FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28032

Additional documents

TitleType
28032 Narrative Narrative
28032 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
28032 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAssessment of A-Run Steelhead Populations in the Clearwater River Basin
Proposal ID28032
OrganizationNez Perce Tribe (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameNancy Hoefs
Mailing address3404 Hwy. 1 Orofino, ID 83544
Phone / email2084764044 / nancyh@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this projectJaime Pinkham
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionAn 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 speciesSnake River Steelhead
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
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

YearAccomplishment
new project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$505,800$531,090$557,645$585,526

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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
Date:
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).


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

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.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits 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


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

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


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: