FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200309800

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:

While we believe this investigation under natural conditions would be useful, there are three critical issues to consider:

1. The release of parr in early summer is not a typical strategy and draws into question the appropriateness of this design as a study of steelhead supplementation. Releases of large parr in the fall or as smolts would be more typical. This does not negate the value of this study but it should likely be considered a fishery research project more than a production or supplementation assessment.
2. The use of the North Fork as a comparative base is not well justified. How do the streams compare in productivity, habitats, etc. Further, the likelihood of visual redd surveys, as an adequate assessment of adult returns and the value of supplementation is very risky and inadequate in the ISRP's assessment. There will be a substantial amount of information and effort relying on the final assessment of adult returns and the proposed monitoring of adult returns seems inadequate. Without addressing this issue, reviewers believe the project is severely compromised.
3. There is no information on the hatchery rearing of the fish to be outplanted. How large will hatchery parr be, at what density will they be reared, how many will be tagged, and how will they be released? What is the basis of the 3000 parr to be outplanted? Is there a statistical basis for this value or is it based on some other criteria?

Other concerns related to the above are more specific points.

1. Monitoring of growth and survival will be quarterly and based on "night seining". The proposal suggests the performance of the parr will be related to "their location within the site will be recorded." How is this possible with night seining?
2. Will the movement of parr downstream be monitored year round? If large numbers of parr are displaced (hatchery or wild) it would be necessary to know their fate within the tributaries. Presumably, some could move downstream of the final site and out of the tributary.
3. Is it feasible to tag smolts or fall parr in the North Fork tributary to provide a marked population? This could provide a means or mark-recapture for smolt production and total adult census if a remote tag detection system was incorporated into this design.
4. After this first out planting in 2004 there maybe "residual" fish holding into the next year when the outplanting occurs. Has this been considered and how will these fish be treated?

We support the development of individual-based models and think they could provide a useful tool in assessing supplementation and generally about the salmonid production in streams. However, there is no comment on how to validate the model. How will this be incorporated into the development steps?

It is very likely that a five-year study of steelhead in natural systems will have setbacks due to weather, etc. However, this is the type of study that is needed to fully assess the utility of supplementation. There is clearly a modest risk that natural variability will limit what is learned from such an investigation but these are the risks we need to take.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

HARVEST AND HATCHERY SUBGROUP -- Address critical element of RPA? 182- Poor fit. Mostly juvenile work. Since it does not study reproductive success or compare hatchery/wild spawning success, it does not address RPA 182

Possibly relevant to RPA 184. It could be tied to reducing effects of juvenile hatchery fish, particularly competition after release in target stream. Some hatchery reforms target the ecological effects to listed fish from hatchery/wild interactions during the juvenile stage. But, it is not clear whether this part of the study is related to any particular hatchery reform that has been effectuated or is being considered.

Scope? [ESU's covered, Transferability, Species covered] Target species include steelhead, coho salmon and cutthroat trout. Uncertain transferability, i.e., uncertain to what degree the conclusions would be transferable to Upper Columbia.

Study design adequate, as is, or as may be modified? This proposal could be revised in order to specifically relate it to a particular hatchery reform and tying the results to a metric for reducing extinction risk under RPA 184.

OCEAN AND ESTUARY SUBGROUP -- Does not address action items in BO related to the estuary. Focus is on hatchery fish interaction. There was a question whether this would be considered estuary or tributary during initial review.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The RME group comments are not inconsistent with the ISRP's comments; however the RME group comments are clearly made through the lens of the RPA obligations and are useful in documenting the relationship of the project to the RPAs and BiOp. The narrow focus (and interpretation?) of the RPAs largely ignores the important contribution this study could make to better understanding interactions among wild and hatchery reared juvenile steelhead, which, in turn, could lead to more informed hatchery practices or release strategies that lessen the impacts of hatchery-reared juveniles on wild juveniles.

Comment:

Comment:

It is very likely that a five-year study of steelhead in natural systems will have setbacks due to annual variation in weather, etc. However, this is the type of study that is needed to fully assess the utility of supplementation. There is clearly a modest risk that natural variability will limit what is learned from such an investigation, but these are the risks we need to take.

The sponsors systematically addressed all ISRP preliminary concerns; however, answers were concise if not superficial, and did not provide adequate detail to instill confidence that the experimental aspects of the project are well thought out and likely to succeed. If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods, and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA proposal #35033.

Comment:

Comments
Does not involve RPA ESUs. Applicability to RPA ESUs (thus qualifying as BiOp project) would be more likely if assessment involved a supplementation technique used in the upper basin, but summer release of parr is not.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

Comment:

Comments: