Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-233-00 - Distribution and Abundance Monitoring of Oncorhynchus mykiss within the Lower Clearwater Subbasin Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-233-00 - Distribution and Abundance Monitoring of Oncorhynchus mykiss within the Lower Clearwater Subbasin
Project Number:
2007-233-00
Title:
Distribution and Abundance Monitoring of Oncorhynchus mykiss within the Lower Clearwater Subbasin
Summary:
Project will address the lack of spatial distribution and abundance data for the Lower Clearwater River subpopulation of the Snake River Basin steelhead DPS through electrofishing surveys conducted at probabilistically located sites.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2007
Ending FY:
2014
Stage:
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Clearwater 100.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Crappie, Black
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
Lamprey, Pacific
Perch, Yellow
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Brown
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Description: Page: 1 Cover: Cover photo

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 555 x 416

Description: Page: 14 Figure 1: Map of study area streams

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 597 x 805

Description: Page: 22 Figure 3: Map of status sites surveyed in 2009

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 737 x 570

Description: Page: 23 Figure 4: Map of trend sites surveyed in 2009

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 729 x 562

Description: Page: 24 Figure 5: Map of status sites eliminated from 2009 surveys

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 750 x 579

Description: Page: 28 Photo 1: Status site S12-09; stream km 0.3 of unnamed tributary to Clearwater River

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 440 x 398

Description: Page: 31 Photo 2: Status site S32-09; stream km 1.6 of unnamed tributary to Clearwater River

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 446 x 395

Description: Page: 36 Photo 3: Status site S10-08; stream km 0.9 of Cottonwood Creek (NP Co.)

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 534 x 398

Description: Page: 39 Photo 4: Status site S14-09; stream km 3.9 of Cottonwood Creek (NP Co.)

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 512 x 397

Description: Page: 42 Photo 5: Status site S19-09; stream km 8.9 of Cottonwood Creek (NP Co.)

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 489 x 394

Description: Page: 45 Photo 6: Status site S02-08; stream km 14.8 of Cottonwood Creek (NP Co.)

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 555 x 418

Description: Page: 48 Photo 7: Trend site T03; stream km 0.2 of Coyote Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 531 x 419

Description: Page: 51 Photo 8: Status site S18-09; stream km 0.6 of Star Mill Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 555 x 419

Description: Page: 56 Photo 9: Status site S04-09; stream km 2.3 of Pine Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 461 x 410

Description: Page: 61 Photo 10: Status site S07-09; stream km 9.1 of Bedrock Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 451 x 360

Description: Page: 64 Photo 11: Status site S15-09; stream km 12.3 of Bedrock Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 472 x 419

Description: Page: 69 Photo 12: Status site S22-08; stream km 2.1 of Jacks Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 541 x 406

Description: Page: 72 Photo 13: Trend site T09; stream km 6.3 of Jacks Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 424 x 410

Description: Page: 77 Photo 14: Status site S12-08; stream km 2.3 of Orofino Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 419

Description: Page: 80 Photo 15: Status site S27-08; stream km 7.5 of Orofino Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 419

Description: Page: 83 Photo 16: Status site S23-08; stream km 23.8 of Orofino Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 526 x 392

Description: Page: 88 Photo 17: Status site S34-09; stream km 2.7 of Cow Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 422 x 410

Description: Page: 91 Photo 18: Status site S08-09; stream km 0.2 of unnamed tributary to Orofino Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 446 x 390

Description: Page: 94 Photo 19: Status site S04-08; stream km 2.6 of Poorman Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 554 x 415

Description: Page: 97 Photo 20: Status site S17-09; stream km 5.2 of Poorman Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 512 x 416

Description: Page: 100 Photo 21: Status site S21-08; stream km 5.7 of Poorman Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 552 x 413

Description: Page: 103 Photo 22: Status site S05-08; stream km 1.0 of Hay Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 469 x 411

Description: Page: 106 Photo 23: Status site S06-08; stream km 2.1 of McCauley Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 475 x 408

Description: Page: 109 Photo 24: Status site S13-08; stream km 3.6 of Quartz Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 418

Description: Page: 112 Photo 25: Status site S26-09; stream km 4.4 of Quartz Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 547 x 410

Description: Page: 118 Photo 26: Trend site T08; stream km 49.4 of Orofino Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 547 x 410

Description: Page: 121 Photo 27: Status site S15-08; stream km 59.6 of Orofino Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 464 x 415

Description: Page: 124 Photo 28: Status site S21-09; stream km 62.3 of Orofino Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 422 x 413

Description: Page: 127 Photo 29: Status site S03-09; stream km 2.3 of Hildebrand Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 494 x 410

Description: Page: 130 Photo 30: Trend site T01; stream km 2.7 of Hildebrand Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 485 x 416

Description: Page: 133 Photo 31: Status site S11-09; stream km 1.6 of Pierce Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 514 x 415

Description: Page: 136 Photo 32: Status site S28-09; stream km 0.1 of unnamed tributary to Canal Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 533 x 398

Description: Page: 139 Photo 33: Status site S25-09; stream km 0.8 of Trapper Gulch

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 534 x 418

Description: Page: 144 Photo 34: Trend site T11; stream km 1.9 of Whiskey Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 534 x 401

Description: Page: 147 Photo 35: Status site S36-09; stream km 6.5 of Whiskey Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 497 x 413

Description: Page: 150 Photo 36: Status site S16-08; stream km 10.1 of Whiskey Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 498 x 410

Description: Page: 153 Photo 37: Status site S24-09; stream km 13.9 of Whiskey Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 418

Description: Page: 156 Photo 38: Status site S18-08; stream km 16.1 of Whiskey Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 487 x 414

Description: Page: 159 Photo 39: Status site S03-08; stream km 0.5 of Crooked Creek Tributary

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 512 x 400

Description: Page: 164 Photo 40: Trend site T10; stream km 5.7 of Jim Ford Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 419

Description: Page: 167 Photo 41: Status site S27-09; stream km 16.1 of Jim Ford Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 508 x 381

Description: Page: 170 Photo 42: Status site S20-08; stream km 16.3 of Jim Ford Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 419

Description: Page: 173 Photo 43: Status site S30-09; stream km 18.8 of Jim Ford Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 494 x 409

Description: Page: 176 Photo 44: Trend site T07; stream km 23.3 of Jim Ford Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 512 x 383

Description: Page: 179 Photo 45: Trend site T06; stream km 0.2 of Shake Meadow Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 489 x 413

Description: Page: 182 Photo 46: Status site S10-09; stream km 0.5 of unnamed tributary to Winter Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 482 x 400

Description: Page: 187 Photo 47: Trend site T02; stream km 0.4 of Big Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 419

Description: Page: 190 Photo 48: Status site S16-09; stream km 3.8 of Big Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 507 x 418

Description: Page: 195 Photo 49: Trend site T04; stream km 0.6 of unnamed Clearwater River tributary

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 302 x 403

Description: Page: 200 Photo 50: Status site S35-09; stream km 2.4 of Sixmile Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 554 x 414

Description: Page: 203 Photo 51: Status site S02-09; stream km 6.2 of Sixmile Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 520 x 414

Description: Page: 208 Photo 52: Trend site T05; stream km 3.0 of Lawyer Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 548 x 416

Description: Page: 211 Photo 53: Status site S24-08; stream km 5.3 of Lawyer Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 547 x 409

Description: Page: 214 Photo 54: Status site S14-08; stream km 11.0 of Lawyer Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 419

Description: Page: 217 Photo 55: Status site S08-08; stream km 13.9 of Lawyer Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 419

Description: Page: 220 Photo 56: Status site S06-09; stream km 17.5 of Lawyer Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 418

Description: Page: 223 Photo 57: Status site S09-08; stream km 5.7 of Sevenmile Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 356 x 416

Description: Page: 226 Photo 58: Status site S20-09; stream km 2.6 of Thorn Springs Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 446 x 405

Description: Page: 231 Photo 59: Status site S11-08; stream km 40.9 of Lawyer Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 552 x 413

Description: Page: 234 Photo 60: Status site S29-09; stream km 46.8 of Lawyer Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 547 x 409

Description: Page: 237 Photo 61: Status site S19-08; stream km 50.3 of Lawyer Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 514 x 419

Description: Page: 240 Photo 62: Status site S09-09; stream km 59.9 of Lawyer Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 423 x 420

Description: Page: 243 Photo 63: Status site S33-09; stream km 62.1 of Lawyer Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 418

Description: Page: 246 Photo 64: Status site S01-08; stream km 1.5 of unnamed tributary to Lawyer Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 489 x 410

Description: Page: 249 Photo 65: Status site S31-09; stream km 0.7 of Willow Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 418

Description: Page: 254 Photo 66: Status site S13-09; stream km 3.6 of Maggie Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 419

Description: Page: 257 Photo 67: Status site S26-08; stream km 7.8 of Maggie Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 536 x 419

Description: Page: 260 Photo 68: Status site S23-09; stream km 13.5 of Maggie Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 557 x 419

Description: Page: 265 Photo 69: Status site S05-09; stream km 0.8 of Cottonwood Creek (ID Co.)

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 540 x 403

Description: Page: 270 Photo 70: Status site S25-08; stream km 1.7 of Red Rock Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 439 x 418

Description: Page: 275 Photo 71: Status site S07-08; stream km 3.6 of Threemile Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 435 x 418

Description: Page: 278 Photo 72: Status site S22-09; stream km 8.3 of Threemile Creek

Project: 2007-233-00

Document: P121368

Dimensions: 559 x 418


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

No Decided Budget Transfers

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
2013 $2,200 100%
2012 $2,830 9%
2011 $2,770 1%
2010 $2,850 1%
2009 $3,100 1%
2008 $3,250 1%
2007 $300 0%

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
33811 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 200723300 EXP DISTRIB/ABUNDANCE LCR STEELHD History $211,826 9/1/2007 - 8/31/2008
38319 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-233-00 EXP DISTRIBUTION/ABUNDANCE LCR STEELHEAD History $214,559 9/1/2008 - 8/31/2009
43397 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 200723300 EXP DISTRIBUTION/ABUNDANCE LCR STEELHEAD History $182,923 9/1/2009 - 8/31/2010
48679 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-233-00 EXP DISTRIBUTION/ABUNDANCE LCR STEELHEAD History $220,216 9/1/2010 - 8/31/2011
53982 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-233-00 EXP DISTRIBUTION/ABUNDANCE LCR STEELHEAD History $218,221 9/1/2011 - 8/31/2012
58153 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-233-00 EXP DISTRIBUTION/ABUNDANCE LCR STEELHEAD History $29,748 9/1/2012 - 8/31/2013



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):5
Completed:3
On time:3
Status Reports
Completed:24
On time:21
Avg Days Early:1

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
33811 38319, 43397, 48679, 53982, 58153 200723300 EXP DISTRIB/ABUNDANCE LCR STEELHD Nez Perce Tribe 09/2007 09/2007 History 24 41 0 0 10 51 80.39% 2
Project Totals 24 41 0 0 10 51 80.39% 2


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: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-233-00-NPCC-20110121
Project: 2007-233-00 - Distribution and Abundance Monitoring of Oncorhynchus mykiss within the Lower Clearwater Subbasin
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2007-233-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement through 2012 to close out. Implement to complete work and submit final report by June 1, 2012. Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in final report.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Qualification: The current proposal is too brief for evaluation and not scientifically adequate. A thorough presentation of what has been accomplished is required. This proposal should have objectives consistent with the original proposal, and a full explanation of the methods and sampling designs used to obtain data and evaluate the status of steelhead. The project states it will serve as the baseline for developing restoration actions. How the data will be analyzed and evaluated and serve that purpose needs explanation.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-233-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2007-233-00 - Distribution and Abundance Monitoring of Oncorhynchus mykiss within the Lower Clearwater Subbasin
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2007-233-00
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: The current proposal is too brief for evaluation and not scientifically adequate. A thorough presentation of what has been accomplished is required. This proposal should have objectives consistent with the original proposal, and a full explanation of the methods and sampling designs used to obtain data and evaluate the status of steelhead. The project states it will serve as the baseline for developing restoration actions. How the data will be analyzed and evaluated and serve that purpose needs explanation.

However, data gathering will continue only through 2011. Rather than requesting detailed information in a response loop the ISRP qualifies the review with the recommendation that the proponents prepare a report in 2011 that describes the fieldwork design and methods used to gather the project’s data and the methods that will be used to analyze the data and what will be necessary to complete the project in 2012. The ISRP should review this interim report before proponents complete the project and prepare a final report.

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The purpose is to continue data gathering, with 2011 being the final survey year, and complete the project. The general need for data on the distribution, abundance, and habitats of O. mykiss is adequately presented. The proposal does not establish a clear linkage to the Columbia River anadromous M&E strategy. The technical background and problem statement is incomplete. Reference is made to randomized sampling as preferred over index sites, but a summary of the problems this generates for status and trend assessments and how this work remedies the deficiencies is not adequately discussed.

The sole objective is to “Assess distribution, relative abundance and aquatic habitat quality of anadromous and resident fish species within the Snake River Basin steelhead CRMLA subpopulation spawning and rearing range.” The objective only includes scale reading and data entry because the project will have completed field collections when this funding (2011) begins. The ISRP needs a more thorough presentation of the project, and the objectives should clearly support restoration actions for the focal species.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The proposal does not present a project history. The accomplishments section is just a single paragraph identifying the number of sites visited for status and trends. There is some discussion of how many sites were selected by the sampling design, how many were inhabited by various species, what was learned about the value of this sampling approach, etc. Reviewers can link to the Annual Report, where the sampling sites are summarized but no fish or stream habitat data are given.

The proposal focuses on what has been learned about how to implement their project, not how the region and Council can experimentally manage the execution of the Council Fish and Wildlife Program. This narrow view of adaptive management has been reported to the Council by the ISRP before, but most of the examples in the proposals give direct evidence of the broad failure to actually implement adaptive management in the Council program.


3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The intended relationships are adequately described.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There is an inadequate description of sampling design and methods of analysis. The method of data collection for the many fish population and habitat metrics listed within Deliverables 2, 3, and 4 were not described. With respect to the various Metrics/Methods listed, literature sources are referenced, but these are not shown (spelled out) in a References section for the proposal.

Under the Project Significance heading, it says “assessment of salmonid spatial structures through genetic profiling is beyond the scope and biological objectives of the proposed project and has not been included as a work element [but] non-lethal genetic samples of all salmonid species will be collected from each probabilistic site at which salmonids are present.” Is there a design for this sampling in order to avoid unnecessary work on this project and on the project that receives the samples?
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification: The current proposal is too brief for evaluation and not scientifically adequate. A thorough presentation of what has been accomplished is required. This proposal should have objectives consistent with the original proposal, and a full explanation of the methods and sampling designs used to obtain data and evaluate the status of steelhead. The project states it will serve as the baseline for developing restoration actions. How the data will be analyzed and evaluated and serve that purpose needs explanation.

However, data gathering will continue only through 2011. Rather than requesting detailed information in a response loop the ISRP qualifies the review with the recommendation that the proponents prepare a report in 2011 that describes the fieldwork design and methods used to gather the project’s data and the methods that will be used to analyze the data and what will be necessary to complete the project in 2012. The ISRP should review this interim report before proponents complete the project and prepare a final report.

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The purpose is to continue data gathering, with 2011 being the final survey year, and complete the project. The general need for data on the distribution, abundance, and habitats of O. mykiss is adequately presented. The proposal does not establish a clear linkage to the Columbia River anadromous M&E strategy. The technical background and problem statement is incomplete. Reference is made to randomized sampling as preferred over index sites, but a summary of the problems this generates for status and trend assessments and how this work remedies the deficiencies is not adequately discussed.

The sole objective is to “Assess distribution, relative abundance and aquatic habitat quality of anadromous and resident fish species within the Snake River Basin steelhead CRMLA subpopulation spawning and rearing range.” The objective only includes scale reading and data entry because the project will have completed field collections when this funding (2011) begins. The ISRP needs a more thorough presentation of the project, and the objectives should clearly support restoration actions for the focal species.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The proposal does not present a project history. The accomplishments section is just a single paragraph identifying the number of sites visited for status and trends. There is some discussion of how many sites were selected by the sampling design, how many were inhabited by various species, what was learned about the value of this sampling approach, etc. Reviewers can link to the Annual Report, where the sampling sites are summarized but no fish or stream habitat data are given.

The proposal focuses on what has been learned about how to implement their project, not how the region and Council can experimentally manage the execution of the Council Fish and Wildlife Program. This narrow view of adaptive management has been reported to the Council by the ISRP before, but most of the examples in the proposals give direct evidence of the broad failure to actually implement adaptive management in the Council program.


3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The intended relationships are adequately described.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There is an inadequate description of sampling design and methods of analysis. The method of data collection for the many fish population and habitat metrics listed within Deliverables 2, 3, and 4 were not described. With respect to the various Metrics/Methods listed, literature sources are referenced, but these are not shown (spelled out) in a References section for the proposal.

Under the Project Significance heading, it says “assessment of salmonid spatial structures through genetic profiling is beyond the scope and biological objectives of the proposed project and has not been included as a work element [but] non-lethal genetic samples of all salmonid species will be collected from each probabilistic site at which salmonids are present.” Is there a design for this sampling in order to avoid unnecessary work on this project and on the project that receives the samples?
Documentation Links:

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-233-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2007-233-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2007-233-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup Comments

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: (62.2)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (50.5 50.6 56.3 )
Proponent Response:

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations about 2007-233-00: BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: (62.2) All Questionable RPA Associations ( )and All Deleted RPA Associations (50.5 50.6 56.3).

The project does not appear to have an association with RPA 62.2 in addressing evaluation of selective fishing gear for harvest fisheries. 

 The project has a plausible association with RPA 50.5 under “collection of DNA SNP information for each population within the steelhead MPGs in Idaho”; otherwise, RPA 50.5 is focused on Snake River B-run steelhead while project focused on Snake River A-run steelhead.  

 The project does not appear to have an association with RPA 50.6 as project does not address recommendations within either Table 1 or Table 2. 

The project has a clear association with Recommendation 3 of RPA 56.3.

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-233-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-233-00 - Distribution and Abundance Monitoring of Oncorhynchus mykiss within the Lower Clearwater Subbasin
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: The reduced budget addresses the following: target 12 trend sites and 132 status sites in place of 18 trend and 198 status. Reduce crew size from four to three. Fund no personnel outside of field season. Fund no vehicles outside of field season. Fund no travel or training.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-233-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-233-00 - Distribution and Abundance Monitoring of Oncorhynchus mykiss within the Lower Clearwater Subbasin
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:
This is a thorough, well-written proposal that is targeted on priority species and habitats. The methods should yield good quality data to help guide restoration and habitat management in the Lower Clearwater Basin.

The summary of the geographic area and the lack of data on salmonids in these streams are emphasized. The proposal identifies that the subbasin plan calls for improving the data on status and trends of steelhead in these ignored habitats. It would be helpful to include the VSP metrics (abundance, productivity, diversity, and geographic distribution) for steelhead that is expected by the Interior Columbia TRT in these streams when "recovered."

The proponents have developed linkages and potential collaborations with a number of key agencies concerned with the Clearwater Basin. There is good potential for integration.

The goal of the project to assist in recovery serves as an overarching biological objective. The objectives are clearly defined, and measurable: "to obtain reliable data on abundance and distribution of steelhead in the Lower Clearwater Basin"

The methods were well described and show that a lot of thought has gone into the proposed fieldwork. The use of randomized site selection and thoughtful consideration of fish sampling methods (open versus blocked sample areas, mark/recapture versus depletion estimation of abundance) is excellent. A minor comment, the proponents should consider a physiological measure (possibly lipid content) instead of the usual condition factor (Carlander 1969) that they propose. A missing element is evaluating upland watershed conditions that drive the status of the in stream habitat and likely the steelhead populations. Ultimately correcting these watershed elements is going to be needed.

The project will primarily benefit steelhead because new data on these populations will be obtained. The information should stimulate further habitat restoration such as vegetation planting to control sediment (p. 5 of narrative). Preliminary observations indicate coho have expanded their range in the Basin, and if confirmed this could be an important finding providing benefits for coho salmon as well.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-233-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-233-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Population analysis for listed species, multiple entities authorized/required (fisheries managers, NMFS, entities with impacts to listed species). Note: rating changed from a "3" to a "2.3" due to cost share identification by sponsor between time of preliminary and final in lieu evaluation.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-233-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-233-00
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
Deborah Docherty Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Clint Chandler Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Lisa Wright (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Katey Grange Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Wilson Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration