FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200301700

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 primary objective of this proposed status monitoring plan for Columbia River Basin is a statistically sound sampling design that when implemented will generate useful data with known analytical and predictive power. The primary complication arises from the enormous spatial scale and resulting heterogeneity of the sampling areas and indicators. The proponents propose to develop a modern and statistically rigorous sampling program informed by knowledge of demographic and habitat processes. In general the ISRP supports this effort to develop and test status and trend monitoring approaches capable of the statistical rigor specifically required by the region's natural resource management agencies and personnel.

The ISRP recommends that the proponent consider modifying the proposal to include pilot projects in each of the four states (e.g., pilot projects for resident bull trout in Montana, anadromous species in a tributary of the Salmon River in Idaho in cooperation with the ongoing Idaho production surveys, cooperation with the pilot M&E work in the John Day Basin of Oregon and perhaps the Wenatchee Basin in Washington). In particular it seems that the John Day Basin could be included to eliminate duplication of effort, where we understand that a pilot program is underway on many of the objectives of this proposal.

The proponents should discuss the relationship of the habitat and riparian survey protocols selected for use and the protocols recommended in "Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Northwest: Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and British Columbia" (Johnson, et., al. 2001).

Other points that need clarification are: 1) Is there a probabilistic sampling procedure for habitat surveys in Subtask 2.1.1. -- Test habitat assessment methods?, 2) Discuss the ongoing census based surveys that will act as the 'truth' in Subtask 2.1.2. -- Test adult population assessment methods. Are there no sources of error?, 3) How are data collected on juveniles in pools < 6 m2 in surface area or < 40 cm deep or in other pools where snorkeling is not feasible? 4) In Subtask 2.1.3 -- Test juvenile population/productivity assessment methods, it is unclear if abundance of juveniles is estimated or just presence/absence. How are abundance or presence/absence estimated if not all pools or other parts of the reach are not assessed? 5) What exactly is to be tested in Subtask 2.1.4 -- Test probabilistic sampling based approaches? 6) What do you mean by "Since stream network geometry is a strong function of gradient, geology and precipitation, the weighting of streams in the sampling scheme should be tested for each major subbasin."?, and 7) Develop a monitoring and evaluation plan. It is not appropriate for one of the most quantitative proposal to not have a quantitative monitoring and evaluation plan for itself.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments: STATUS MONITORING SUBGROUP -- This proposal seeks to develop, as subbasin scale pilot programs, status and trend monitoring efforts for anadromous salmonids and their habitat in the upper Wenatchee and Grande Ronde River basins.

This proposal most directly addresses RPA 180, and supports elements in up to 10 additional RME RPAs.

RPA 180 - The objective is to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program, focusing on population and environmental status. This proposal is in direct response to that need. The approach is to initiate two pilot efforts in different subbasins to establish a foundation of suitable sampling protocols and estimation procedures. Our work group sees merit in this approach. Good thinking has gone into this product. However the proposal could be improved somewhat by providing more details on a few key issues. Those issues are specified as guidelines for implementing status monitoring, in a draft RME framework document that has had limited circulation (RME Framework for the 2000 Biological Opinion - NMFS and Action Agencies). Those guidelines are useful in proposal develop, as well as implementation. Clearly this proposal has adopted some of the guidelines. But we recommend the full complement of guidelines be considered. Separate guidelines were compiled for adult, juvenile life stages and environmental attributes. As an example we reproduce the population status adult life stage guidelines from that document here:

Proposed Guidelines -Adult Life Stage:

1. Clearly identify the demographic scale (e.g. population, ESU, deme; wild/natural or hatchery origin) for which abundance estimates will be produced.
2. Demonstrate that the target unit is readily distinguishable from other sympatric population units (e.g. spawning location, timing, etc.).
3. Identify the performance measure or indicator that will be monitored/enumerated (e.g. redds, carcasses, weir counts, dam counts etc.) in order to estimate spawner escapement. If multiple methods (e.g., weir counts and redd counts) are used to enumerate the same population, specify.
4. Describe the method used to enumerate the indices, e.g., aerial or ground surveys, peak or cumulative (repeated) counts, and the error associated with the method.
5. Specify any expansion factors (e.g. spawners/redd, expansions beyond index areas) or other adjustments (e.g. harvest removals, passage mortality) that need to be applied to the raw counts. Provide the rationale supporting the use of those expansion factors, how the factors change over time, how they are estimated, and assess their reliability.
6. Provide estimates of the annual age structure of the sampled population, and how this is estimated.
7. Provide an assessment of the accuracy and precision associated with the proposed methods for estimating spawner escapement, or total numbers of returning adults.

Data will be collected on an annual basis at the sub-basin scale:

• Adults, Spawners, or Redds
• Age structure of spawning population
• Sex ratio of spawning population
• Fraction of naturally spawning fish that are of hatchery origin, (CV should be specified.)

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

In general the ISRP agrees with the RME group comments. It is useful to have pilot efforts in different subbasins to establish a foundation of suitable sampling protocols and estimation procedures. The proposal could be improved by providing more details on key issues identified in the draft RME framework document (RME Framework for the 2000 Biological Opinion - NMFS and Action Agencies).

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The response to our concerns indicated a refreshing willingness to cooperate in the difficult task of development of a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program for the Columbia Basin and Subbasins. The ISRP recommends that this project be funded if the sponsors follow through with their commitment to cooperate under CBFWA's umbrella proposal #35033. The sponsor agreed with the ISRP preliminary review comment that the CBFWA proposal #35033 contains the necessary collaborative components to implement a comprehensive monitoring program in the subbasins and the entire Columbia basin.

The ISRP agrees that proposals #35033 and #35019 (and by extension, parts of the other NMFS proposals #35016, #35020 and #35048) be somehow combined to provide a systemwide monitoring and evaluation project together with the many ongoing M&E efforts (e.g., StreamNet, coded wire tagging program, smolt monitoring by the FPC, the Idaho Production Studies, DART, ongoing M&E in the John Day Subbasin, etc., etc. etc.). The ISRP could not agree more with the statement that "The absolutely essential elements of 35033 that the other projects lack is the basinwide perspective, both in the collaborative representation of nearly all fisheries management agencies, as well as the inclusion of fishes other than anadromous salmonids. Ultimately, the most efficient manner for the Columbia River basin to approach a comprehensive monitoring program would be in the form of integrated aquatic ecosystem health assessment. Components of the above 5 projects, plus many ongoing monitoring programs, if coordinated within a single purpose, design, and data management and evaluation framework, could produce the ideal monitoring program for the basin's aquatic natural resources." We see no advantage to fragmentation of the regions efforts to monitor and evaluate recovery efforts for anadromous and resident fishes.

Comment:

Comments
NMFS proposal. Inappropriate to comment.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

The ISRP strongly recommends funding of this proposal. However, we again raise the question of relationship of the proposal to not only the BiOp mandates, but also the monitoring needs of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program and other state, federal, and tribal responsibilities in the Columbia basin. At issue is the whole basinwide monitoring effort. To base the basinwide monitoring effort only on the NMFS BiOp mandates seems to be shortsighted and a sensitive issue. CBFWA’s proposal 35033 is similar in many respects, but they were apparently not asked to update and integrate their proposal with the current set. To its credit, this proposal, 35019, explicitly mentions the coordination benefits of the CBFWA 35033 proposal and notes that the five proposals presented in this packet do not attempt to duplicate the large-scale coordination represented by that proposal. As yet, however, this coordination apparently has not been achieved. The ISRP trusts that the proposal 35033 is to be seriously considered for funding as the overarching coordinator for monitoring efforts in the Columbia Basin as previously recommended.

Verification of population and habitat parameters at very large geographic scales is badly needed. However, the proposed budget is very large and if a project like this is going to last for the long-term, it needs to be as cost-effective as possible. The costs do not seem to be well justified. The ISRP recommends that there be a thorough peer review by independent scientists once the plan is fully designed (i.e., after selection of study sites, development of protocols for indicator variables, development of error terms for determination of final sample sizes, etc.) and before implementation in the field. This project should also be reviewed in the future at certain milestones.

Comments and Questions to be considered during the contracting period.

The sponsors indicate that the sampling universe will be determined by the spatial extent of the fish species of interest. The success of the monitoring program depends on being able to track status and trend of populations and habitat over the long term including survey of current marginal habitat and habitat considered by biologists to be currently unacceptable to the species of interest. Species of interest are often found in unexpected locations when probabilistic sampling methods are used to select study sites. The need to sample more extensively is to be expected if overall abundance of the species is increasing due to global effects of, e.g., good ocean conditions, or if range expansion is anticipated to accompany extensive habitat restoration.

It is unfortunate, but understandable, that the monitoring effort is restricted to wadeable portions of streams. Non-wadeable segments, such as mainstem areas, could pose important survival bottlenecks for both juveniles and adults passing through or rearing in them. Indicators of upland processes (e.g., landslides) should be part of the monitoring protocol.

The sponsors need to address habitat connectivity and how it will be assessed and monitored. The sponsors state that relative abundance will not be assessed by snorkeling in habitat units where there is an extreme amount of cover. These areas could be important habitats for juvenile fish and a justification for their exclusion is needed. Could these habitats be electroshocked or sampled in some other way?

The sponsors propose to estimate error of snorkeling surveys by comparing the estimates of relative abundance from survey crews with those from “supervisory staff.” This rationale is not terribly compelling. Could electrofishing estimates rather than estimates by office staff be a more viable indicator of the “true” density of fish?

The proponents state that the key to testing the sampling-based approaches will be the ongoing census-based surveys that will act as the “truth” against which the sampling data can be compared. It will be interesting to compare the sampling data to certain census data, e.g., dam counts, but the comparison is only useful for evaluation of bias in measurement techniques. Finite sampling theory provides unbiased estimates if the underlying measurement techniques are unbiased. Also, there are sampling and measurement errors associated with ongoing “census” work for population assessments as noted by the proponents. In some cases, the proponents may find that it is more appropriate to assume that the sampling based approaches proposed are unbiased and to use them to correct or stop collection of the current “census data.”

The exclusion of small pools and non-pool habitat is troublesome. While coho may be found predominantly in pools, juvenile steelhead tend to be more generalist in habitat use and can be found, sometimes in abundance, in smaller pools barely deep enough to snorkel. At least an initial survey of all channel unit types is warranted.

The proponents seem to have the terms interchanged in the following statement “…best estimator of status is thought to be from random sites fixed through time (drawn once, resampled annually), while the best estimator of trend captures both the spatial and temporal variance components and their interactions (drawn randomly each year).” The sentence should read: The best estimator of trend is thought to be from random sites fixed through time (drawn once, resampled annually), while the best estimator of status captures both the spatial and temporal variance components and their interactions (drawn randomly each year).

The proposed work would provide useful data for EDT, SWAM and other models for prediction of relationships between habitat and fish abundance, occurrence, and production, but there must be an explicit linkage for it to happen.

Comment:

Comment:

Comments:
Adjusted 060403 to reflect BPA revision to budget. As approved by the Council on May 7, 2003.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website