FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28032

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

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

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).

Comment:

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Comments
Very important work for SR SH, however, might be best implemented within an RME pilot?

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
179, 180

Comment: