FY 2000 proposal 20079
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assessing Adult Steelhead Escapement & Genetics in the South Fork Salmon |
| Proposal ID | 20079 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Peter Cleary |
| Mailing address | 612 SW 2nd St. Enterprise, OR 97828 |
| Phone / email | 5414265986 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | This project would document the current status, genetic profile, and life history characteristics of juvenile and adult steelhead in the South Fork Salmon River drainage. Results would be compared to the populations status as described by Thurow (1987). |
| Target species | steelhead trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9005500 |
Steelhead Supplementation Studies |
Reciprocal transfer of data and PIT tagging coordination |
| 9703000 |
Listed Stock Adult Escapement |
Reciprocal transfer of data and PIT tagging coordination |
| 8909802 |
Idaho Salmon Supplementation - NPT |
Juvenile production/life history |
| 9707300 |
Idaho Department of Fish and Game |
Cooperative PIT tagging and SAR studies |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
Four FTE (project leader, biologist, Lead Technician and technician), two PTE (Fishery Aides) |
$118,797 |
| Fringe |
@ 27.0% |
$32,075 |
| Supplies |
Dip nets, basket traps, axes, waders, snowshoes, office supplies and rent |
$11,650 |
| Operating |
Snowmobile repairs, GSA lease and repairs |
$15,440 |
| Capital |
Two 4x4 ATVs two laptop computers and one destop computer |
$15,000 |
| PIT tags |
1000 |
$2,900 |
| Travel |
per diem, lodging, travel to Boise/Portland |
$15,200 |
| Indirect |
@ 22.9% |
$44,919 |
| Subcontractor |
independent genetic analysis |
$22,500 |
| $278,481 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $278,481 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $278,481 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| NPT |
two snowmobiles and tagging equipment |
$16,450 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Unusually harsh winter storms may limit spring access to and visibility in streams. Storms and snow melt may wash out roads, create stream turbidity and hamper spawning ground counts. The completion of analysis of genetic samples may also delay reports.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund, rationale not adequately justified, technically inadequate. Previous studies that were to form the basis of this work were not summarized or reviewed
Comments:
This is a new proposal to determine the status and genetic structure of the South Fork Salmon River steelhead. The proposal is flawed by the lack of a background literature review (Objective 1) was not conducted prior to development of the proposal. The proposal objectives change throughout. No summary of past data (i.e., the Thurow study) is presented. The genetic analysis is superfluous and is unlikely to produce samples that are representative of all parts of the population due in part to sampling difficulties because of water conditions during spring runoff. While it may be worthwhile to compare genetic profiles of the South Fork steelhead today to those of 1985, what specific assumption of hypothesis is the genetic analysis testing? Similarly, while it might be worthwhile to obtain a genetic profile of the S Fk South Fork steelhead using various state-of-the-art DNA technologies, as well as to archive DNA samples for future access as new technologies develop, this effort is probably only worthwhile only if it is part of a statewide or region-wide program to assess patterns of genetic diversity in Snake Basin steelhead in order to address specific questions related to conservation management or metapopulation structure. The proposal should be refocused to test specific hypotheses about the past sample, possible impacts of introgression with specific hatchery strains (if applicable), or it should be a necessary part of a larger genetic inventory of steelhead populations in Idaho pointed at identifying logical conservation units. Has no life history work been conducted on the South Fork Salmon steelhead? If not, this should be documented in the proposal as justification for the proposed work.
The lack of specific hypotheses and clear objectives lead the reviewers to judge that the proposal in not based on sound science. The proposal, background and objectives are flawed and should be better developed. The overall objective of monitoring status of the steelhead population in the South Fork of the Salmon is worthwhile and consistent with objectives in the FWP. If the proponents choose to resubmit this proposal in FY 2001, the literature background work should be completed and integrated into a more sharply focused proposal that develops specific testable hypotheses based on the 1980s background data.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes - Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? No - Task 2d likely?; Task 2e redundant?
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? No - Personnel is top-heavy
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
This is a good project, however, it does not address more urgent management priorities in this area. Reduce budget from $175,000 to $150,000.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting];