FY 2000 proposal 198712703
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Program Project |
| Proposal ID | 198712703 |
| 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 | Blue Mountain / Imnaha |
| Short description | Operate smolt traps to provide the Fish Passage Center with information and indices on spring emigration timing, estimated survival, smolt performance and health of wild and hatchery salmonid smolts from the Imnaha River to Snake and Columbia River dams. |
| Target species | natural spring chinook salmon, hatchery spring chinook salmon, natural steelhead trout, hatchery 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
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1998 |
Data collection and summary, tasks 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 |
| 1997 |
All tasks completed, final draft 11/98 |
| 1996 |
BPA annual report, contract DE-FC79-88FC38906-13 January 1998 632, all tasks completed |
| 1995 |
BPA annual report, contract DE-FC79-88FC38906-5 January 1997 544, all tasks completed |
| 1994 |
BPA annual report, contract DE-FC79-88FC38906-4 December 1995 775, all tasks completed |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 8712700 |
Smolt Monitoring by non-Federal Entities / necessary for water budget. |
The projects collect similar data and report daily catch to the Fish Passage Center. PIT tag smolts for emigration timing, travel time and estimated survival to dams. The combined data enables the Fish Passage Center to meet their goals. |
| 8805301 |
Northeast Oregon Hatchery |
Smolt monitoring will provide evaluation of production releases |
|
Lower Snake River Comp. Plan Hatchery Evaluations. |
Coordination enables cost sharing and evaluation of natural and hatchery chinook salmon emigration timing, post-release survival estimation of hatchery chinook smolts, other smolt performance characteristics such as estimated survival to Snake River dams. |
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 |
3 FTE, 2PTE, and Admin. Support |
$91,088 |
| Fringe |
27% FTE, 12% PTE |
$17,244 |
| Supplies |
Office Services, supplies and utilities, telephone, internet, & rent |
$11,136 |
| Operating |
vehicle lease and maintainace, trap repair |
$13,080 |
| Capital |
computer and software upgrades, field communication equipment |
$3,140 |
| PIT tags |
4600 |
$13,340 |
| Travel |
|
$4,960 |
| Indirect |
|
$28,734 |
| Other |
New PIT tagging equipment |
$6,000 |
| $188,722 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $188,722 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $188,722 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| USFWS/LSRCP |
|
$61,620 |
unknown |
|
Vehicles and mileage |
$6,000 |
unknown |
|
Office Services - supplies, office rent, telephone, fax. |
$6,420 |
unknown |
|
Field Supplies - incl. trap maintenance |
$4,600 |
unknown |
|
Perdiem |
$3,000 |
unknown |
|
PIT Tags (14,600 tags @2.90/tag) |
$42,340 |
unknown |
|
Screw Traps - two 7' traps |
$30,000 |
unknown |
|
Computers - two desk top and two laptops |
$10,400 |
unknown |
|
Trailer -one purchased, two surplus trailers |
$12,000 |
unknown |
|
PIT Tag Station |
$8,000 |
unknown |
|
Indirect Rate (excl. equipment) |
$18,700 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: High river water discharge and debris loads may preclude trap operations and data collection for the Fish Passage Center. These conditions may damage the trap, cause debris to injure fish in the trap, or create unsafe conditions for the crew.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund. The ISRP found this proposal to be suitable for a multi-year review cycle. However, the proposal referred to an opportunity to transform the current trapping facilities into more permanent ones; this idea was not developed and should not be implemented without a direct proposal including adequate explanation and justification.
Comments:
This proposal is for needed and valuable quantitative research on the natural history of hatchery-produced and wild salmonid smolts, focusing on steelhead. This is a well-constructed proposal to investigate a question of high potential benefit. It is coordinated well with other projects and provides a good scientific/technical background, although there needs to be more information on how data are used to operate dams.
Methods and investigators appear to be competent. This project will provide valuable information concerning timing of spring emigration, estimated survival, smolt performance, and health of wild and hatchery salmonid smolts from the Imnaha River to Snake and Columbia River Dams. The project has been ongoing for five years, and all tasks have been completed and summarized in published (or recent draft) reports. future submissions should report summary and highlight information that has been gained from the work so that its productivity, reliability and success can be better judged It is important for reviewers to understand the quantitative results obtained, how variable they are, and how they have been interpreted and used. Sampling protocols are tied directly to specific objectives and substantial effort is expended to reduce stress on all fish, especially wild chinook salmon.
The ISRP noted that the work appears to be of general interest and value. Data from this project should be especially valuable because it can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the hatchery program for supplementing wild runs of anadromous salmonids. Additionally, the program provides timely information for assessment of in-season water budgets, evaluation of spill requests, and monitoring of fish health. The ISRP encourages the investigators to more publication of results in open, peer-reviewed literature.
Reviewers provided some specific questions and comments, as follows: Objective 1 - how variable is the timing of smolt migration between years? Is it necessary to monitor it each year in order to adjust water budgets and accommodate spill requests? Do smolts arrive en masse at dams, or are they spread out over a long reach of the river and take longer to pass? This must have implications on the effectiveness of water management. What is the range of variability in the other parameters that have been measured all these years (Objectives 1-3)? E.g., in 4 years survival of natural steelhead smolts ranged between 71% to 93%. Are there any statistically or biologically significant differences between any of the estimates?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? Yes -
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Part of SMP.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]