FY 2000 proposal 199107300

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
199107300 Narrative	Narrative
199107300 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation
Proposal ID	199107300
Organization	Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Doug Nemeth
Mailing address	1414 E. Locust Lane Nampa, ID 83686
Phone / email	2084658404 / dnemeth@idfg.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Salmon
Short description	Improves adult-to-smolt and smolt-to-adult survival of chinook salmon and steelhead. Identifies limiting factors and methods to improve survival. Provides monitoring to determine the effectiveness of recovery actions and population status.
Target species	Snake River spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1984	The general parr monitoring database was started in 1984 and continues today. It represents the most comprehensive salmon and steelhead database in Idaho and is the only longterm database for steelhead.
1985	Documented the relative success of instream structures versus off-channel habitat development to increase parr production.
1988	Increased chinook and steelhead parr production by over 135,000 fish following habitat improvements.
1988	Identified factors affecting survival of chinook and steelhead parr.
1988	Estimated chinook egg-to-parr survival in the headwaters of the Salmon River and Crooked River.
1988	Estimated chinook egg-to-parr survival of fish supplemented by different methods (e.g. adult outplants, fry releases, egg outplants).
1988	Estimated survival impacts due to irrigation diversions.
1989	Estimated seeding level for A-run and B-run steelhead in specific rearing areas.
1992	Identified differences in peak arrival time to Lower Granite dam between hatchery and wild chinook.
1993	Determined release strategies for hatchery chinook smolts and adults to increase survival and production.
1994	Documented adult chinook and steelhead escapement to three pristine wilderness streams during 1994-1996.
1997	Identified decreased survival associated with multiple collection and bypass.
1997	Verified PATH chinook salmon smolt-to-adult recovery goals with Snake River basin smolts/female estimates.
1998	Completed model for estimating smolt-to-adult return rate by migration route.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
8909800	Idaho supplementation studies	PIT tags chinook and steelhead used in smolt-to-adult return rate (SAR) analysis, collects samples from chinook carcasses for aging, estimates production, collects data for general parr monitoring sites
8909802	Salmon supplementation studies	PIT tags chinook and steelhead used in SAR analysis, collects samples from chinook carcasses for aging, estimates production and productivity for limiting factor analysis, collects data for general parr monitoring sites
8909803	Salmon supplementation studies	PIT tags chinook and steelhead used in SAR analysis, collects samples from chinook carcasses for aging, estimates production and productivity for limiting factor analysis, collects data for general parr monitoring sites
8909801	Salmon supplementation studies	PIT tags chinook and steelhead used in SAR analysis, collects samples from chinook carcasses for aging, estimates production and productivity for limiting factor analysis, collects data for general parr monitoring sites
9005500	Steelhead supplementation studies	PIT tags steelhead used in SAR analysis
9064	Chinook salmon spatial habitat analysis	Conducts salmon escapement monitoring which complements proposed work for increased escapement monitoring
9102800	Monitoring smolt migration of wild Snake River spring/summer chinook	PIT tags chinook used in SAR analysis
5520800	Listed stock adult escapement monitoring	Conducts salmon escapement monitoring which complements increased escapement monitoring
9801002	Captive rearing initiative for Salmon R. chinook salmon, M&E	The report on chinook population status will be used by project 9801002 to identify high risk populations that could potentially benefit from a captive program
9303501	Red R. Watershed Restoration Project	This project measures fish production and productivity in Red R. and as such is an integral monitoring component of the Red R. watershed restoration project.
9600600	PATH- Facilitation, Tech. Assistance & Peer Review	General parr monitoring and smolt-to-adult information produced by this project have been used in the PATH process
9600800	PATH- Participation by State and Tribal Agencies	General parr monitoring and smolt-to-adult information produced by this project have been used in the PATH process
9700200	PATH- UW Technical Support	General parr monitoring and smolt-to-adult information produced by this project have been used in the PATH process

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost
Personnel		$311,942
Fringe		$112,299
Supplies		$55,015
Operating		$48,640
Capital		$37,500
Travel		$28,935
Indirect		$133,181
Subcontractor		$40,000
		$767,512

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$767,512
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$767,512
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Completion of Objective 1 is dependent upon the nature of available data and the amount and kind of remedial work necessary. As such, the completion date of 6/2007 represents a rough estimate.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Delay Funding

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Delay funding until the project is subjected to comprehensive independent peer review. There is a clear programmatic need for monitoring and evaluation of supplementation efforts, but this project provides little evidence that the job is getting done.

Comments: This is an ongoing study that is too huge, amorphous, and multi-faceted to inspire confidence in the reviewers in the project's future success or the competence of the project personnel. It is really a multi-project program. Separate proposals for each major component are needed to make the objectives clear and to enable evaluation. As it stands, the proposal is confused and has problems with logic of presentation. There is a lot of detailed background in the literature related to each of the proposal's objectives. The proposal should put these into context and interpret their findings.

This project builds quantified targets into its objectives, but the tasks are not directly aligned with achieving these objectives for objectives 1 and 2. For example, in Objective 2, tasks are a series of "continue to" activities. Have the conduct of these activities in the past led to increased survival? If not, what is the justification of continuing the same activities? There is not much explanation for a large budget.

The proposal mixes statements of method into the technical background and objectives. For example, the "products" of objectives are often stated as procedures. Therefore, the project's objectives have to some extent become the performance of methods rather than the attainment of biological results. Success of the project depends on several assumptions, some of which could be tested. Perhaps the study would be better served if its scope were reduced and some to these assumptions tested.

Other problems with the proposal include: (1) Past activities described for the "project" are not consistent with the project title. (2) The project history states the types (subject categories) of past findings but not what was found, i.e., no real information. (3) In the methods section, the discussion of aging seems problematic.

There is some discussion of the NMFS's specification of 12 metapopulations. If the monitoring is to assess the relative condition of each metapopulation, there should be some analysis of the number of sub-populations needed to represent the metapopulation. Further, given the high variability in data from monitoring salmonid populations there should be some analysis (statistical) demonstrating that the sites chosen will provide the data necessary to make management decisions.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Nonwatershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes -

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? No - Tasks do not address Objectives 1 & 2

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

This project is important and should continue. We recommend funding in order achieve management objectives in this region.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 99-4)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund. The response was excellent and makes it much clearer what the project is about, what is taking place in it, what has been accomplished, and where it is going. The response creates confidence in the capability of the project team. Parts of it could serve as a model for future proposals.

However, the project still needs to undergo a programmatic review. The project should be further assessed by independent reviewers to ensure its components form a coherent package consistent with the program goal. The review should ensure that all components are progressing via sound science. Reviewers trust that all parties involved in the project (including the Council and independent biometricians) are discussing the variability of estimated SARs and have an appreciation of the number of years of monitoring that may be required to come up with usable results.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$884,640	$884,640	$884,640

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website