Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | 15-Mile Creek Steelhead Smolt Production |
| Proposal ID | 199304001 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Erik Olsen |
| Mailing address | 3450 West 10th The Dalles, OR 97058 |
| Phone / email | 5412968045 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Chip Dale |
| Review cycle | Columbia Gorge |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Fifteenmile |
| Short description | Estimate subbasin smolt production for the wild population of winter steelhead in Fifteenmile Creek and collect information on selected life history and biological characteristics of downstream migrant fishes endemic to Fifteenmile Creek. |
| Target species | Winter steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 45.45 |
-121.13 |
Fifteenmile Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1999 |
Estimated age specific wild winter steelhead and natural spring chinook salmon smolt production from the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin for the years 1998-1999. |
| 1999 |
Estimated selected life history patterns for wild and naturally produced salmonids migrating from the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin during the years 1998-1999. |
| 1999 |
Estimated selected morphometric and meristic characteristics of wild and naturally produced anadromous salmonid smolts migrating from the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin during the years 1998-1999. |
| 1999 |
Monitored stream flows at the mouth (RM 0.5) of Fifteenmile Creek from 1998-1999. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1) Determine abundance and life history patterns of resident and anadromous salmonids and Pacific lamprey in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin. |
a. Estimate numbers of wild winter steelhead smolts migrating out of the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin with a mark and recapture program operated at a downstream migrant trapping facility located at River Mile (RM) 0.5 in the mainstem of Fifteenmile Creek. |
6 |
$24,473 |
|
| 1) |
b. Estimate the relative abundance of non-rainbow-steelhead salmonid migrants (i.e., primarily spring chinook salmon and cutthroat trout) and Pacific lamprey ammocoetes moving past a downstream migrant trap located in Fifteenmile Creek (see Task a). |
6 |
$100 |
|
| 1) |
c. Estimate age structure of downstream migrant wild rainbow-steelhead. |
6 |
$2,200 |
|
| 1) |
d. Estimate temporal distribution of downstream migrant wild winter steelhead smolts in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin. |
6 |
$100 |
|
| 1) |
e. Estimate selected morphometric characteristics of downstream migrant wild winter steelhead; including mean fork length (mm) and condition factor. |
6 |
$100 |
|
| 1) |
f. Estimate selected morphometric characteristics of other downstream migrant salmonids (i.e., primarily spring chinook salmon and cutthroat trout) sampled at the migrant trap; including mean fork length (m) and condition factor. |
6 |
$100 |
|
| 1) |
g. Prepare an annual report summarizing biological data collected in FY 2000 (i.e., each FY's annual report will be prepared in the following Fiscal Year). |
6 |
$1,500 |
|
| 1) |
h. Coordinate with other inter- and intra- agency activities which effect the ODFW's (i.e., M&E) component of the HRPP. |
6 |
$4,731 |
|
| 1) |
i. Continue activities required for project administration including: preparation of sampling plans, inventory reports, and SOW's; maintenance of financial records, purchasing of supplies; maintenance of field equipment, and budget tracking. |
6 |
$400 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $28,500 | $30,000 | $31,500 | $33,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: .33 |
$10,060 |
| Fringe |
@44% |
$4,426 |
| Supplies |
|
$1,500 |
| Travel |
|
$368 |
| Indirect |
@ 26.6% |
$4,350 |
| Capital |
Purcase of a juvenile migrant trap |
$13,000 |
| $33,704 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $33,704 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $33,704 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $28,500 |
| % change from forecast | 18.3% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
The budget was higher than the FY 2000 forecast because we are requesting dollars to purchase a downstream migrant trap. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed us to use one of their surplus traps in past FY's but this trap will not be available for use, by this project, in FY 2001.
Reason for change in scope
There are no changes planned in the scope of this project for FY 2001.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| BPA project number 1993-040-00 |
Share machine shop and office expenses. |
$17,000 |
cash |
| BPA project number 1988-053-04 |
Share machine shop and office expenses. |
$17,000 |
cash |
| BPA project number 1993-040-00 |
Share heavy equipment. |
$0 |
in-kind |
| Local landowner |
Access to private property for purposes of operating a downstream migrant trap. |
$0 |
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:
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP's concerns. The anticipated improvements from the fencing and water acquisition projects suggest that the productivity of the system for winter steelhead may improve for the future. The proposed budget for a screw trap may be necessary for stock assessment; but reviewers are concerned about the adequacy of the proposed stock assessment. Proposers do not seem to consider gathering information about survival outside the basin (PIT tags), nor do they consider the value of demographic sampling (scales for aging) or of size and condition information. It may be that steelhead fry and parr may not rear only in Fifteenmile Creek but also may use the Columbia mainstem for rearing, historically; this project could provide information about this life history. A review of the methods and effectiveness of rotary screw traps in providing reliable smolt yield estimates may be required. Recapture rates may be low, but methods of improving the technique may be available (such as separate marking and recapture sites). A province-wide agreement on monitoring protocol and sites would assist (see comments on subbasin planning workshops under Programmatic Issues).
Recommendation:
Urgent/High Priority
Date:
Nov 15, 2000
Comment:
Demographic information is being collected through this program on the steelhead smolts. Due to the limited number of outmigrants, PIT tags are not being used due to low probability of recovery. The ISRP recommends modifying the scope of this project which would exceed the needs for the Fifteenmile subbasin at this time. The project provides the foundation of all fish monitoring in the Fifteenmile subbasin for all activities and therefore is considered urgent at this time. If this data were lost, the ability to measure the success of any project in this subbasin would be lost.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 1, 2000
Comment:
Do not fund. The proposers did not respond to the ISRP concern about adequacy of mark/recapture design. Methods entailing a single trap and upstream release of transported marked fish are biased and imprecise. The ISRP is concerned that the assessment information the proposers are collecting will not be adequate in estimation of smolt yield, and of limited value without the addition of data on adult escapement, and that continuing the current program may give misleading or highly uncertain data. The ISRP recognizes the need for some of the intended information for a useful stock status assessment, but the current plan is not sound.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 16, 2001
Comment:
The ISRP recommended no funding for ODFW's proposed monitoring project. The panel's report concluded that the monitoring design is not adequate for estimating smolt yield and of limited value without data on adult escapement. ODFW responds that designing a monitoring strategy to respond to the ISRP's review has feasibility challenges and additional costs. ODFW is seeking funding for adult trapping facility in the current High Priority solicitation process. ODFW maintains that the information from the project is still of benefit given the relatively low cost of the project.
Staff recommendation: The staff concluded that the monitoring issues in Fifteenmile Creek represent the larger monitoring and evaluation questions raised in the ISRP's provincial report. The report emphasizes that the ISRP does not call for "major research level" data collection for all projects. Rather, the report suggests that monitoring should be coordinated among related projects. In the case of Fifteenmile Creek, the monitoring issues are likely common with other tributary riparian protection and restoration strategies and some common monitoring approach is likely to be more cost-effective than investing in a full suite of monitoring facilities for every project.
Given the ISRP's negative review, and the need to address these questions on a programmatic level, the staff recommend that the Council call on Bonneville to convene a work group involving the monitoring staff of the fish and wildlife management agencies to develop a cooperative monitoring strategy for riparian protection projects. The Council staff expects to see similar issues in the Plateau provincial review and suggest that a programmatic review of habitat protection monitoring is the most effective way to resolve these questions. If such a programmatic review recommends a monitoring strategy in Fifteenmile Creek, the Council should revisit this funding recommendation.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 11, 2001
Comment:
