FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 199202604

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

The estimated budget has changed significantly due to the change in scope.

Reason for change in scope

Because of comments received from the ISRP review of similar proposals in the Columbia Plateau (Proposals 199801600 and 25088), we decided to combine the habitat and juvenile salmonid and steelhead spawner monitoring objective (Objective 12) based on the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Program with this ongoing project rather than submit this portion as a new project. The addition of this objective will enhance the Tier-2 level monitoring in Oregon's portion of the Blue Mountain Province.

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

This project is heavily field oriented. We operate five juvenile fish traps in in two subbasins and conduct habitat, juvenile salmonid, and steelhead spawner monitoring work in many tributary streams in two subbasins. The large personnel component reflects the operation of two field offices for year round trapping, summer parr research and Oregon Plan monitoring. The supplies component reflects maintaining five screw traps, fish collection and tagging suppplies, monitoring survey supplies, the need for vehicles to access field locations, and operations of one field office plus assistance at the main research office. The travel budget is to provide transportation and per diem for field crews working in remote areas. The indirect rate is based on an agreement between ODFW and the U.S. Government.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The proposal fails to justify the need for Objective 12 and, in particular, why Objective 12.2 is necessary. It is unclear how the EMAP-based surveys directly support or complement the early life history research that constitutes the bulk of the proposal. How would these surveys differ from existing surveys and how does this work advance these assessments? How would the EMAP-based surveys fit into a long-term, province scale monitoring effort and how would this effort incorporate or build upon the ongoing early life history studies. A clearly defined monitoring plan for salmon in the Blue Mountain Province is necessary to provide context and justification the EMAP-based surveys.

Objective 13 is a worthwhile investigation. However, like objective 12, objective 13 has no direct connection to the ongoing early life history studies and should be incorporated into a new proposal. The issue at Wallowa Lake merits investigation. However, the goal of Objective 13 needs to be clarified. Is this a study in sockeye re-introduction or a study in kokanee assessment and restoration of the fishery? A general concern with this extensive sampling program, however, could be the degree of handling and sampling that occurs in these systems. Have the investigators considered how to maximize the efficiency of this sampling and/or are they concerned about the impact of repeated sampling of these fish. Are there ESA permit issues that should be considered? Further, while the proposal is highly dependent upon the use of PIT tags and applies thousands of them, there is not information on the determination of sample sizes or design used to determine how many tags to apply. Is there a statistical basis for determination of the number of tags released and fishes sampled, etc.? And finally, several times the text refers to the principles of the Oregon Plan. If these principles are determining sampling protocols and costs they should be described in the proposal and the proposed responses related to these principles.

Objectives 1-11 provide a comprehensive evaluation of spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead life-history variation. The proposal interacts with essentially all other NEOH proposals and is well integrated with the co-managers. Previous research has provided useful information on early life history diversity, egg-smolt survival, and smolt survival to LGR. The investigators propose to expand the project to include studies of the early life history of steelhead and an assessment of winter habitat for chinook. These additions are reasonable and in line with the BiOp and the F&W Program.

The proposal should be modified to reflect recent changes in the direction of salmon restoration within the Columbia Basin as indicated in the BiOp, the Basinwide Recovery Strategy (the All H paper), and the F&W program. These changes in direction include a greater emphasis on protection and restoration of tributary habitat. In support of this effort, the proposal needs a stronger habitat component that directly addresses the relationships of egg-smolt survival and early life history patterns to habitat conditions and habitat change in Grande Ronde River tributaries, including an assessment of limiting factors. The investigators should consider the following:

1. A project component that routinely assesses habitat conditions in all tributaries where egg-smolt survival and early life history patterns are being investigated. The habitat work proposed in objective 12 was not directly tied to specific habitat conditions in the tributaries where the on-going biological data was being collected.
2. Clear objectives and methods for addressing limiting factors in freshwater.
3. Improved estimates of egg-smolt survival including incorporating information on age structure of spawners in estimating egg deposition, more accurate redd counts, and more accurate enumeration of returning adults. Currently adult abundance is estimated from redd counts. There are numerous problems with this method.
4. Comparisons of habitat conditions and biological performance among tributaries and among reaches within tributaries that differ in habitat quality.
5. Estimates of summer parr survival and its relationship to summer rearing conditions. The budget should increase commensurate with the additional work. The investigators also should consider an assessment of non-native species distribution and abundance within the basin and interactions of non-native species and native salmonids.
Given the multiple tasks described in this proposal, there are several questions that may best be just listed for the author's consideration and response:
1. Objective 1 (page 15): the estimation of smolt numbers is an important component of the research, but to estimate these numbers requires measures of trap efficiency. There are no comments on how trap efficiency is measured, no data on consistency of estimates or how they vary with flow, etc., and no method presented on how the smolt numbers and variances are estimated.
2. Is there added value of the winter tagging in Objective 2 when tags have been applied in the late summer under Objective 3?
3. Objective 5 requires adult spawner data as well as the data described under this objective. How is the adult data collected and is the accuracy of that data comparable to the juvenile data? Life stage survival estimates require both adult and juvenile data.
4. Clarify the intention of Objective 6.2 (page 20). Are you actually sampling for yearling resident chinook that do not mature sexually?
5. What are the dates of trapping for spring chinook and steelhead? Objective 7 for steelhead seems identical to the objectives for chinook but the species are treated separately and double the costs for trap sampling.
6. Task 7.4 (page 21) refers to "paint" marking but it is not clear what the role of this mark is. Is paint marking just an avoidable mark used only for assess trap efficiency?
7. The methods to be applied for Objectives 9 and 10 are not well described. Further, it is not evident how the tasks described in Objective 10 actually address the objective defined.
8. Objective 11 (winter concealment habitat) is strongly supported as a task but we are uncertain that habitat characteristics should simply be defined in this way without verification of these values within these actual environments. Reviewers would strongly suggest some verification of the habitat definitions in the sample sites and following the use of these habitats during the late fall transition period when ice begins to form in these rivers.

Listing the publication of results could strengthen the proposal further.

---

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation
Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

The Wallowa Lake component has been resubmitted as a stand-alone project. This project addresses RPA 180 and 184. A significant new addition to this project involves EMAPing tasks under Objective 12. This new objective is not a high priority for all co-managers in this subbasin. A comprehensive regional monitoring plan needs to be developed to determine the priority of this monitoring effort for the region.

---

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-12A)
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Early Life History Studies - Ongoing Project

Fundable in part, except for objective 12 - EMAP, which is an important approach, but the methods are not adequately described in the response to justify funding.

This proposal provides a comprehensive evaluation of spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead life-history variation. The proposal interacts with essentially all other NEOH proposals and is well integrated with the co-managers. Previous research has provided useful information on early life history diversity, egg-smolt survival, and smolt survival to LGR. The investigators propose to expand the project to include studies of the early life history of steelhead and an assessment of winter habitat for chinook. These additions are reasonable and in line with the BiOp and the F&W Program.

The proposal has been modified to reflect recent changes in the direction of salmon restoration within the Columbia Basin as indicated in the BiOp, the Basinwide Recovery Strategy (the All H paper), and the F&W program. These changes in direction include a greater emphasis on protection and restoration of tributary habitat. The authors addressed the ISRP's comments on the need to relate habitat conditions to life histories by proposing extensive habitat surveys within the Minam, Lostine, Grande Ronde, and Catherine Creek basins. They will attempt to relate egg-smolt survival estimates to habitat conditions. The authors also propose to develop a study plan for assessing limiting factors. This is an appropriate response to the limiting factors question because careful thought and planning will be required to address this difficult issue.

The ISRP notes that Objective 12 (EMAP) is a "new" objective in an on-going proposal. The response justifies why this incremental program should be supported but it requires a substantial increase in funds. The methods and data do not have appropriate level of documentation in the proposal. The study design, parameters that will be measured, sampling methods, sampling frequency, and data analysis were not adequately described. The cost of this new activity is very large (half a millions dollars annually). The ISRP notes that the development of EMAP sampling is likely to be a frequent new activity. Costs associated with implementing this sampling procedure should be carefully assessed for efficient implementation. How results of the work will be integrated with a basin-scale monitoring program should also be discussed. Implementing a detailed new program in one specific area may have limited over-all benefit, unless the local issues justify this level of investment. The John Day may be a good location to test the use of EMAP for the F&W Program.

To assist in formulating a sound basinwide monitoring program, 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.

---

REVIEW:
NMFS Review
Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Expansion and extension of ongoing RM&E program in Grande Ronde and Imnaha River basins.

Comments
Absolutely necessary monitoring program for juvenile and adult salmonids in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha River basins.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

---

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation
Recommendation:
A Conditional
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Recommend funding in part. Do not recommend EMAP portion of project at this time until further review is conducted. EMAP is potentially a very important monitoring method, that we may want to implement within three years if pilot project #199801600 proves successful in the John Day basin. EMAP portion of project is scattered throughout several projects, and final analysis of planning has not been completed.

BPA RPA RPM:
180

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
180, 184

---

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

Council Recommendation: A long ongoing ODFW monitoring program for abundance, migration patterns and survival of chinook and steelhead, project sponsors requested new funding above the FY01 plus 3.4 percent cap to conduct additional monitoring activities (Oregon Plan EMAP) and an over-wintering survival study. Both activities were put as a priority by ODFW in the regional discussions on Blue Mountain priorities. The ISRP gave the project a Fund in Part designation supporting all aspects of the project except the EMAP activities. ISRP reasoned that though EMAP held great promise and could be a model for Tier 2 monitoring programs throughout the basin, they wanted to see a demonstration of results of the approach in the John Day before committing to the task in the Blue Mountains. NMFS observed that the project was an "absolutely necessary monitoring program for juvenile and adult salmonids in the Grande Ronde." Bonneville supported funding the project with the exception of the EMAP tasks. In regional discussions, the EMAP tasks were never taken into consideration, since they failed to gain the endorsement of the ISRP and would not be a part of any Council recommendation. The Council concurs with the Bonneville recommendation to fund the project and the new over-wintering study component as an important component of Biological Opinion implementation. Thus, the Council recommends increasing the base budget by $138,000 in Fiscal Year 2002.

---

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Fund ongoing project components plus new over-wintering component. Requires coordination with NMFS and Bonneville for coordination with RPA 180.

---

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Billing may be slow.

---

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05
Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Minor increase above 04 due to COLA

---

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:
$949,504	$949,504	$949,504

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website