FY07-09 proposal 200727400

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Lower Columbia / Columbia Lower

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: No new capital investments are expected in FY2010 or FY2011. Operations and maintenance costs are estimated based on a 5% increase from FY2009.

Termination date: Ongoing
Comments: The Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) (2005) indicated that often 10 to 15 years or more of status and trend monitoring are required before it can be considered a success. The LCFRB salmon recovery plan identified a 25-year horizon in which they expected salmon populations to be recovered, and the timeline for juvenile monitoring is expected to occur throughout the duration of the salmon recovery plan.

Final deliverables: Juvenile population estimates will be developed for all anadromous species in the basin with the precision goal for all estimates that 95% CI be less than + or - 25%. Final BPA reports are required 60 days after the end of the annual contract. Reports will be submitted to the COTR and finalized within 30 days. Reports will then be submitted to BPA for posting on their website (http://www.efw.bpa.gov/searchpublications/). All final reports are forwarded to data mangers in WDFW for inclusion into StreamNet, SalmonScape and Washington?s Salmon Stock Inventory (SaSI). StreamNet (http://www.streamnet.org/) is a cooperative database of the Pacific Northwest fisheries agencies and tribes administered by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) to manage and restore aquatic resources. SalmonScape (http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/) is WDFW's interactive computer mapping system to aid in on-the-ground salmon recovery projects. Reports are also made available to WDFW SaSI (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/) staff (WDFW 2003) who provide online information on population status and include adult and juvenile population information. When fish are coded-wire-tagged (CWT), information is submitted to RMIS.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: This proposal is similar to proposal #200734300 submitted by the same sponsor. This proposal is limited in scope and has many of the same deficiencies as #200734300. Adult returns apparently will not be assessed, so critical freshwater production parameters such as smolt to spawner ratios cannot be determined. Apparently, there is no companion monitoring of habitat which could allow changes in abundance to be related to habitat changes. Further explanations about the limitations of the periodic/rotating design for monitoring would also be helpful. The proposal would be improved if the work was explicitly linked to restoration evaluations. Additionally, the methods are dispersed throughout the proposal and therefore difficult to evaluate. Technical and scientific background: The problem is sufficiently identified and satisfies the need for monitoring found in Washington’s Lower Columbia subbasin plan. This proposal addresses the in-depth juvenile monitoring gaps identified from the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (2004) plan at the Level 3 or least intensive level, and builds on the existing juvenile salmonid monitoring program in Washington’s Lower Columbia River domain. No rationale is given for selection of the subbasins to be monitored. The sponsors need to discuss what is known about the biological and physical characteristics of the rivers. Are they representative of other rivers in the area so that results can be reasonably extrapolated? Are habitat and other physical characteristics being monitored so that changes in abundance can be related to habitat changes? Material in the Technical Background section would be more appropriate in the Methods section. The proposal would be improved if the rationale for juvenile population assessment was explained more fully. Given the variation in ocean survival, do fishery managers actually use juvenile abundance in forecasting SARs? Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal satisfies needs identified in the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board recovery plan. Is this project related to the Council’s Subbasin Plans? How do the redd and population count expansions fit into the (presumably) already established network of index streams? Most of the material in this section is not relevant in addressing the relationship to subbasin plans and more properly belongs in the Methods section. Relationships to other projects: The proposed work is part of a larger monitoring effort of lower Columbia River tributaries. The rivers were identified as primary populations by the NOAA Fisheries’ Technical Recovery Team (TRT). Although the project is put in the context of other salmon assessment projects in the subbasin, it is not integrated with similar projects in the lower watershed (Chinook River) (see project #200300600). Integrated stream and estuary approaches are needed to move ahead with an ecosystem approach. Again, material presented in this section is more appropriate for other sections and much of the material is extraneous to the proposed work (e.g, adult monitoring). Objectives: The objective states that production and productivity will be determined, but there is no explanation of how this will be done. Will SARs or smolts per spawner be determined? If so, how? The proposal would be improved if the objective of population estimates (wording in narrative) were related to the objective of juvenile salmonid outmigration abundance (wording in the proposal). Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods are standard and adequate but are scattered throughout the proposal instead of being consolidated in the Methods section. There is no indication of whether adult returns will be monitored so that smolts per spawner can be estimated? Monitoring and evaluation: The project would add data to long-term regional databases which could monitor stream productivity and possibly survival between life stages. However, the sponsors note that periodic or rotating monitoring programs will only detect relatively large changes in juvenile abundance. It is not clear if this degree of detection is satisfactory. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Facilities seem adequate. The sponsors appear to have experience with smolt trapping but reports and publications are limited. Personnel may be overcommitted as they are principal investigators on several other WDFW projects in this Province and others. Information transfer: The information will be transferred primarily through reports and data will be included in StreamNet other specific databases. Apparently inclusion in a regional database is dependent on a BPA program. The proponents should press those concerned to implement this regional database. This could have been part of the present proposal. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The value of the proposal to focal species would be higher and have more lasting value if the project was tied into habitat work, integrated with estuary studies, and linked to adult studies so smolt to adult returns could be determined. There is no discussion of non-focal species. It would seem that adverse effects on non-focal species would be limited. However, effects of trapping on non-focal species such as cottids and mammals should be considered. Valuable data on other salmonids such as sea run cutthroat could be collected.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: The sponsors do not adequately address ISRP comments, and the ISRP still considers the proposed work to be limited in scope. In addressing the ISRP’s comments, the sponsors often included extraneous material and referred the reviewer to other documents, reports and plans as a means of addressing the ISRP’s questions. It is our understanding that the proposals as well as the responses are to be stand-alone documents that do not require ISRP reviewers to search through other reports to find the answers to the ISRP’s questions. Two crucial concerns were not sufficiently addressed. First, the ISRP was concerned that the method the sponsors were using to assess juvenile abundance was not accurate enough to assess juvenile status and trends. The sponsors did not address this concern in a clear and convincing way. Second, the ISRP was concerned about the lack of habitat assessment to aid in explaining changes in juvenile abundance. The sponsors acknowledged that habitat work would not be done and referred to the Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) project ongoing in the Lower Columbia estuary. The sponsors, however, did not provide a clear explanation of how this project satisfied the need for habitat monitoring in their streams and how their project would be linked specifically to the IMW. In response to the ISRP’s question about habitat monitoring, the sponsors also cited the EDT modeling work done for the Lower Columbia. It is unclear how this modeling related explicitly to the ISRP’s specific question about habitat monitoring. The proposal and response were virtually identical (except for a few changes in river names, etc.) to those for 200734300.