FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28032
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 |
---|---|
28032 Narrative | Narrative |
28032 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
28032 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Assessment of A-Run Steelhead Populations in the Clearwater River Basin |
Proposal ID | 28032 |
Organization | Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Nancy Hoefs |
Mailing address | 3404 Hwy. 1 Orofino, ID 83544 |
Phone / email | 2084764044 / nancyh@nezperce.org |
Manager authorizing this project | Jaime Pinkham |
Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
Short description | An assessment of the current status and performance of the A-run steelhead population in the Clearwater Subbasin (i.e., population abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). |
Target species | Snake River Steelhead |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
46.4258 | -117.0397 | Lower Clearwater River Basin-- from mouth of Clearwater River |
46.1458 | -115.9798 | to near the confluence of South Fork Clearwater |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Hydro RPA Action 118 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|---|---|---|
NMFS | Action 179 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work with affected parties to establish regional priorities within the congressional appropriations processes to set and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding to develop recovery goals for listed salmon ESUs in the Columbia River basin. Tasks shall include defining populations based on biological criteria and evaluating population viability in accordance with NMFS' viable salmonid population approach. These tasks shall be completed by 2003. |
NMFS | Action 180 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
new project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
199005500 | Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers | Assessment of B-run steelhead supplemenatation in the upper Clearwater Subbasin. Assessment of genetic similarities, life history traits B-run and A-run populations will lead to a better under of the popualiton as a whole. |
199901800 | Characterize and quantify residual steelhead in the Clearwater River | Proposed work will help to increase recapture rates of study fish and aid in assessing imapcts/contributions of hatchery fish to wild A-run populations. |
199608600 | Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program | Coordinates the implementation of watersehd restoration affecting steelhead production in the Clearwater Subbasin, including proposed study reaches in Little Canyon Creek, and Potalch River. |
199706000 | NPT- Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program | Coordinates the implementation of watershed restoration affecting steelhead production in the Clearwater Subbasin, including proposed study reaches in Lolo Creek, Lapwai Creek, and Big Canyon. |
199901600 | Protect and Restore Big Canyon Creek | Restoration efforts proposed are targeted to improve A-run steeelhead habitat, Hydrological data collected will aid in assesssment of natural variation in environmental conditions. |
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 |
---|
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Quantify the abundance and productivity of A-run steelhead population in the Clearwater Subbasin | Task 1 Estimate of spawner:spawner ratios in Big Canyon Creek . (Adult weir operated on Big Canyon Creek) | 5-10 years | $137,360 | |
Task 2. Determine smolt to smolt estimates from Big Canyon Creek. (Screw trap operated near mouth of Big Canyon Creek) | 5-10 years | $109,888 | ||
Task 3. Quantification of juvenile production of A-run steelhead in the lower Clearwater Subbasin. (snorkel surveys in 6 lower tributaries) | 5-10 years | $34,340 | ||
2. Assess and monitor changes in spatial structure and genetic diversity of the A-run steelhead population in Clearwater Subbasin. | Task 1. Determine change in spatial structure of A-run steelhead population in Clearwater Subbasin (Genetic survey). | 1 year | $164,832 | Yes |
Task 2. Estimate straying rates among Clearwater SR steelhead populations (Adult radio tracking to spawning ground). | 5-10 years | $171,700 | ||
Task 3. Track changes in diversity of life history traits (adult traits measures at weir). | 5-10 years | $10,302 | ||
3. Determine the influence of environmental variation on status (abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity) of the A-run Clearwater steelhead population. | Task 1. Compile existing and historic environmental data that has been collected in the basin and coordinate with co-managers to collected environmental data that may be attributing to environmental variation within the lower Clearwater Subbasin. | 5-10 years | $24,038 | |
Task 2. Determine relationship of environmental variation to variation in A-run steelhead population attributes. (Data analysis) | 5-10 years | $17,170 | ||
4. Communicate results / dissemination information with resource managers. | Task 1. Communicate results / dissemination information derived from study | 5-10 years | $17,170 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Quantify the abundance and productivity of A-run steelhead population in the Clearwater Subbasin | 2003 | 2006 | $998,468 |
2. Assess and monitor changes in spatial structure and genetic diversity of the A-run steelhead population in Clearwater Subbasin. | 2003 | 2006 | $930,886 |
3. Determine the influence of environmental variation on status (abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity) of the A-run Clearwater steelhead population. | 2003 | 2006 | $178,765 |
4. Communicate results / dissemination information with resource managers. | 2003 | 2006 | $71,942 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$505,800 | $531,090 | $557,645 | $585,526 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: Project Leader (1 FTE), Biologist (1 FTE), Techs (5 FTEs) Progam and Admin Sup (0.5 FTE) | $197,700 |
Fringe | (estiamted at 29%) | $57,330 |
Supplies | $50,000 | |
Travel | GSA vehilcles, air travel | $30,000 |
Indirect | 20.9 % | $70,020 |
Capital | adult weir, screwtrap, trailer, radio tags, receivers, data loggers | $152,000 |
PIT tags | # of tags: 15000 | $33,750 |
Subcontractor | genetic analysis | $96,000 |
$686,800 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost | $686,800 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2002 budget request | $686,800 |
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 seriously question whether much of this project is needed, especially for the intended 5-10 years. Beyond Objective 2, monitoring spatial structure and genetic diversity, the rest is questionable because it is redundant with NPT proposals for steelhead assessment and habitat work (inadequate planning) in Lapwai, Big & Little Canyon creeks, and because the millions being spent to restore habitat in those lower Clearwater tributaries seem to be producing few results. The need is for comprehensive evaluation of current habitat conditions (especially temperature) through all the tributaries used by A-run fish, and only then an evaluation of what gains are possible and where best to begin (as is being done by the Yakama Nation in the Yakima basin, with EDT).The work on genetic structuring (microsatellite analysis) should be omitted. Probably enough has already been done. And what if the project were to find a difference? How would that information be applied? At least one reviewer was unconvinced that A run and B run are distinct; the apparent distinction may only be a function of ocean growth and survival. Why wouldn't there have been gene flow in the past? Likewise, regarding straying rate, the radio tagging work should be saved for later, and investigators should get on with the task of stock assessment and stock status and towards developing an evaluation program. What about resident rainbow trout (predominantly males?)?
More precise and meaningful usage of the carrying capacity concept is needed. The proposal does little to quantitatively identify limits to production. It could be used to justify a hatchery approach (see comments on 28031), but hatchery fish may be even less unlikely than wild fish to survive in these streams (perhaps due to temperature limitation), unless special, intensive selection of broodstock were done, or major habitat improvements were to unfold rapidly.
This is a purportedly required study, touted among other proposals as their monitoring and evaluation component. As it stands, it will not provide the M&E values expected. To evaluate habitat improvement or hatchery effectiveness, monitoring in more than one tributary would be required, and with adequate assignment of treatment and control streams. At best, it might provide some much needed stock status information.
There was no mention of altered ocean conditions in the proposal as the leading cause for the sudden, dramatic, and persistent decline in returns through the 1990s, a pattern that was not consistent with the timing of what was listed as the potential causes (dam operation, habitat degradation, overfishing).
The spawner-recruit relationship proposed for examination in the project has been attempted by other steelhead investigators. The authors need to examine those works carefully. The life stages should be split into two stanzas, the density-dependent freshwater phase (spawner to smolt) and the marine phase (smolt to adult). Freshwater production (Ricker a) can be examined in terms of smolts per spawner as a function of the number of spawners.
Variability in parr sampling efficiencies and in parr densities, particularly at low escapement levels and with variable distribution of redds, will frustrate attempts at comparison and should be discarded in favor of comparative snorkel surveys of adult abundance in key index monitoring sites within the study stream (i.e., fish fence present) and among others. Alternatively, and preferably, the comparison among other streams should be based on smolt yield in treated and untreated watersheds.
For adult enumeration, consider electronic (Logie) counters that remain functional at high flows. These require a civil structure or crump weir, or preferably, a purpose-built structure. Adult sampling for biological data can still be incorporated in the design; the population need only be sub-sampled to determine age structure, etc.
For smolt estimation, a full-counting structure with random sampling is best, but may not be possible due to high flows. Two RSTs are required (or two locations: one for marking, the other for recapture, each with as many RSTs as necessary to obtain an adequate recapture rate). See Dempson and Stansbury (1991).
Comment:
This project addresses RPA 179 and 180. This project compliments other proposed work in the Potlatch drainage. The genetic work may be redundant and could possible be deferred.Comment:
Not fundable. ISRP reviewers seriously question whether this new project is needed, especially for the intended 5-10 years. Much is questionable because it shows redundancy with NPT proposals for steelhead assessment and habitat work in Lapwai, Big & Little Canyon creeks, and because it appears the concerted effort through the Fish and Wildlife Program to restore habitat in those lower Clearwater tributaries seems to be producing few results. There is a need for comprehensive stock assessment and evaluation of current habitat conditions (especially temperature) through all the tributaries used by A-run fish. Only then would it be possible to evaluate potential gains and where best to begin. This is being done, for example, by the Yakama Nation in the Yakima basin, with EDT.The work on genetic structuring (microsatellite analysis) seems of especially low priority. Probably enough has already been done. And what if the project were to find a difference? How would that information be applied? At least one reviewer was unconvinced that A run and B run are distinct; the apparent distinction may only be a function of ocean growth and survival. Why wouldn't there have been gene flow in the past?
Reviewers feel the dialog provided by the response process has enabled them to pass a number of technical comments and suggestions to the proposal authors. Undoubtedly, Clearwater systems are functioning below capacity, since adult returns are low. If parr or smolts are at 35% of capacity, what then? Does this imply adult returns were, say, 10% of capacity (smolt yield may be higher due to the density dependent response at low adult density)? Is this a danger zone that triggers management actions, as it should? More importantly, are they below capacity and also below replacement? It is that information that is required from stock status, thus the need for reliable adult and smolt data. Reviewers feel it is unfortunate that the good advice on better methods of smolt estimation and adult enumeration based on published successes elsewhere on the Pacific coast and in Atlantic salmon studies were not incorporated. A revised and more focused proposal would be welcome in the future that is complete with data review, analysis and reporting, and clearly states tasks that are supported by the Focus Group.
The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. Supports improvements in survival, abundance and distribution by identifying key opportunities for implementing actions. Assess population abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of A-run steelhead in the Clearwater subbasin. This project will improve understanding of the A-run steelhead population.
Comments
Very important work for SR SH, however, might be best implemented within an RME pilot?
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:
179, 180
Comment: