Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1990-055-00 - Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Studies Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1990-055-00 - Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Studies
Project Number:
1990-055-00
Title:
Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Studies
Summary:
This project was originally titled the Idaho Steelhead Supplementation Studies (SSS) and it was designed to assess the effects of supplementation and to gather life history and genetic data from wild steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss populations. The experimental design was submitted to BPA in December, 1992 and field work began in 1993. The small scale supplementation experiments were completed in 2004. The project was renamed Idaho Steelhead Monitoring & Evaluation Studies (ISMES) to acknowledge that wild steelhead population dynamics, life-history, and genetics have always been the primary goal of this project. Basic biological data must be available to assess population abundance, population trends, and to understand stock specific life-history and genetic attributes. This study has focused on gathering this information from wild steelhead populations in Idaho. Performance of ESA listed steelhead population units is evaluated in terms of population growth rate, abundance, genetic and life history diversity, and spatial distribution within the ESU. This is addressed in the Clearwater and Salmon Sub Basin Plans, Federal Biological Opinions (BiOp), Salmon Recovery Plans, and the Northwest Power Planning Council Research and Monitoring Plan. ISMES has since its inception addressed Tier 1 (Ecosystem Status) and Tier 2 (Population and Habitat Status Monitoring) goals developed by Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP). Much of the status information on wild steelhead in Idaho that was presented in the BiOp was developed from data gathered by ISMES. The ISMES project provides data needed for determining migration timing and life histories of steelhead, determining population specific smolt-to-adult return rates (SAR) in index streams, comparing SAR’s of Idaho populations with other downriver stocks, collecting tributary specific adult and juvenile abundance data, evaluating downstream passage through the hydrosystem, developing stock specific productivity metrics (juveniles and smolts per female), and characterizing the steelhead stock structure within Idaho.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1990
Ending FY:
2032
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Clearwater 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU (threatened)
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Steelhead - Snake River DPS (threatened)
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Photo: Ron Roberts

Figure Name: Cover

Document ID: P123506

Document: Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Studies

Page Number: 1

Project: 1990-055-00

Contract: 50973


Summary of Budgets

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $1,261,724 $1,182,332 $1,182,332 $1,182,332 $1,164,942

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $1,011,201 $1,011,201 $1,011,201 $996,328
Fish Accord - Idaho $171,131 $171,131 $171,131 $168,614
FY2017 (Current) $1,259,578 $1,274,717 $1,274,717 $1,274,717 $950,773

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $1,079,102 $1,079,102 $1,079,102 $804,869
Fish Accord - Idaho $195,615 $195,615 $195,615 $145,903
FY2018 (Next) $1,261,062 $1,261,062 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $1,078,302 $0 $0 $0
Post 2018 - Idaho $182,760 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Jun-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $150,000 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2016 Expense $28,303 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2016 Expense $2,229 To: Fish Accord - Idaho Idaho - establish FY13-17 budget for 2009-023-00 Accord Administration 07/31/2012
FY2016 Expense $1,079,102 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2016 Expense $6,548 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Budget Transfers (Idaho) 8/26/2015 08/26/2015
FY2016 Expense $11,491 To: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Budget Transfers (ID) 5/12/17 05/12/2017
FY2016 Expense $67,901 To: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Accord Budget Transfers (ID) 5/12/17 05/12/2017
FY2017 Expense $150,000 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2017 Expense $32,760 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2017 Expense $2,284 To: Fish Accord - Idaho Idaho - establish FY13-17 budget for 2009-023-00 Accord Administration 07/31/2012
FY2017 Expense $1,079,102 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2017 Expense $3,648 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Budget Transfers (CRITFC, Idaho) 2/6/2017 02/07/2017
FY2017 Expense $11,491 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Budget Transfers (ID) 5/12/17 05/12/2017
FY2018 Expense $182,760 From: Post 2018 - Idaho FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $1,078,302 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 47 %
FY2013 47 %
FY2012 48 %
FY2011 48 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 53 %
FY2008 50 %
FY2007 54 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
20874 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) PROJECT 1990-055-00 STEELHEAD SUPPLEMENTATION STUDIES History $525,385 1/1/2005 - 12/31/2005
27838 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1990-055-00 SUPPLEMENTATION OF SUMMER STEELHEAD IN IDAHO History $489,949 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006
BPA-003700 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Active $9,082 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
BPA-004313 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - ID Steelhead M&E Studies Active $18,049 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004955 Bonneville Power Administration PIT tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Studies Active $28,904 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005530 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Active $39,239 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
BPA-005702 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Active $34,423 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006342 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Active $31,815 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006962 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Active $30,331 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007722 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Active $30,062 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
67655 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1990-055-00 EXP IDAHO STEELHEAD M&E STUDIES - 2015 Issued $1,175,211 1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015
BPA-008378 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Active $49,467 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008906 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Active $52,082 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
74851 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1990-055-00 EXP ID STEELHEAD M&E STUDIES Issued $1,222,368 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017
BPA-009581 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Active $52,349 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):15
Completed:12
On time:12
Status Reports
Completed:48
On time:38
Avg Days Early:2

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
9949 20874, 27838, 31601, 36150, 40650, 45642, 50973, 55728, 59800, 63755, 67655, 71170, 74851 1990-055-00 STEELHEAD SUPPLEMENTATION STUDIES Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 01/2002 01/2002 Issued 47 279 22 0 4 305 98.69% 0
BPA-005530 PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2006 10/2006 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-003700 PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2007 10/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004313 PIT Tags - ID Steelhead M&E Studies Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004955 PIT tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Studies Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005702 PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006342 PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006962 PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007722 PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008378 PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008906 PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009581 PIT Tags - Idaho Steelhead M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 47 279 22 0 4 305 98.69% 0


Review: Fast Track ISRP Review 2010

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1990-055-00-ISRP-20100623
Project: 1990-055-00 - Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Studies
Review: Fast Track ISRP Review 2010
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 2/24/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
The field data collected and then analyzed by the Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Studies (ISMES) is appropriate and used in management of steelhead populations. Because the proposal lacks a comprehensive explanation of steelhead monitoring in Idaho, the specific role ISMES contributes is difficult to ascertain. The ISRP has no reason to believe the monitoring is not essential, but the need for monitoring should be made clearer in the proposal. Consequently, a response is requested that provides the following in a revised narrative:

1. A table that outlines the ESU, MPG, Independent Populations, and streams in the Snake River system and that identifies 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. A summary table of the data collected for each of the sites by the ISMES (or cooperators) since the last ISRP review. Also include trend data that summarize steelhead abundance trends over the duration of the study period.

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

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

7. Statements of whether any deficiencies in the data have been identified in BiOp, TRT, or CSMEP reports, and if so, description of how these deficiencies have been considered in the basinwide strategy and subsequent project modification.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Study (ISMES) is another long-standing project that has benefited from previous ISRP reviews and interactions with the project proponents. The project has a long and developing history. It is well justified within the proposal and in the Council's Program. Relationships with other projects are extensive (Table 3 in proposal) and involve collaborations and efficiencies for data collection, data exchange, and coordination. The project appears consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program and BiOp and ESA management needs. There is specific reference to increase B-run steelhead monitoring in RPA 50.5. The proponent states this project is the only one focused on wild steelhead in Idaho. This, however, does not address the question of whether the objectives of this study fulfill the RPA, or whether other projects also contribute.

The proposal references the Columbia Basin Regional RM&E Strategy and directs reviewers to a CBFWA website and table titled Critical Contracts and Identified Gaps, to justify continuing much of the past ISMES program. It would be helpful to the ISRP to summarize in a table in the proposal the essential monitoring that is needed for Idaho steelhead, and then identify which projects and proponents are suppose to complete these tasks. Ongoing and new tasks for ISEMS should be specifically identified. This project, together with others in the Snake River would benefit from an integrated review. Many projects overlap in duties, species addressed, and personnel.

The general explanation that data collected by this project are used to estimate VSP parameters for the Snake River Steelhead ESU (DPS) is well done; the VSP parameters are summarized, the hierarchy of spawning aggregates, independent populations, major population groups, and then the ESU is explained, and the general sorts of data used to estimate the parameters are referenced.

Specific information on the details of the hierarchical structure of Snake River steelhead ESU is incomplete in the technical background summary. Figure 1 (page 13) that identifies weir and screw-trap locations leads to the conclusion that there are two MPGs, and the appendix leads to the conclusion that there are a number of “populations” associated with individual tributaries. However, there is no statement as to the number of MPGs, the number of populations, and how many of these have multiple spawning aggregates. The recent steelhead genetic structure investigation that apparently forms the basis for anticipating delineation of adults and juveniles at Lower Granite Dam to MPG and perhaps population is not sufficiently summarized for reviewers to understand the state of development of this monitoring strategy. It is also not clear whether the precision of past data is sufficient for BiOp and recovery/delisting management decisions.

2. Project History and Results
The project history section is well done in terms of describing activities undertaken. Missing, however, are results in terms of what the project has found out about the “status and trends of wild steelhead populations” (the project purpose, as stated on page 1 of the proposal narrative). The project has evolved and become both more rigorous and comprehensive than its earlier versions. Some rudimentary (and intriguing) results were referred to on page 11 in the proposal, but not presented. Reviewers would like to see more findings presented, given the duration and ongoing nature of the project. The narrative on pages 11 and 12, together with the maps of snorkel sites, screw traps, and weirs are helpful; however, the project history and results are insufficient to inform a scientific review for ongoing efforts and to establish that standards for quality assurance/quality control for the Columbia Basin Monitoring Strategy are being met.

A summary of the genetic analysis that concludes that sampling at Lower Granite Dam can be used to estimate the proportions of MPGs and some individual populations is necessary. Estimates of metrics under objectives 1 through 8 should be summarized in the proposal. There should be evidence included that the sampling protocols are rigorous enough to meet the guidelines for precision in the basinwide strategy.

The project accomplishments shown in the tabular outline and in the narrative consist only of actions performed, rather than biological results. What has been found out about what the narrative states as the project's purpose—to evaluate the status and trends of wild steelhead populations in Idaho? It is said: "We will assess abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity at the population and major population group scales . . . also assess abundance, productivity, and diversity for the Snake River Distinct Population Segment." Project proponents should present the findings to date on these matters as part of the proposal and to help reviewers evaluate the project's progress.

Additionally, proponents should describe how this data fits and has fitted with TRT analysis of population viability and estimation of VSP parameters. Proponents should explicitly describe how their past data has been used and how the additions would inform future VSP analysis.

The high precision data type is not clear. The reference to a CV of 15% or less (Crawford and Rumsey 2009) has not been established as a reasonable data standard. 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. Further justification for sample size targets is required.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
Project work elements have been retained from the earlier (2007-2009) project to provide continuity; however, other elements have been added to expand the project in response to mandates in the Idaho Fish Accords.

The objectives and work elements are clearly stated in the proposal. The overall objective of estimating VSP parameters for Idaho Snake River steelhead is scientifically defensible. Methods are typically general, though supporting or source methods are noted (such as the modification of Thurow et al.'s 2006 snorkel survey methods for observation of marked juvenile steelhead). Other sections include detailed and specific descriptions of equipment and methods appropriate for the proposal and its objectives.

Questions regarding individual objectives follow:
Objective 1. Why is the minimum sample size 2,000 (page 15)? If the wild steelhead are sub-sampled to attain 2,000 fish, how can this be called a minimum sample? This seems more like a target sample.

Work element B. How are results from different scales from an individual fish reconciled (page 16)? Is there any effort to use PIT tagged fish to establish the "true" age so error rates can be estimated? How would this error affect population dynamic and viability assessments and management uncertainty?

Work element D. Why a sample size of 2000 smolts?

Objective 2. Identify the MPG and independent populations associated with Fish Creek, Rapid River, and Big Creek (The appendix tables are inconsistent with reference to MPGs. One table has 2 MPGs and a second table has 5).

Work element G. Why are hatchery adults being released into the Lochsa River? How does this influence the abundance and productivity estimates for VSP in the associated independent population, MPG, and DPS.

Work element H. It is not clear how population estimates are generated using the fish obtained through hook and line fishing. Please elaborate.

Work element I. Explain why wild steelhead are being enumerated using a fish hatchery ladder. Do all the steelhead in this stream enter the ladder? How are they passed upstream? How are unmarked hatchery fish assessed and differentiated from wild fish?

Objective 3, work element P. It is not clear if some of the field work associated with estimates of adult escapement above weirs in other rivers is conducted by personnel from ISMES, or if ISMES only conducts analysis.

Objective 4. Work element R. Please elaborate on the GRTS rotating panel used for this analysis. For snorkel surveys (and concomitant evaluation of "gross habitat characteristics") is the "desired average site length" of 100 m always long enough to adequately sample the habitat types mentioned (pool, pocket water, riffle, or run)—or at least one of them in its entirety per site, and is this important? Use of 100-m sites is apparently based on just a single reference (Thurow et al, 2006).

Adequate site length may depend largely on channel width. Size and longitudinal spacing of habitat types are generally proportional to channel width. A stream 2 or 3 meters wide could be expected to include a series of several pools and riffles within a 100-meter reach (if it has pool-riffle structure), but a stream of about 20 meters wide or larger could happen to include just part of one pool or of one riffle within a 100-meter reach, thus not cover even one habitat unit. Would adjusting site length according to channel width better represent habitat conditions than arbitrarily setting 100 meters as the desired site length for all streams? Are channel widths of the study sites reported in the narrative?

The proposal could be improved by listing the project's streams and their study sites, showing characteristics, such as streamflow discharge (range of flows and those usually occurring at season of sampling), channel width, channel gradient, habitat features, and channel length sampled.

The proposal cites that the goals and strategies for monitoring and evaluation of the status of Snake River Chinook salmon and steelhead were identified in the fall 2009 RM&E workshop. It is not entirely clear how ISMES has been expanded or modified to meet the basinwide monitoring strategy. 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 ISMES 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.
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1990-055-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1990-055-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1990-055-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: 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 affected. If marking is conducted under another project or program, please let us know the name of that project/program.

Paired juvenile monitoring should be coordinated with CHaMP habitat monitoring watersheds, if possible, and comparable data from other watersheds may be used to support modeling. However, extensive monitoring (including snorkeling for chinook parr density) is outside of BiOp requirements. Please clarify the value of the ongoing snorkle surveys and the intended uses of the data for the project.

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: (50.3 50.5 50.6 53.2 54.5 54.6 55.1 55.2 56.1 62.5)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( 50.7 53.3 54.1 54.1 54.12 54.7 54.8 )
Proponent Response:
199005500-ISMES  
   
   
Project needs coordination with other PIT tagging through PIT Plan.   PIT tagging protocols used by this program were designed to meet specific research objectives as described in the ISMES study design, which has passed several critical reviews by ISRP.  In the past we have provided PIT tag support to other RM&E programs such as 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.
What is the value of ongoing snorkle surveys?   Extensive and intensive snorkel surveys for juvenile abundance (parr density) and spatial structure were considered critical at the RM&E workshops. In addition, and in lieu of redd counts, parr densities are the only measure for steelhead spatial structure for most populations. They are also a surrogate index for steelhead adult abundance at smaller spatial scales. We record information for steelhead, Chinook, and resident fish which contributes to over 30 years of trend monitoring for these species. These snorkel surveys monitor juvenile abundance, productivity, and spatial structure, which are all required by the BiOp.
   

Please also see ISRP 2010 Reply - Addendum (PDF) 
https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P117155

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1990-055-00-NPCC-20110502
Project: 1990-055-00 - Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Studies
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1990-055-00
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 and current review (ISRP document 2010-44A, page 51): Implementation subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process
Council Condition #2 April-May 2010 Council decision document for Fast Track projects - The Council recommends this project for implementation with the condition that the sponsor provide an addendum to their existing proposal addressing information needs associated with Programmatic Issue C as part of the categorical review (i.e., Programmatic Issue #4, in final Council recommendation associated with RM&E) .
Council Condition #3 As part of the RME/AP Category Review (ISRP Document 2010-44A on page 51): In the Fast Track Review, the ISRP recommended that the ISS (1989-098-00) and ISMES (1990-055-00) evaluate their monitoring data for compliance with the NOAA standards for accuracy and precision adopted in the regional monitoring forum. The ISRP assessment of the Fast Track addenda (submitted on July 16, 2010 to ISRP) is that they complied with the assignment, and provided a sufficient summary.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1990-055-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1990-055-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Steelhead M&E, fishery managers authorized /required; needs cost share or other remedy.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1990-055-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1990-055-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1990-055-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1990-055-00 - Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Studies
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The project sponsor's response clarifies the objectives and value of the project and adequately addresses the ISRP's comments from the preliminary review.

The role the data collections and monitoring effort contributing to steelhead management was thoroughly presented. The ISRP query about smolt age and smolts/spawner as metrics of production was clarified with examples of data collected by the project. In response to the ISRP question regarding management actions taken as an example of the project, sponsors identify that steelhead supplementation was discontinued because of the project data. The ISRP recommends to the sponsors that they continue to identify uses for the data in developing management actions for steelhead, not just for the viability assessments of this species. Sponsors identify that genetic analyses will involve analyses beyond Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, Fst, and assignment tests, and will include evaluation of straying, effective population size, and estimation of ESA-recovery unit adult run size at Lower Granite Dam. The ISRP appreciates the clarification of differences in the approaches of Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Program and Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Studies. Finally, while the ISRP acknowledges that annual abundance estimates are not typically published in peer reviewed journals, we believe that when placed in a management context the data that is being produced by this project would be of high quality. For example, contrasting effective population size estimates with census population sizes is unreported for most species, and would be publishable.

Reporting of results in the proposal is good, but the ISRP encourages the sponsors to further explore opportunities to publish information produced by the project as further evidence of its value.

These remaining ISRP concerns with this project should be addressed in subsequent ISRP reviews. In addition, it may be time to conduct a more in-depth review of monitoring in Idaho. It is not clear who collects data how, when, and where in Idaho and how this collection feeds into NOAA TRT analyses, etc.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1990-055-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1990-055-00 - Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Studies
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Tasks removed to meet budget: L Salmon R. smolt monitoring, steelhead PIT tagging in remote sites, steelhead PVA , and adjust temp personnel. In addition, $44,500 has been added to this project for remote pit tagging.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Daniel Schill (Inactive) Supervisor Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Timothy Copeland Technical Contact Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
William Schrader Project Lead Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Jeff Allen (Inactive) Interested Party Northwest Power and Conservation Council
Amy Hines Interested Party Idaho Office of Species Conservation
Mike Edmondson Interested Party Idaho Office of Species Conservation
Brenda Aguirre Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Jennifer Nielsen Interested Party US Geological Survey (USGS)
Lance Hebdon Technical Contact Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Russell Scranton Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Paul Kline Interested Party Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)