Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1989-098-00 - Salmon Studies in Idaho Rivers Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1989-098-00 - Salmon Studies in Idaho Rivers
Project Number:
Salmon Studies in Idaho Rivers
The purpose of the Idaho Supplementation Study (ISS) is to help determine the utility of supplementation as a potential recovery tool for imperiled stocks of spring and summer Chinook salmon in Idaho. Our goals are to assess the use of hatchery Chinook salmon to restore or augment natural populations, and to evaluate the effects of supplementation on the survival and fitness of existing natural populations. The program operates in both the Clearwater and Salmon sub-basins, and encompasses 30 streams throughout Idaho. Sixteen streams have received supplementation treatments and 14 are un-supplemented controls. Data collection responsibility is partitioned among the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The IDFG is responsible for the collection and analysis of data collected from Brushy Fork Creek, Crooked Fork Creek, Marsh Creek, Pahsimeroi River, Upper Salmon River, Big Flat Creek, White Cap Creek, Colt Killed Creek, North Fork Salmon River, Lemhi River, South Fork Salmon River, American River, Crooked River, and Red River. Data collection includes: (1) installing and operating screw traps, (2) adult collection and marking at program weirs, (3) redd and carcass surveys, (4) PIT tagging juvenile migrants, (5) collection of DNA from adult and juvenile Chinook salmon in study streams, (6). Data analyses include: (1) adult escapement estimates, (2) juvenile survival estimates to Lower Granite dam, (3) juvenile production estimates, and (4) analyze DNA from adult and juvenile Chinook salmon for parentage analysis and genetic monitoring. Activities for contract year 2007 will not deviate from those activities conducted in previous years.

Our experimental design utilizes three main approaches. The first and main level of evaluation is large-scale population production and productivity studies designed to provide relatively generic inferences state wide. The second level uses the same study streams as individual “case histories” to evaluate specific supplementation programs (i.e., individual hatchery programs), although inferences at this level are limited to only descriptive assessments. The third level represents small-scale studies designed to address specific hypotheses concerning the mechanism of supplementation.

The long-term design tests the response of populations to treatments (supplemented) over time compared to controls (un-supplemented). To evaluate these effects, we monitor a number of production and productivity response variables. Production variables measure the effects of supplementation on fish numbers. Productivity variables measure the effect of supplementation on the overall replacement ability of the naturally spawning populations. Our general hypothesis is that supplementation can increase natural production but not productivity. However, we hypothesize that reductions in natural productivity can be minimized through the use of locally derived broodstocks (where available) so that enhanced production more than compensates for reduced productivity.

The ISS study design uses a multi-phased approach to evaluate supplementation. In Phase I, local adult returns were collected to develop supplementation broodstock. Phase II (treatment phase) used the returning supplementation adults to augment natural reproduction in treatment streams. In Phase III, or evaluation phase, supplementation treatments will be terminated, but we will continue to monitor production and productivity in both treatment and control populations for one Chinook salmon generation (i.e., five years). Determining population response after supplementation ceases will provide valuable insight into the long-term effects of supplementation. Currently, the project is transitioning between Phase II and III.

In response to ISRP recommendations, the program’s data sets were assessed, and the original ISS study design was updated in 2005. The data set review indicated the data will be sufficient to address the program’s two main goals (defined above) and that the ANOVA technique proposed in the original study design would be appropriate for much of the analysis. Alternatively, regression and graphical techniques were also developed for some data sets as recommended by the ISRP. The effect of general production hatchery strays into ISS study streams was also addressed in the updated study design. Additional carcass collections were initiated to better quantify the magnitude of this unintended supplementation and will be continued throughout the remainder of the program. We also developed a supplemental proposal to use microsatellite DNA parentage analyses to address the relative reproductive success of natural, supplementation, and general production fish in a subset of study streams. However, this would represent a large and costly commitment by the region, and would require additional funding to undertake.
Proponent Orgs:
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (Govt - State)
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribe)
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Govt - Federal)
Starting FY:
Ending FY:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Salmon 100.00%
Artificial Production
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Cutthroat Trout, Yellowstone
Lamprey, Pacific
Other Resident
Pikeminnow, Northern
Sockeye - Snake River ESU
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%

Description: Page: 1 Cover: Photo credit: Bagnard Heffernan & Co.

Project: 1989-098-00

Document: P122971

Dimensions: 719 x 480

Description: Page: 9 Figure 1: Current treatment and control streams in the Salmon River and Clearwater River subbasins monitored by the four agencies participating in the Idaho Supplementation Studies. Cooperators include the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Legendary Bear and Fishing creeks are proposed names for Papoose Creek and Squaw Creek, respectively.

Project: 1989-098-00

Document: P122971

Dimensions: 1650 x 1275

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $0 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Extensions (State of Idaho) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2021 Expense $0 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Extensions (State of Idaho) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2022 Expense $0 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Extensions (State of Idaho) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2015 $1,091,472 72%
2014 $1,091,472 36%
2013 $1,091,472 36%
2012 $1,091,472 36%
2011 $1,091,472 38%
2009 $1,091,472 37%
2008 $1,091,472 39%
2007 $1,091,472 36%


The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
1339 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 89-98 STRATEGIES/ASSESSMENT-SUPPLEMENTED HATCHERY CHINOOK Terminated $9,111,051 9/30/1989 - 1/1/2009
1980 REL 2 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1989-098-00 SALMON SUPPLEMENTATION STUDIES IN IDAHO RIVERS Terminated $1,151,507 1/1/2000 - 12/31/2000
1980 REL 1 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1989-098-00 SALMON SUPPLEMENTATION STUDIES IN IDAHO RIVERS Terminated $1,151,507 1/1/2000 - 12/31/2000
20863 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) PROJECT 1989-098-00 IDAHO SUPPLEMENTATION STUDIES History $932,400 1/1/2005 - 12/31/2005
27839 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1989-098-00 IDAHO SUPPLEMENTATION STUDIES History $900,738 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006
BPA-005529 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Active $73,450 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
BPA-003611 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Active $68,187 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
36152 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1989-098-00 EXP SALMON STUDIES ID RIVERS IDFG History $838,759 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
BPA-004312 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rvrs IDFG Active $45,332 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004875 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rvrs Active $46,441 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005499 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Active $49,686 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006299 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Active $46,189 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006961 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Active $51,596 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007708 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Active $42,992 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):69
On time:39
Status Reports
On time:94
Avg Days Late:0

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
6630 20863, 27839, 31540, 36152, 40184, 45728, 50460, 55671, 59799, 63724, 67577 1989-098-00 SALMON SUPPLEMENTATION STUDIES IN IDAHO RIVERS Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 09/2001 09/2001 Closed 42 228 0 0 14 242 94.21% 0
BPA-005529 PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Bonneville Power Administration 10/2006 10/2006 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30751 36058, 40511, 45601, 50511, 55352, 59852, 63754, 67980 1989-098-00 EXP SALMON STUDIES ID RVRS SBT Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 01/2007 01/2007 Closed 36 133 0 0 1 134 99.25% 0
30638 36189, 40843, 45805, 51090, 55848, 59843, 64186 1989-098-00 EXP SALMON STUDIES ID RVRS USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 01/2007 01/2007 Closed 31 122 0 0 8 130 93.85% 0
30600 36085, 39993, 45292, 50465, 55312, 59864, 63738, 67556 1989 098 00 SALMON STUDIES IN IDAHO RIVERS NPT Nez Perce Tribe 01/2007 01/2007 Closed 36 177 0 0 1 178 99.44% 0
BPA-003611 PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Bonneville Power Administration 10/2007 10/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004312 PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rvrs IDFG Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004875 PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rvrs Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005499 PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006299 PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006961 PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007708 PIT Tags - Salmon Studies ID Rivers Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 145 660 0 0 24 684 96.49% 0

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: Fast Track ISRP Review 2010

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-098-00-ISRP-20100623
Project: 1989-098-00 - Salmon Studies in Idaho Rivers
Review: Fast Track ISRP Review 2010
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 2/24/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
First Round ISRP Comment:
The fast track element for Method #8 to install a second screw trap on Marsh Creek is sufficiently justified. For the remainder of the proposal, including the fast-track element to validate AHA modeling, a response is requested in the form of a revised narrative. The response should provide the following:

1. A table that outlines the ESU, MPG, Independent Populations, and streams in the Snake River system and identify which are potential high-precision and low-precision sites for RME.

2. A summary explanation of what process is underway (if any) to decide which component streams are part of the intensive and extensive sampling.

3. Greater detail of explanation for the precision/sampling intervals for intensive and extensive sites.

4. An overview-to-date of trends in ISS spring/summer Chinook abundance by location for all treatment and control (reference) streams. Include a summary table of the data collected for each of the sites by the ISS (or cooperators) since the last ISRP review.

5. Comparison of the precision and sampling intervals in the ISS streams with that desired by the BiOp RME and ISS statistical analysis.

6. Statements for the ISRP about any events or problems encountered since the last review that may compromise the analysis of the ISS.

7. Elaborate on the methods and approach to validate the assumptions and uncertainties in the AHA model

In concluding, the ISRP suggests that the final report should be independently peer reviewed when in draft form, much like what was done with the 10-year retrospective for the comparative survival studies (ISAB/ISRP 2007-6).

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
Justification for this project is well documented in the proposal and in the Council's current and past program language. The project has many links and relations—and large implications—for many other projects in the basin. The proposal clearly identifies relationships to the 2008 BiOp, TRTs recovery plan, Columbia Basin regional RM&E strategy, NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program, and WY-KAN-USH-MI WA-KISH-WIT.

As the proposal states, the Idaho Supplementation Studies (ISS) study design was intensively scrutinized and updated prior to the last funding cycle. This proposal "represents the ongoing efforts of the cooperating agencies in the ISS program to take that study design to completion without change" which is a significant and necessary pledge. The objectives of the program are to evaluate the effects of supplementation on juvenile and adult Chinook abundance; evaluate changes in natural productivity after supplementation is stopped; evaluate various supplementation strategies; and develop supplementation recommendations. These objectives seem important, relevant and consistent with policies and with biological and policy needs.

The key feature of this project is that it uses supplementation as a research treatment. Monitoring production and productivity responses for supplemented populations and unsupplemented reference populations could provide important insights into the effects of supplementation. Continued monitoring after supplementation ceases could contribute to a better understanding of the long-term effects of supplementation. At the completion of the project, status and trend monitoring currently provided by ISS will need to be incorporated into new or ongoing programs.

The program has large potential significance to the region. It is supported by the region’s technical community as long as it reaches its objectives as planned and the results are unambiguous. If so, it should answer a number of long-standing and contentious issues about the impacts and efficacy of supplementation as a method of sustaining and providing long-term increases in depressed salmon populations' productivity. Data to allow such insights should start to come in over the next few years, thereby justifying this 20+ year investment.

2. Project History and Results
The proposal provides a lengthy and good review of the project's 20-year history. The ISS study design was first proposed in 1990, and has been executed within this framework with challenges owing to the unavailability of fish for stocking during the mid-1990s and owing to policy/political decisions by the Nez Perce Tribe to begin a supplementation program on Johnson Creek, one of the control (reference) streams. Because of these difficulties, the ISRP urged a review of the experimental and analysis design in 2001 to determine whether the effort had the potential to produce data that could be analyzed and used to answer uncertainties about supplementation. The ISRP has reviewed updated study designs in 2005 and again in 2006 during the 2007/2009 project solicitation. Because of this history of review and the depth of detail in the design, it is probably not necessary to revisit these topics. However, the proposal is insufficient to fully glean this background from the proposal. The project history presentation also describes the extensive resources (funds) dedicated to the project for the past two decades.

Treatment phase of this long-standing project ended in 2007, and the evaluation phase started in 2000. Thus limited data are available to represent the evaluation phase. However, virtually no results or data were presented in the project proposal other than the brief summary of Pahsimeroi Chinook genetic parentage studies. The lack of results, even at the minimum level of general trends and observations, was disappointing. The proponents should have provided more results on project performance to date. The proposal lists results as the development of protocols and the performance of annual data gathering (adult weirs, redd count and carcass surveys, emigrant traps, and snorkel estimates). While these steps were surely necessary to the project’s implementation and M&E, they do not constitute data or results—they are process.

Only one peer-reviewed paper appears to have been produced through the project, and it is not focused the on primary objectives of project. There is a five-year-old masters thesis on parentage analysis in a study stream (Pahsimeroi) that has not been published in the open literature. This omission should be rectified, particularly given the reliance by the proposal proponents on the results of that study. Consequently, it should be validated through the peer review process.

As written, the proposal suggests that data analysis will only begin after the last fish has been processed in 2014 or thereabout. It is reasonable (at least from the ISRP’s perspective) to expect that some preliminary analysis of data from the evaluation phase of this effort that began in 2008 start immediately.

Finally, as a result of actions taken in response to the 2001 ISRP Provincial Review, the project has been modified to better provide relevant data. Unfortunately, the important work proposed in Genetic Evaluation of Salmon Supplementation in Idaho Rivers 200725000 was not funded.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The proposal clearly states the objectives as research goals: 1) Assess the use of hatchery Chinook salmon to increase natural populations of spring and summer Chinook in the Salmon and Clearwater River drainages; and 2) Evaluate the genetic and ecological impacts of hatchery Chinook salmon on naturally reproducing Chinook populations. The proposal identifies the contribution that each task will make to program needs, though methods are not described by objective or work element

Methods were not included in the proposal, though references were made to methods and analysis procedures that are well documented elsewhere, often as a result of discussion or reviews by the ISRP. A reviewer new to this project would likely find the proposal inadequate in these areas, if they were not familiar with the earlier documents and discussion. For example, a brief explanation and justification of the standardized index of adult escapement and natural production used to compare across treatment and control (reference?) streams should be provided in the proposal. Fortunately, the project appears to be remaining squarely on course with its schedule and methods as previously worked out with the ISRP through the extensive and intensive reviews done in 2001 and 2005.

Two new objectives appear to be the basis for the Fast Track proposal review: 1) Method #8 would install a second screw trap on Marsh Creek in order to provide additional data on juvenile outmigration from the Marsh Creek drainage; and 2) Method #9 would "verify AHA and AHSWG model assumptions and predictions using ISS data." Installation of the screw trap at Marsh Creek appears reasonable and justified. The second Fast Track element, AHA model validation, is not currently justified and does not look time sensitive (i.e., fast track), and therefore more justification is needed. The other project work elements seem well established now and relatively routine.

The proposed new task of using historical ISS juvenile release, survival, and adult return data to evaluate the AHA model by comparing actual adult returns to those predicted by AHA and AHSWG models is a useful component of the ongoing project; however, several issues are raised by this new task. First, ISS field activities are scheduled to end during this funding cycle, and appropriate plans will need to be developed if ISS infrastructure is to be maintained for intensive and extensive VSP status and trend monitoring (Appendix A). After 2012, ISS cooperators will no longer be evaluating adult returns to study streams (i.e., redd counts and carcass surveys), and juvenile migration evaluation will be complete after smolt trapping in 2014 (brood year 2012). In order to maintain current levels of intensive and extensive status and trend monitoring, ISS infrastructure and sampling duties will need to be incorporated into new or existing programs.

Second, select personnel from the ISS cooperating agencies will need to be funded for a period of time after 2014 to complete data analysis, a completion report, peer reviewed publications, and ensure ISS findings are communicated to and incorporated into other regional supplementation programs. As the project nears completion and personnel are shifted within the project and agency, we encourage key personnel to remain engaged in the project through its completion, in order to best realize the project’s original objectives. Finally, AHA has been reviewed by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (Review of the All-H analyzer model, March 18, 2005) and by the Recovery Implementation Science Team (April 9, 2009). There is no discussion of the past reviews of this model, how the ISS data will be used to address which assumptions and uncertainties, and how the analysis and assumption validation will be conducted.

4. M&E
This is one of the project's strong suits, though not enough detail is provided in this specific proposal for a new reviewer to determine that (or possibly to support the project). The strength of the methods comes from the work done by University of Idaho (at the request of the ISRP) to identify a statistical procedure that could answer the supplementation questions posed by the project and by the proponents commitment as stated in this proposal to maintain the study design unchanged through the sunset date for the project.

It is still not clear whether the ISS will yield data that can be analyzed to answer questions about the efficacy of supplementation. The primary challenge is the quality (precision) of adult abundance data that can be derived from redd count and carcass inspection in study streams that lack interrogation weirs. Even on streams that have weirs, estimating weir efficiency and adjusting data may be necessary.

In the last review, the ISRP was critical of the carcass data that was collected in conjunction with redd counts, which would be used to assign total adult counts (based on redds) proportionately to wild, supplementation, and conventional hatchery (strays) production. For several sample streams the carcass information came from limited sampling and had no associated estimates of precision. The ISRP recommended that the redd counting and carcass inspection be more rigorous.

The proposal cites that the goals and strategies for monitoring and evaluation of the status of Snake River Chinook salmon and steelhead identified in the fall 2009 RM&E workshop guide expansion of the ISS (Table 1, page 7). More information is needed for evaluation of whether the increased effort meets the RM&E goals. In particular, one goal is to "obtain high precision status and trend data for at least one population per adult life-history type per MPG (fish in, fish out monitoring).” One of the open questions is the selection of populations for this monitoring. The ISS proposal suggests that they may be collecting this information; however, the population is not yet selected. A succinct summary of the MPGs and independent populations established by the TRT, which have high precision data, and which are associated with the ISS needs to be included in the proposal.

The high precision data type is not clear. The citation is to Crawford and Rumsey (2009) and reference is to data with a CV of 15% or less. CV (coefficient of variation) is not usually associated with precision of data, but with the variation associated with a state of nature. That is, salmon abundance across years has a CV, fall steelhead parr length has a CV. These are descriptions of the state of variation. They are not appropriate to determine confidence intervals. Crawford and Rumsey (2009) reference Carlile et al. (2008), which makes recommendations for coefficients of variation for estimates of total spawning escapement. The reference is to standard error of the estimate, not to variation in the population. More importantly, the statistical and biological basis for the recommendation in Carlile et al. (2008) has not been reviewed. The justification that the standard represents a realistic goal for planning because it corresponds to an acceptable risk (one year of one stock in six) of failing to label a stock of concern when warranted appears to be arbitrary. The observation that the standard has proven to be attainable for many escapement estimation studies does not mean that this is the appropriate data standard.

Finally, the project proponents should continue to enlist the services of a statistician, such as they did with K. Steinhorst from the University of Idaho. It is hard to know from the information provided whether the final analysis after 2014 will be meaningful. As part of this review process, a solid reporting of the data already collected would help demonstrate project proponent’s ability to conduct the analysis. It would also be good for the ISRP/ISAB to review a draft report before the final report is released, similar to independent reviews of the Select Area Fisheries Evaluation (ISRP/IEAB 2007-3), Comparative Survival Studies 10-year retrospective (ISAB/ISRP 2007-6), and Captive Propagation projects (ISRP 2004-14). This is a very important (and expensive) long running project which heightens the need to make certain the program comes to fruition successfully.
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1989-098-00-NPCC-20101209
Project: 1989-098-00 - Salmon Studies in Idaho Rivers
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1989-098-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement through 2016 with condition per April-May 2010 Council decision for Fast Track projects: Implementation subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4.
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process
Council Condition #2 Condition per April-May 2010 Council decision document for Fast Track projects - The Council recommends this project for implementation with the condition that the sponsor provide the information requested by the ISRP as an addendum to their existing proposal as part of the categorical review. In addition, the sponsor must provide the preliminary draft analysis report to the ISRP for review in 2013.

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-098-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1989-098-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1989-098-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: This project did not provide adequate design information to evaluate potential duplication of effort with other projects occuring in the same basins. To state that "the design was reviewed in the past" does not support a programmatic review of your work. We request that you provide BPA and the Council the full document or a link to full design information for further review in your response. As a result this project is going to need more detailed review before a funding decision will be made.

For compliance with RPA 50.5: The proposal appears to estimate the effects of supplementation, not including adult B-run steelhead nor productivity estimates, which is the main target of this RPA 50.5. Can you identify how B-run steelhead adults will be counted? Needs to directly address B-run monitoring.

Project needs coordination with other PIT tagging through PIT Plan.

For compliance with RPA 50.7: This RPA action is for hatchery fish marking only. Confirm that the scope of work proposed is for 100% marking of fish (visible or non visible) from the hatchery supported. If this project is marking fish for the hatchery, please specify the hatchery name and populations effected. If marking is conducted under another project or program, please let us know the name of that project/program.

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: (50.5 50.6 52.2 53.2 54.6 54.8 55.1 55.2 62.5 63.1 64.2)
All Questionable RPA Associations (56.1) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( 50.7 51.1 53.3 54.1 54.1 54.12 54.5 54.7 62.1 )
Proponent Response:
This project needs to work closely with the development of the regional PIT plan.                        
  PIT tagging protocols used by this program were designed to meet specific research objectives as described in the ISS study design, which has passed several critical reviews by ISRP. In the past we have provided PIT tag support to other RM&E programs (ISMES, CSS) when approached by these programs to increase efficiency and provide more cost effective ways to use limited resources. IDFG as not been contacted by anyone to provide input or help develop a regional PIT-tag plan.  If (and when) a proceess is developed to draft a regional PIT plan,  IDFG will fully engage in its development.  
Does not appear to address workgroup recommendation about funding full parental genotyping and possible combination of project with 199005500, Please confirm WDFW or other project is conducting the GSI work.                        
  This question is not relevant to the ISS project.  The only relationship of ISS to GSI is collecting juvenile Chinook and juvenile steelhead genetic samples to maintain the SNPs baseline. Samples are collected incidentally to other project objectives at ISS screw traps, and this information was considered critical at the RM&E workshops. ISS does not deal with full parental genotyping or PBT, which is for hatchery fish. Further, IDFG, not WDFW, will be conducting the GSI (201002600) and PBT (201003100)) work. GSI is specific to wild fish monitoring, PBT is specific to hatchery fish marking and evaluation. ISS is in the final phase of completing the 20 year Chinook supplementation study. We believe the question about combining projects should relate to project 199107300 (INPMEP), not to 199005500 (ISMES). Most if not all of the population monitoring infrastructure (weirs, screw traps, etc) currently operated by ISS will be transferred to 199107300 at the conclusion of ISS. This transfer of infrastructure was considered critical at the RM&E workshops.  
How will B-run steelhead adults will be counted?                       
  ISS is not, and has never been, funded to enumerate B-run steelhead adults.  We do not encounter  B-run steelhead adults in our weir operations because the weirs are installed for Chinook after steelhead spawning is completed. The question is not relevant.  
Needs to directly address B-run monitoring.                       
  ISS is not, and has never been, specifically funded to monitor B-run steelhead.  This is a study to evaluate Chinook salmon supplementation.  However, we do coordinate and cooperate with the ISMES study where ever possible to provide efficiency and cost effectiveness (e.g. juvenile steelhead scale and DNA samples, outmigration estimates, and PIT tagging at ISS screw traps).  This juvenile steelhead information was considered critical at the RM&E workshops.  
This project needs to complete or cut/paste the text of the project study design, and not just say that design was approved before.                 

Additional sponsor reply to ISRP's question:

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1989-098-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1989-098-00 - Salmon Studies in Idaho Rivers
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Four sponsors and contracts for this one project (IDFG, NPT, SBT, USFWS). Scope of work not changed. Deferred maintenance and equipment replacement funds to outyears. Eliminated subcontracts for fish aging and statistical support. Eliminated increase in PIT tag numbers for improved precision. Eliminated merit/COLA and training.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-098-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1989-098-00 - Salmon Studies in Idaho Rivers
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This is an important project entering a final data collection phase, which will carry important implications for using supplementation as a strategy and for using large-scale ecosystem experiments in the Columbia River Basin. The ISRP reviewed a portion of the ISS in December 2005. The ISRP continues to recommend that they include an analysis of the data as an observational study using regression models. They have moved from hypothesis testing to a modeling approach. They are using a statistician from U of I that is highly qualified. They should continue to take note of advice from their statistician.

The technical explanation of supplementation was adequate but not remarkable. The important measures needed to evaluate supplementation, the practical difficulty of collecting the data under the environmental conditions in the Columbia River basin, and the challenges in implementing the initial ISS design are not well developed. A primary recurring ISRP concern is the adequacy of redd and carcass data. The redd data alone is of limited utility, which they recognize. They need to assess the carcasses originating from the various combinations of natural and hatchery fish. Precision and bias of the carcass counts needs to be measured regularly. The FY07-09 proposal is consistent with the material last reviewed. The ISRP recommends that future funding beyond FY08 be contingent ("Qualified") on reporting of results from 2006-2007 returns, in 2008, coupled with a presentation to reviewers. The ISS plans to follow the last cohorts, plus a year of subsequent natural production. Thus, the project should be complete by 2016.

The history of the project is adequately described and the difficulties in maintaining the study design are identified. The project proponents have not taken the lead in making progress of the ISS widely known. Modifications in the statistical design are largely a product of prodding by the ISRP with support of the Council.

Some of the biological objectives in Section 6, such as "assess out of basin factors affecting smolt outmigration" and "calculate mainstem mortality" do not seem particularly germane to the evaluation of supplementation.

At this point in the ISS, the critical element is estimating adult abundance and partitioning it and subsequent production by adult source - natural adults, supplementation adults, and general production hatchery adults. This is not a simple straightforward task but is essential to a robust statistical evaluation of the ISS and subsequent interpretation for management decisions.

It is not entirely clear from the work elements that the ISS proponents have fully considered and addressed the recommendations from the most recent ISRP review. Addressing bias and other difficulties with redd and carcass counts is not well developed; proponents are advised to review the approaches in project 199107300 Idaho Natural Production Monitoring.

There is a disappointing lack of peer reviewed literature submission; dissemination of information from this project has been poor. If robust data is collected and then appropriately analyzed, this project will provide benefit to the region by helping clarify whether there are benefits from supplementation.

If there are adverse effects to non-target populations they have occurred already but are not quantified.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1989-098-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1989-098-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Supplementation evaluation in Idaho; fishery managers/others authorized/required; needs cost share or other remedy.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-098-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1989-098-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
William Schrader Project Lead Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
David Venditti Technical Contact Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Brenda Aguirre Bonneville Power Administration
Lance Hebdon Technical Contact Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Tim Copeland Technical Contact Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Peter Lofy Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Ryan Kinzer Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Russell Scranton Project SME Bonneville Power Administration