Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1997-015-01 - Imnaha River Steelhead Status and Smolt Monitoring Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1997-015-01 - Imnaha River Steelhead Status and Smolt Monitoring

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
1997-015-01
Title:
Imnaha River Steelhead Status and Smolt Monitoring
Summary:
Agreements were reached through U.S. v. Oregon to release 450,000 yearling fall chinook salmon on-station at Lyons Ferry Hatchery as well as and additional 450,000 (total) yearlings from three acclimation facilities above Lower Granite Dam. The USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) funded the first two years (1996 and 1997) of this project, through the BPA. Direct BPA funding began in 1998. Supplementation of LFH fall chinook yearlings monitoring and evaluation studies were initiated with the commencement of operations of the Pittsburg Landing acclimation facility on the Snake River in 1996. This project provides the FPC's SMP with tributary specific emigration data from the Imnaha River. It continues a collection of a time series of chinook salmon and steelhead smolt arrival and survival information to mainstem dams.

The FPC will be provided with an index of daily fish catch and condition from the Imnaha River, and smolt performance characteristics past the series of hydroelectric projects on the Snake and Columbia River. Indices of fish passage, migration strength (or peak migration) and migration timing are provided for Imnaha River smolts and smolts from the run at large at key monitoring sites and mainstem dams. PIT tagged smolts also provide measures of smolt travel time and in-river survival through key index reaches. This is accomplished by individual tag detections at mainstem sites on the lower Snake and Columbia rivers. Additionally, fish quality and descaling information are collected at the Imnaha River trap and provide indicators of the health of emigrating smolts. The data provided to the FPC is used for in-season operational decisions relative to flow and spill management, particularly during periods when spill is being provided to improve smolt passage.

Smolt monitoring and PIT tagging is conducted during the spring smolt emigration period. The project will PIT tag up to 4,600 steelhead smolts (natural and hatchery) to estimate the emigration timing, travel time, and estimated survival from the mouth of the Imnaha River to Snake River and Columbia River dams. The project will assist the LSRCP hatchery evaluation study with PIT tagging an additional 5,000 steelhead smolts (3,000 natural and 2,000 hatchery). The project will also assist LSRCP with PIT tagging as many as 14,400 spring emigrating natural chinook salmon smolts and 5,600 fall emigrating pre-smolts may be PIT tagged for the LSRCP program.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1997
Ending FY:
2020
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Blue Mountain Imnaha 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Map of the Imnaha River study area.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P115887

Document: Emigration of Natural and Hatchery Nacó’x and Héeyey Smolts from the Imnaha River, Oregon from 3 October 2007 to 21 June 2008

Page Number: 16

Project: 1997-015-01

Contract: 39649

Map of the Columbia River Basin. Dams underlined indicate monitoring points for the Imnaha Smolt Monitoring Program.

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P115887

Document: Emigration of Natural and Hatchery Nacó’x and Héeyey Smolts from the Imnaha River, Oregon from 3 October 2007 to 21 June 2008

Page Number: 16

Project: 1997-015-01

Contract: 39649

The Imnaha River juvenile migration trap site with a rotary screw trap operating.

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P115887

Document: Emigration of Natural and Hatchery Nacó’x and Héeyey Smolts from the Imnaha River, Oregon from 3 October 2007 to 21 June 2008

Page Number: 17

Project: 1997-015-01

Contract: 39649


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 *
FY2019 (Previous) $842,373 $842,380 $842,380 $735,576

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $837,167 $837,174 $837,174 $731,030
General - Within Year $5,206 $5,206 $5,206 $4,546
FY2020 (Current) $837,167 $837,167 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $837,167 $0 $0 $0
FY2021 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2019 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2020 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2021 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2019 - FY2021)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2019 Expense $415,417 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY19 Nez Perce Budgets 11/07/2018
FY2019 Expense $2,603 From: General - Within Year PIT Tag Readers 12/20/2018
FY2019 Expense $421,750 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) 2010-032-00 Merge 02/11/2019
FY2019 Expense $2,603 From: General - Within Year 2010-032-00 Merge 02/11/2019
FY2020 Expense $837,167 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2020
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
2019 (Draft)
2018 $248,252 37 %
2017 $248,252 37 %
2016 $248,252 37 %
2015 $248,252 38 %
2014 $248,252 40 %
2013 $248,252 43 %
2012 $248,252 42 %
2011 $241,021 42 %
2010
2009 $227,621 46 %
2008 $220,990 46 %
2007 $214,554 45 %

Contracts

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
333 REL 1 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 97-15-1 IMNAHA RIIVER SMOLT MONITORING - NPT Terminated $474,191 1/1/2000 - 12/31/2000
333 REL 22 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1997-15-1 IMNAHA RIVER SMOLT MONITORING - NPT Terminated $69,624 3/1/2000 - 2/28/2001
3087 REL 1 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1997-015-01 IMNAHA RIVER SMOLT MONITORING Terminated $183,136 1/1/2001 - 2/28/2001
BPA-005522 Bonneville Power Administration Pit Tags - Imnaha R Smolt Monitoring Active $8,912 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
BPA-003643 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Imnaha R Smolt Monitoring NPT Active $8,356 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
BPA-004307 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Imnaha R Smolt Monitoring NPT Active $8,302 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004985 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Active $8,058 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005651 Bonneville Power Administration PIT tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring FY2011 Active $7,917 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
55729 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1997-015-01 EXP IMNAHA RIVER SMOLT MONITORING - NPT History $326,839 1/1/2012 - 12/31/2012
BPA-006946 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Active $7,006 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007668 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Active $8,536 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008392 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Active $8,516 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008915 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Active $8,712 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
BPA-009530 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Active $8,756 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
BPA-010024 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Active $8,776 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
BPA-010780 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags/Readers - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Active $14,275 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
74017 REL 36 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1997-015-01 EXP IMNAHA RIVER STEELHEAD STATUS & SMOLT MONITORING Issued $828,105 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019
CR-333544 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1997-015-01 EXP IMNAHA R STEELHEAD STATUS & SMOLT MONITORING Pending $0 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):26
Completed:9
On time:9
Status Reports
Completed:56
On time:43
Avg Days Early:5

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
4004 26123, 30588, 36693, 39649, 45508, 51121, 55729, 60624, 63588, 67554, 71576, 74666, 74017 REL 6, 74017 REL 36 1997-015-01 IMNAHA RIVER SMOLT MONITORING Nez Perce Tribe 03/2001 03/2001 Pending 56 198 34 1 15 248 93.55% 0
BPA-005522 Pit Tags - Imnaha R Smolt Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2006 10/2006 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-003643 PIT Tags - Imnaha R Smolt Monitoring NPT Bonneville Power Administration 10/2007 10/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004307 PIT Tags - Imnaha R Smolt Monitoring NPT Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004985 PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005651 PIT tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring FY2011 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006946 PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007668 PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008392 PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008915 PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009530 PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010024 PIT Tags - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010780 PIT Tags/Readers - Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 90 290 34 1 24 349 92.84% 0


Historical from: 2010-032-00
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
48061 55019, 59887, 63259, 67555, 71016, 74659, 74017 REL 5 2010-032-00 EXP BIOP IMNAHA RIVER STEELHEAD STATUS MONITORING Nez Perce Tribe 07/2010 07/2010 Closed 34 92 0 0 9 101 91.09% 0
BPA-005237 PIT Tags - Imnaha R Steelhead Status Mon. Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010996 PIT Tag Reader Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 90 290 34 1 24 349 92.84% 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: 2010-032-00-ISRP-20100622
Project: 2010-032-00 - Imnaha River Steelhead Status Monitoring
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:
While the proposed work has the potential to provide useful information on an important anadromous population in the Snake River basin, information that may be transferable (in some way to other subbasins), there are several major issues that need clarification and expansion. These issues include:
1. Better justification for Objective 3
2. Better explanation of the power analysis and data analysis
3. Justification for using different types of adult sampling methods and the rationale for their locations
4. Issues relating to comparability of data between tributaries whose adults were sampled using different techniques.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The purpose of the proposed work is to quantify, with a "high degree of precision," escapement and spatial distribution of steelhead in the Imnaha River. The steelhead population in the Imnaha is part of the Snake River steelhead ESU declared Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The proponents state that the Regional RM&E Collaboration strategies for the Snake River called for high precision estimates of adult abundance, with a coefficient of variation of 15% or less, "in at least one population per life history type per Major Population Group." This CV apparently was based on a recommendation by NOAA-Fisheries for monitoring VSP parameters (Crawford and Rumsey 2009, draft). In accordance with this strategy, the Coordinated Anadromous Workshop identified Imnaha steelhead as a "high precision priority population" so accurate estimates of escapement are needed. This is one of the more compelling justifications for the proposed work, but the proponents need to explain how the determination that the Imnaha was a priority population was made.

However, the ISRP notes that 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.

Further justification for expanding monitoring of A-run steelhead in the Imnaha includes: "The Imnaha River steelhead population is unique in the Snake River DPS in that it: 1) is physically small enough to conduct sampling of steelhead (mainstem flow and manageable number of spawning/rearing aggregates), 2) has a dendritic structure of spawning areas occurring across the entire range of elevations available to Snake basin DPS steelhead (spawning in areas from 1,000 feet up to 6,000 feet), and 3) has a supplementation program occurring in just two of its spawning aggregates." Also, "Steelhead redd counts are not physically possible throughout most the Imnaha River drainage due to inaccessibility and high turbidity".

This justification appears meaningful. It seems consistent with the BiOp and the Imnaha Subbasin Plan. However, the justification could be stronger. The proposal makes the point that the work outlined is needed to fill a "critical data gap." A better justification would show how management of Imnaha steelhead could be improved if the new data were available.

The proponents assert that monitoring the status of steelhead in individual tributaries within the Imnaha basin provides more detailed information on the status of the species than does an aggregate measure of abundance. Tributary population monitoring is needed to more effectively evaluate the efficacy of the Imnaha steelhead production program and the status and trends of the naturally-spawning steelhead population in the subbasin. Additionally, most estimates of adult steelhead abundance in Snake River tributaries occur at Lower Granite dam with apparently little information on steelhead escapement for subbasins and tributaries upstream of Lower Granite. This project proposes to provide this kind of information for the Imnaha subbasin and several of its tributaries.

Considerable attention in the proposal is devoted to identifying general connections between this project and Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Imnaha Subbasin Plan, 2008 BiOp, PNAMP/CSMEP/AHSWG reports and recommendations by the ISRP, Council, NOAA- Fisheries and BPA. The project is consistent with RPAs in the BiOp, the Fish and Wildlife Program, and is complementary to other projects ongoing in the Snake River. It meets several needs identified in the Imnaha Subbasin Plan pertaining to adult summer steelhead escapement, distribution, and movement

The proposed work will be similar to that of two others: a) ISEMP in its fast-track proposal has requested funding to install two PIT tag arrays in the Lower Imnaha River to assist this project in quantification of the distribution and abundance of steelhead in the Imnaha River basin, and b) the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan monitoring through the NPT and ODFW. Is the proposed work fully compatible with these projects?

2. Project History and Results
This is new project. Information on Imnaha steelhead escapement and distribution gathered by previous projects is briefly summarized to provide background and context for this proposal. A version of this project was proposed as a new project in 2002 (#200205600) and received favorable reviews by the ISRP but was not funded.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
Objectives were clearly described and seem appropriate. The goal of the project is to establish steelhead population status information in the Imnaha River Subbasin. More specific objectives were embedded in a series of questions with specific tasks identified as objectives such as 1) Installing and maintaining of floating weirs and PIT tag arrays, 2) Quantifying steelhead escapement and collecting fish condition, tag, and tissue data, and 3) Collection of annual stream temperature and discharge.

Objective 3 could be better justified. What is the benefit of measuring temperature and discharge relative to the proposals objectives? How will measurement of these parameters refine escapement estimates?

The proposal seems to concentrate mostly on monitoring adult returns. It appears that juvenile production will be monitored but that is not explained with any detail. The proponents should describe to what extent outmigrants will be monitored? Will the proposed work complete all that is needed for Imnaha steelhead monitoring?

The description of the power analysis [as recommended by NOAA-Fisheries (Crawford and Rumsey 2009, draft)] and methods of data analysis were provided in some detail, but were not entirely satisfactory. Better explanation of power analysis assumptions is necessary and the data analysis section needs to be clarified. References such as Thomson (2002) were not given, although relevant material can be found in Chapter 9 of Thompson, 1992 (“Sampling,” Wiley Interscience). Some notation should be clarified. Note that V(Ratio) is simply V(Ntotal)/(Ntag)2 and define Nno-tag, perhaps in terms of Ntag and Ntotal.

A major objective of the proposed work is to install floating weirs and PIT tag arrays to estimate adult escapement, gather life history data, and collect tissues for genetic analysis of population structure. One set of PIT tag arrays will be placed near the mouth of the Imnaha to estimate subbasin adult escapement and two others will be located on tributaries. Several weirs, including fixed and resistivity weirs are already in place on a number of Imnaha tributaries. The proponents contend that the suite of arrays and weirs (in place and proposed) will allow precise estimation of steelhead escapement.

Funding for the PIT tag arrays at the Imnaha mouth was not requested in this proposal. Rather, the proponents are depending on funding of ISEMP's fast-track proposal (proposal 2003-017-000) which proposes to install the arrays. The proponents of this proposal actually provide a better justification for installation of the arrays than the ISEMP proposal. It is of interest that the proponents did not request funding for the array at the Imnaha mouth in this proposal, but rather they trust that this apparently important part of their work would be funded through another proposal. Are there contingencies in the event that the ISEMP proposal for the Imnaha is not funded?

The proponents should justify why the work requires different types of weirs (floating, resistivity, fixed) as well as PIT tag arrays. They also should clearly present the rationale for location of the weirs and the tributary arrays.

Could the proposed work, in coordination with ISEMP, present an opportunity for testing the efficacy of different types of sampling methods (PIT-tag arrays, floating, resistivity, fixed weirs) for estimating adult returns? If so, it should be one of the objectives with corresponding methods for testing and analysis. Can basinwide adult estimates be derived from the set of upstream arrays and weirs and compared to estimates from the arrays at the river mouth?

A possible concern is comparability of data between tributaries when different methods, with different efficiencies for sampling returning adults (e.g., arrays, different types of weirs) are used. For example, some tests of resistivity weirs in Alaska have identified serious biases in detecting returning adults. How do the proponents plan to handle this potentially confounding issue? Will the efficiencies and biases of the different sampling techniques be directly evaluated in the proposed work?

The proposed M&E work could provide important information on status and trends of adult steelhead abundance in the Imnaha River. Its designation as a high precision population suggests the importance of the steelhead run, although justification for this designation was not clearly presented in the proposal. It seems that the intent is to use the Imnaha as a sort of index stream for other Snake River subbasins and tributaries, but the proponents are not explicit about this use.
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1997-015-01-NPCC-20110124
Project: 1997-015-01 - Imnaha River Steelhead Status and Smolt Monitoring
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1997-015-01
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2016: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in 2012 contract. Implementation subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Qualification: Analyses using data collected under this proposal – whether conducted by the NPT, FPC, or others – should be increased and documented in future project progress reports and proposals.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process
Assessment Number: 2010-032-00-NPCC-20110627
Project: 2010-032-00 - Imnaha River Steelhead Status Monitoring
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2010-032-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: See Programmatic issue #2. Also see Fast Track April-May 2010 Council decision.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #2 Habitat effectiveness monitoring and evaluation—.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1997-015-01-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1997-015-01 - Imnaha River Steelhead Status and Smolt Monitoring
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1997-015-01
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification: Analyses using data collected under this proposal – whether conducted by the NPT, FPC, or others – should be increased and documented in future project progress reports and proposals.

Summary: The project provides valuable data for several other projects and management applications in the basin. The project rationale is clearly presented, adequately showing how the data collected and supplied by this project are applied to management issues and decisions. The history of project activities and the time series assembled are outlined in a general sense, at least insofar as what was done (rather than what was discovered).

In a previous ISRP review of this project, the ISRP wrote that 199701501 is not a research investigation but essentially a data collection project. That assessment remains accurate. The objectives are more accurately called sampling and data summary tasks designed to provide the data in a form suitable for a database. The objectives are adequate as far as they go, i.e., as strictly a monitoring project. The project itself is well conducted using appropriate sampling and population estimation methods. The methodologies for this sort of smolt trapping work are identified and referenced, and are adequately standardized.

Although the historical data generated in this project are presented in the proposal, the proponents indicate that interpretation of the data is probably someone else’s primary responsibility, or is at least outside of the scope of the proposal. It is unclear, however, whose responsibility is it to analyze this valuable data.

There remain several opportunities for making more effective use of this 13-year data set. First, in a general sense, it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss the meaning of their results. The tables present the collected data very well. There appear to be some trends, and it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss those possible trends. Besides showing the accumulated data, presenting basic analyses (with narrative) of those data would be required to fulfill the criterion that the project “benefit fish and wildlife” as would interpreting the data and drawing conclusions about effects on the focal fish population and management implications. These data do not need to be dealt with in a routine manner. The results need not just be reported but can also be evaluated and interpreted.

For example, how might accuracy, precision, and bias be evaluated? Would short-term operation of a second trap (if cost-effective), or another approach, provide accuracy and precision estimates? It is not clear what biases may exist in this sampling regime. None of these issues are indicated as being addressed.

As for interpretation of the data collected, there is no research component, no hypotheses are listed, no indications are given of any research analysis designs. There are meaningful hypotheses that can be tested. For example, Roper and Scarnecchia (1999: CJFAS 56:939-946) develop and test several hypotheses around a 3-4 year data nearly identical in form but of much shorter duration than the impressive data set described in this proposal. There are also many other papers cited in that paper where hypotheses are tested with screw trap data on salmonid migrations. Such hypotheses might include an analysis of factors affecting run timing and duration, such as discharges, water temperatures, lunar phase, etc. It might also compare survival rates of early and late migrants. Such hypotheses testing and analyses would provide meaningful information for the Imnaha and be potentially applicable to other areas of the basin. A thorough analysis of this data would not only make full use of this valuable data set, it would show the limitations of the data and improve the sampling design for the future. This appears to be a missed opportunity; there are no refereed publications listed as having emanated from this project by the proponents.

The data are thus not being fully utilized beyond the good use by the FPC and by the LSRCP. The next proposal or project report should preferably describe the analyses conducted or proposed with this data whether through the NPT, FPC, or others.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification: Analyses using data collected under this proposal – whether conducted by the NPT, FPC, or others – should be increased and documented in future project progress reports and proposals.

Summary: The project provides valuable data for several other projects and management applications in the basin. The project rationale is clearly presented, adequately showing how the data collected and supplied by this project are applied to management issues and decisions. The history of project activities and the time series assembled are outlined in a general sense, at least insofar as what was done (rather than what was discovered).

In a previous ISRP review of this project, the ISRP wrote that 199701501 is not a research investigation but essentially a data collection project. That assessment remains accurate. The objectives are more accurately called sampling and data summary tasks designed to provide the data in a form suitable for a database. The objectives are adequate as far as they go, i.e., as strictly a monitoring project. The project itself is well conducted using appropriate sampling and population estimation methods. The methodologies for this sort of smolt trapping work are identified and referenced, and are adequately standardized.

Although the historical data generated in this project are presented in the proposal, the proponents indicate that interpretation of the data is probably someone else’s primary responsibility, or is at least outside of the scope of the proposal. It is unclear, however, whose responsibility is it to analyze this valuable data.

There remain several opportunities for making more effective use of this 13-year data set. First, in a general sense, it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss the meaning of their results. The tables present the collected data very well. There appear to be some trends, and it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss those possible trends. Besides showing the accumulated data, presenting basic analyses (with narrative) of those data would be required to fulfill the criterion that the project “benefit fish and wildlife” as would interpreting the data and drawing conclusions about effects on the focal fish population and management implications. These data do not need to be dealt with in a routine manner. The results need not just be reported but can also be evaluated and interpreted.

For example, how might accuracy, precision, and bias be evaluated? Would short-term operation of a second trap (if cost-effective), or another approach, provide accuracy and precision estimates? It is not clear what biases may exist in this sampling regime. None of these issues are indicated as being addressed.

As for interpretation of the data collected, there is no research component, no hypotheses are listed, no indications are given of any research analysis designs. There are meaningful hypotheses that can be tested. For example, Roper and Scarnecchia (1999: CJFAS 56:939-946) develop and test several hypotheses around a 3-4 year data nearly identical in form but of much shorter duration than the impressive data set described in this proposal. There are also many other papers cited in that paper where hypotheses are tested with screw trap data on salmonid migrations. Such hypotheses might include an analysis of factors affecting run timing and duration, such as discharges, water temperatures, lunar phase, etc. It might also compare survival rates of early and late migrants. Such hypotheses testing and analyses would provide meaningful information for the Imnaha and be potentially applicable to other areas of the basin. A thorough analysis of this data would not only make full use of this valuable data set, it would show the limitations of the data and improve the sampling design for the future. This appears to be a missed opportunity; there are no refereed publications listed as having emanated from this project by the proponents.

The data are thus not being fully utilized beyond the good use by the FPC and by the LSRCP. The next proposal or project report should preferably describe the analyses conducted or proposed with this data whether through the NPT, FPC, or others.
Documentation Links:

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1997-015-01-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1997-015-01
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1997-015-01
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.

BPA would like to discuss further coordination in data management needs of this project to support RPA 72.

For compliance with RPA 50.3 or RPAs 52.1, 52.2: This project needs to conduct assessments on hydro operations which is not clearly articulated. These RPA's had no identified gaps, please justify your support if you feel this project is essential to the success of the RPA. Note: Tagged fish may not be enough to support the RPA.

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: ( 50.6 50.7 62.4 62.5 64.2 )
All Questionable RPA Associations ( 50.7 0 72.2) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (50.1 50.3 52.1 52.2 56.1 56.3 62.1 71.3 )
Proponent Response:
Assessment Number: 2010-032-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2010-032-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2010-032-00
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.

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: (50.6 50.7 62.4 62.5 64.2)
All Questionable RPA Associations (50.7) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( 56.1 62.1 63.1 )
Proponent Response:

100% of the hatchery steelhead released into the Imnaha River subbasin are marked with an adipose fin clip.  Fish production and marking is supported by the LSRCP.  We do not feel there is an association of RPA 50.7 with project 201003200 given our project is only quantifying adults escapement by origin.  Our project will use internal and external marks to determine fish origin of returning adults.

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1997-015-01-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1997-015-01 - Imnaha River Steelhead Status and Smolt Monitoring
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund Pending Available Funds
Comments: Priority for funding if funding becomes available.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1997-015-01-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1997-015-01 - Imnaha River Steelhead Status and Smolt Monitoring
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:
Viewed in the context that this is essentially a data collection project, the rationale for the presentation of tasks as objectives is understandable. The proposal as constructed must be viewed not as a research investigation per se but a data supply project. The response does an adequate job of showing how the data collected by this project are applied through other analyses and inform management decisions. Interpretation of the data is acknowledged by the presenters as probably someone else's primary responsibility, or is at least outside of the scope of this proposal. However, the sponsors should remain vigilant on staying current on how the information is being used in management decisions to ensure that they are collecting the highest priority data. The proposal is fundable on that basis.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1997-015-01-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1997-015-01
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Estimate total juvenile emigrant abundance, smolt survival and smolt-to-adult return rates (SAR) of wild/natural chinook salmon and steelhead at Lower Granite and McNary Dams and support the Smolt Monitoring Program and NEOH M&E Projects.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1997-015-01-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1997-015-01
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: This project Merged From 2010-032-00 effective on 10/1/2018
Relationship Description: Project 2010-032-00 is permanently merging into project 1997-015-01. The budget being moved is $421,750 annually. Additional amount for FY19 only is 2,603 for PIT tag readers.


Name Role Organization
Jay Hesse Supervisor Nez Perce Tribe
James Harbeck Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Deborah Docherty Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Claire McClory Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
David Kaplowe Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration