Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?
View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
| Province | Subbasin | % |
|---|---|---|
| Mountain Snake | Clearwater | 100.00% |
|
|
Description: Page: 1 Cover: Cover photo Project(s): 2007-233-00 Document: P121368 Dimensions: 555 x 416 Description: Page: 14 Figure 1: Map of study area streams Project(s): 2007-233-00 Document: P121368 Dimensions: 597 x 805 Description: Page: 22 Figure 3: Map of status sites surveyed in 2009 Project(s): 2007-233-00 Document: P121368 Dimensions: 737 x 570 Description: Page: 23 Figure 4: Map of trend sites surveyed in 2009 Project(s): 2007-233-00 Document: P121368 Dimensions: 729 x 562 Description: Page: 24 Figure 5: Map of status sites eliminated from 2009 surveys Project(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 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(s): 2007-233-00 Document: P121368 Dimensions: 559 x 418 |
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
| 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 |
| Count of Contract Deliverables | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earliest Contract | Subsequent Contracts | Title | Contractor | Earliest Start | Latest End | Latest Status | Accepted Reports | Complete | Green | Yellow | Red | Total | % Green and Complete | Canceled |
| 33811 | 38319, 43397, 48679, 53982, 58153 | 2007-233-00 EXP DISTRIBUTION/ABUNDANCE LCR STEELHEAD | Nez Perce Tribe | 09/01/2007 | 08/31/2013 | History | 24 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 51 | 80.39% | 2 |
| Project Totals | 24 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 51 | 80.39% | 2 | ||||||
| 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. |
| 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: |
|
| 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.
|
|
| 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. |
| 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: |
|
| 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. |
| 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 |
| Name | Role | Organization |
|---|---|---|
| Deborah Docherty (Inactive) | 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 |
