FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199107300
Contents
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 |
| 199107300 Revised Budget | Response Attachment |
| 199107300 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
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 | Sam Sharr |
| Mailing address | 1414 E Locust Lane Nampa, ID 83686-8451 |
| Phone / email | 2084658404 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Steve Yundt |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Identifies limiting factors and recomends methods to improve adult-to-smolt and smolt-to-adult survival of chinook salmon and steelhead. Provides long-term monitoring data to determine the effectiveness of recovery actions and population status. |
| Target species | spring/summer chinook and steelhead trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.56 | -115.36 | This project collects data in freshwater rearing and spawning habitat throughout the Mountain Snake Province |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| RM&E RPA Action 190 |
| RM&E RPA Action 185 |
| RM&E RPA Action 189 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 180 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003. |
| NMFS | Action 190 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall continue to fund studies that monitor survival, growth, and other early life history attributes of Snake River wild juvenile fall chinook. |
| NMFS/BPA | Action 180 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003. |
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. |
| 1999 | Published Snake River spring and summer chinook salmon article in Fisheries |
| 1999 | Developed a D-value calculation model |
| 2000 | Began aging Snake River spring and summer chinook salmon to improve run reconstruction analysis |
| 2000 | Submitted manuscript on smolt-to-adult returns by migration route |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 198909800 | Evaluate Salmon Supplementation In Idaho Rivers (ISS) | Contributes to the general parr monitoring database |
| 199005500 | Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho | Contributes to the general parr monitoring database |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and collect long-term monitoring data for spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead trout populations in Idaho | Determine the relationship between redds in index areas relative to redds in the entire drainage for key populations | 2 | $39,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and collect long-term monitoring data for spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead trout populations in Idaho | 2003 | 2004 | $79,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $40,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Manage and collect long-term monitoring data for spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead trout populations in Idaho | a. Complete snorkel estimates of parr density and percent carrying capacity in a minimum of 50 high-priority GPM streams annually | 10 | $49,000 | |
| b. Collect physical stream habitat data in all GPM high priority streams. | 10 | $40,000 | ||
| c. Coordinate GPM sampling efforts with cooperating agencies | 10 | $5,000 | ||
| d. Manage and complete annual verification of the GPM database. | 10 | $35,000 | ||
| e. Index steelhead escapement in the Salmon and Clearwater subbasins by conduction aerial redd counts | 10 | $30,000 | ||
| f. Monitor spring and summer chinook salmon escapement in Idaho by coordinating and conducting redd count surveys | 10 | $10,000 | ||
| g. PIT tag a minimum of 700 emigrating chinook parr during the summer and fall, and 500 emigrating smolts during the spring, annually. | 10 | $171,000 | ||
| 2. Measure changes in steelhead trout and chinook salmon production attributable to habitat enehancement projects | a. Monitor long-term changes in rearing and spawning habitat from enhancement projects. | 10 | $43,000 | |
| b. Compare parr densities in treated and control stream sections. | 10 | $33,000 | ||
| 3. Estimate life cycle survival for wild and naturally produced steelhead trout and spring/summer chinook salmon | a. Estimate smolts per female production for aggregate Snake River basin spring and summer chinook to identify smolt-to-adult survival needed to achieve recovery | 10 | $30,000 | |
| b. Estimate ocean age proportions for wild or naturally produced spring/summer chinook salmon returning to the Mountain Snake Province | 10 | $75,000 | ||
| c. Estimate the length frequency of spring/summer chinook salmon adults with intact adipose fins passing Lower Granite Dam | 10 | $50,000 | ||
| d. Estimate aggregate smolt-to-adult survival of Snake River spring and summer chinook salmon using smolt and adult abundance estimates at Lower Granite Dam. | 10 | $35,000 | ||
| e. Estimate overall and migration route specific smolt-to-adult survival for both spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead trout using PTAGIS database and Monte Carlo simulations | 10 | $10,000 | ||
| f. Validate ocean age estimates using known age adults from PIT tag and coded wire tagged hatchery fish | 10 | $59,000 | ||
| g. PIT tag wild juvenile steelhead to increase the number of adult returns for the analysis described in Task 2d | 10 | $99,000 | ||
| h. Report weekly smolt detection information for the entire Snake River Basin during the spring outmigration to IDFG managers for recommending actions regarding hydrosystem operation | 10 | $18,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Manage and collect long-term monitoring data for spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead trout populations in Idaho | 2003 | 2006 | $1,422,000 |
| 2. Measure changes in steelhead trout and chinook salmon production attributable to habitat enehancement projects | 2003 | 2006 | $328,000 |
| 3. Estimate life cycle survival for wild and naturally produced steelhead trout and spring/summer chinook salmon | 2003 | 2006 | $1,663,000 |
| 4. Determine how well the existing M&E efforts in Idaho fill the needs of a Tier 2 M&E program, and have primary IDFG responsibility to develop a Teir 2 M&E program incorporating existing M&E efforts. | 2003 | 2005 | $325,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $929,000 | $945,000 | $971,000 | $891,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 11.5 | $342,875 |
| Fringe | $123,000 | |
| Supplies | $114,000 | |
| Travel | $10,000 | |
| Indirect | $166,000 | |
| Capital | $40,000 | |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 12500 | $28,125 |
| Subcontractor | $7,000 | |
| $831,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $831,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $831,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $857,758 |
| % change from forecast | -3.1% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. The proponents should address the need for development of a long term Columbia River Basin (including the Salmon subbasin) probabilistic sampling plan(s) for monitoring anadromous fishes, resident fishes, water quality, and other habitat quality parameters. The proponents also need to provide documentation that common monitoring methods are being used in the Salmon subbasin (e.g., project #199405000) and that data and metadata are being provided to Streamnet (or other database if Streamnet is not appropriate).This is a good monitoring and evaluation program based on monitoring subjectively selected streams and representative sites within strata on those streams. However, experience based on the use of similar surveys of index sites in the coastal coho streams of Oregon lead the ISRP to strongly recommend that the Idaho Provinces reassess the current monitoring design and site selections in development of a more comprehensive long-term monitoring program for all life history stages and species including resident fish. The ISRP continues to believe that the project needs to undergo a programmatic review, perhaps in conjunction with review of similar projects in Oregon, Washington, and Montana.
Monitoring and evaluation needs may be satisfied by the current survey sites and monitoring program during a period of low seeding levels, but the ISRP doubts that the project will meet the expectations and needs of the Province in the long term if anadromous fish abundance increases. It would be foolish to abandon the current design in the short term, but likewise foolish to not start integrating components of a design that allows statistical inferences to be made to the entire Snake Subbasin, other Idaho Subbasins, and individual important watersheds.
The ISRP recommends that the proponents of monitoring projects in the Idaho Provinces work with the Oregon, Washington, and Montana Provinces to develop monitoring and evaluation procedures with common field procedures and probabilistic site selection for the entire Columbia Basin. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Program (Nicholas 1997a, 1997b, 1999) as implemented in the Oregon coastal coho streams and the southern Columbia Plateau Province (John Day, Deschutes, Walla Walla (in Oregon) and Umatilla) is a Tier 2 level monitoring and evaluation program that may serve as a good model. Also, see the section on monitoring in the introduction to this report.
The proponents of this project should work closely with the proponents of Proposal #28051,"Assess and Monitor Steelhead in the Middle Fork Salmon River Subbasin", to ensure that the probabilistic sampling plan envisioned in #28051 is compatible with long range plans of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
All data should be made available via STREAMNET or other suitable electronic database, as soon as possible.
Minor comments and suggestions:
The proponents indicate that they "Use the PTAGIS database and a program developed by the ISS project to determine the disposition of detected PIT-tagged smolts." Also, they "Use those data and the model previously developed by INPMEP (Kiefer et al. 2001b) to estimate the number of PIT-tagged wild/natural smolts that migrated uncollected past the four main collector dams." The ISRP recommends that the proponents corroborate with NMFS statisticians in Seattle to compare methods and estimates for these important parameters.
The proponents should ensure the ISRP of cooperation with project #199102800,"Monitoring smolt migrations of wild Snake River sp/sum chinook salmon" for lack of overlap in application of PIT-TAGs to wild anadromous fish and sharing of information on downstream detections and adult returns.
Comment:
This project addresses RPAs 180 and 190.Comment:
Fundable. The proponents addressed the need for development of a long-term Columbia River Basin (including the Salmon subbasin) probabilistic sampling plan(s) for monitoring anadromous fishes, resident fishes, water quality, and other habitat quality parameters. The proponents also provided assurance that common monitoring methods are being used in the Salmon subbasin (e.g., project #199405000) and that data and metadata will be provided to Streamnet and other databases. Given the importance of following a more appropriate sampling strategy, this amended project should be assigned priority status.The implementation of a high-level coordinated monitoring and evaluation plan for aquatic resources throughout the Columbia River Basin would likely be an unprecedented advance in research and a distinct advantage to the resource. Collocation of study sites for fish counts, aquatic habitat, and water quality would enhance the region's ability to draw meaningful statistical conclusions from the array of M&E projects currently underway. The Nez Perce Tribe and the IDFG Department could have lead roles in development of such a plan (see the response to the initial ISRP review of Project 28051 Assess and Monitor Steelhead in the Middle Fork Salmon River Subbasin).
The proponents should interact closely with Project 199801600 in the Columbia Plateau (Jim Ruzycki and Richard Carmichael, ODFW, "Monitor Natural Escapement and Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook Salmon." ODFW revised this proposal to create a comprehensive plan to include all monitoring and evaluation for all anadromous salmonid lifestages and habitats in the John Day Basin. The M&E program in the John Day Basin is apparently developing as a model for the Oregon section of the Columbia Basin and is being carefully reviewed by agencies in Washington. The ISRP recommends that the proponents consider using aquatic habitat data protocols recommended in Johnson et al. (2001) (Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. Jones, P. Roger, T. A. O'Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 211pp).
The ISRP continues to believe that the project needs to undergo a programmatic review, perhaps in conjunction with review of similar projects in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Monitoring and evaluation needs may be satisfied by the current subjectively selected survey sites and monitoring program during a period of low seeding levels, but the ISRP doubts that the project will meet the expectations and needs of the Province in the long term if anadromous fish abundance increases. It would be foolish to abandon the current design in the short term, but likewise foolish to not start integrating components of a design that allows statistical inferences to be made to the entire Snake Subbasin, other Idaho Subbasins, and the Columbia Basin.
The ISRP strongly supports the commitment in the amended proposal to work with the Oregon, Washington, and Montana Provinces to develop monitoring and evaluation procedures with common field procedures and probabilistic site selection for the entire Columbia Basin.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. The proposed work targets a monitoring program for anadromous salmonids in the SR basin. This is an extension of current work, and is highly beneficial to recovery planning in the region. The work covers the anadromous zone in Idaho. The work tracks trends in populations and environmental factors, as well as collecting field observations on fish/habitat relationships.
Comments
This is another important contribution to the design of a comprehensive monitoring program in the SR basin. How they all should be combined, we are not sure, but all of the pieces are here (in multiple proposals from several agencies…).
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend as critical implementation of RPAs 180 and 190, but the project should be reassessed when a regional RM&E plan is developed. BPA RPA RPM:
180, 190
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
180, 190
Comment:
Comment:
Fund to implement RPA's 180 and 190, but the project should be reassessed when a regional RM&E plan is developed.Comment:
increases due to salary increases see sponsor table…. On track.Comment:
Increases needed to offset: 1) increased employee salaries and benefit rates, 2) increase fleet rental rates, 3) increased computer equipment rental rates, 4) increased facility lease and utilities charges, 5) juvenile and adult equipment replacement costs, and 6) increased biometrics costs.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
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