | Lower Granite Dam |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| RM&E RPA Action 182 |
| Hydro RPA Action 107 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 107 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall conduct a comprehensive evaluation to assess survival of adult salmonids migrating upstream and factors contributing to unaccounted losses. |
| NMFS | Action 184 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for a hatchery research, monitoring, and evaluation program consisting of studies to determine whether hatchery reforms reduce the risk of extinction for Columbia River basin salmonids and whether conservation hatcheries contribute to recovery. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199005500 | Steelhead supplementation studies in Idaho Rivers. | The findings of both studies will be useful for comparative purposes, and data from some streams where supplementation has not occurred might be useful as control data for our study. |
| 199107300 | Idaho natural production monitoring and evaluation. | This study will provide baseline data for before-and-after comparisons of wild juvenile densities. Snorkel data for our project will be collected through a subcontract with biologists conducting Project 199107300. |
| 25059 | Develop progeny marker for salmonids to evaluate supplementation. | If Project 25059 is successful we will incorporate the technique in our project to further evaluate the ability of supplementation to increase natural production. |
| RME RPA Action 182: Determine reproductive success of hatchery fish. | Findings from our work will contribute to determining the spatial and temporal distribution of hatchery-origin spawners. | |
| Hydro RPA Action 107: Assess survival and losses of upstream migrating salmonids. | Findings from our work will contribute to the understanding of fallback at Lower Granite Dam. |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Evaluate return rates, distribution, fallback, juvenile densities, prepare, and present findings in a peer reviewed journal. | a. Adult radio-tagging and tracking work using existing PIT tagged fish. | 5 | $350,534 | |
| b. PIT tag an additional 6,000 fish. | 1 | $18,992 | ||
| c. Collect juvenile density data. | 5 | $115,467 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Evaluate return rates, distribution, fallback, juvenile densities, prepare, and present findings in a peer reviewed journal. | 2003 | 2006 | $1,520,161 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $278,990 | $274,046 | $283,827 | $198,306 |
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: 1.6 | $71,935 |
| Fringe | $21,762 | |
| Supplies | $44,612 | |
| Travel | $4,280 | |
| Indirect | $87,458 | |
| Capital | Eleven telemetry stations | $154,000 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 6000 | $13,500 |
| Subcontractor | $87,446 | |
| $484,993 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $484,993 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $484,993 |
| 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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
Response needed. The reviewers are not convinced that this approach will address the question. Confounding of supplementation by harvest is involved. A stock assessment structured with a decision analysis framework would indicate that when a population is operating below recruitment replacement, harvest should be halted, as should all other sources of mortality, where possible. A short-term supplementation exercise might then be considered on an experimental basis as a last-ditch attempt to maintain the remnants of the wild population, in hopes that conditions for survival in the ocean improve, or that other means to offset the reduced productivity can be quickly implemented. The sponsor would like to quantify the effect of harvested, clipped steelhead by releasing unclipped hatchery fish, but this project is unlikely to do so, and will confound other analyses. See comments on 28032 and 199706000 (and throughout) related to stock assessment needs.Reviewers are concerned that deleterious impacts to wild steelhead might occur from the 700,000 unclipped hatchery fish released in the year 2000, and any subsequent releases. Overall the proposed evaluation is supported as high priority.
Additional information is requested regarding Objective 3 (determining if juvenile population densities change). What would be the ability of the work described to detect change? Additional details better describing possible outcomes and their interpretation are needed.
Comment:
This is a time sensitive study to evaluate returning fish that were released in previous years. Deferral of this task would sacrifice potential data. This project addresses RPA 107. Monitoring of unmarked fish was a priority in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program. US v OR Fall fishery agreement recommends securing funding for monitoring this production.Comment:
Beginning in the year 2000, unclipped (and unmarked) hatchery steelhead smolts were released in both the Clearwater and Salmon basins. Some 700,000 fish were released in this manner in 2000, apparently about the same in 2001, and the practice will continue indefinitely unless something changes. Unclipped A run adults from those releases appear to have comprised about 2.4% of the year 2001 run over Lower Granite dam, and B run adults will arrive upriver beginning in 2002. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA that this is a time-critical issue.The ISRP is very concerned about the release of unclipped fish, and questions if this project is appropriate for FWP funding. The ISRP suggests that the Council review the issue, along with the possibility that sufficient information is currently being gathered, primarily by Nez Perce Tribal staff, to assess whether the program is having net positive or negative consequences.
As a last resort the ISRP would reluctantly view as fundable Objective 1 (estimating adult return rate) and Objective 2 (determining distribution of adult returns). In the panel's view, Objective 3 (determining if juvenile densities change) would have enough risk of returning ambiguous results to make it of marginal utility. Objective 4 (document Lower Granite dam fall-back) is a separate issue unrelated to the rest of the proposal.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. Could inform managers regarding the return rates and impacts of unmarked, hatchery-produced steelhead
Comments
The objectives are good but ISRP concerns need to be addressed. Objective 4 (fallback at Lower Granite Dam) partially addresses RPA 107. Other objectives partially apply to RPA 184.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. The proposed studies are the responsibility of the USFWS and are not appropriate for Bonneville funding. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
107, 184
Comment: