FY 2000 proposal 199107100
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199107100 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199107100 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Snake River Sockeye Salmon Habitat and Limnological Research |
| Proposal ID | 199107100 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Doug Taki |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 306 Fort Hall, ID 83203 |
| Phone / email | 2082383914 / fishdept@cyberhighway.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Increase carrying capacities of Snake River sockeye salmon rearing lakes (Redfish, Pettit, and Alturas). Evaluate the effects of nutrient additions and fish stocking on the lake's ecosystems. |
| Target species | Snake River sockeye salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1994 | Fertilization experiment in limnocorral enclosures in Redfish Lake. |
| 1995 | Test fertilization of Redfish Lake. |
| 1995 | Reduce the number of non-endemic spawning kokanee in Fishhook Creek. |
| 1997 | Fertilize lakes to increase sockeye carrying capacity and overwinter survival of released sockeye pre smolts in Redfish, Alturas, and Pettit lakes. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9107200 | Redfish Lake sockeye captive broodstock | |
| 9204000 | Redfish Lake sockeye salmon captive broodstock rearing | |
| 9009300 | Genetic analysis of Oncorhynchus nerka |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | three 12 mo. FTE, one 9 mo. FTE, one 6 mo. FTE, one 1 mo. FTE | $122,361 |
| Fringe | $41,603 | |
| Supplies | $5,500 | |
| Operating | $71,490 | |
| PIT tags | 500 | $1,450 |
| Travel | includes per diem, etc. for field work | $33,000 |
| Indirect | $46,615 | |
| Subcontractor | Biolines and Eco-Logic Ltd. | $97,442 |
| Subcontractor | Washington State University | $19,000 |
| $438,461 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $438,461 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $438,461 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: End dates for most objectives are impossible to predict. Many tasks are dependant on the number of returning adults, lake habitat conditions, number of progeny available from the captive broodstock program, etc.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until project describes that a risk assessment has been done pertaining to risks associated with altering food web structure. In addition, if funded, this project needs careful annual review with better reporting on results.Comments: Programmatic justification for the project seems literal, rather than descriptive and logical. The proposal fails to provide compelling evidence that nutrient addition will adequately enhance Snake River sockeye. Published reports (Trans. Am. Fish Soc .127[1]) suggest that "whole-lake fertilization would aid in the recovery of Snake River sockeye" and "fertilization should be considered an important short-term tool for decreasing erosion of stock", but also that "8 years after the end of a 3-year fertilization period, adult returns would only be 5% greater than for unfertilized conditions." If (or when) adult sockeye resume migration to the lakes, fertilization might be more cost-effective; it may not be effective now.
This project should be classed primarily as research, secondarily as implementation (one aspect only). The narrative on project history is inappropriately mixed into the technical background section. The proposal is inadequate in its consideration of possible unwanted side-effects. The fertilization could have many ramifications for the biotic community. The authors need to describe the risks inherent in the action of fertilizing the lake and changing the nutrient level and makeup of the plankton community. The proposal does not adequately address the extensive research done in Canada. The proposal remains inadequate for the same reasons the ISRP identified last year [see last year's report and comments on page 89, appendix A]. Funding level appears high.
Peer reviewed publications in fisheries or aquatics journals should come from this work. Given the nutrient-poor status of most of the Snake Basin, the results of the large-scale fertilization experiment represent an important opportunity for technology transfer to the fisheries community. Funding has been provided since 1991 at about $500K per year, aimed at many basic research questions. The project should support a solid publication base. Reports to the Technical Oversight Committee are certainly necessary for oversight, coordination and for adaptive management to occur. But these and the required final report to BPA fall considerably short of the potential for transfer of information to both the scientific community and to a public interested in the fate of the Redfish Lake Sockeye and the Endangered Species Act. Peer review publication, particularly of the fertilization experiments, should be expected.
The proposal does not seem to adequately describe the role and contribution of the subcontractor. It appears there is a change in the subcontractors (previously from Utah State with a good publication record for the project), which raised concerns among the reviewers regarding the project's continuity.
Comment:
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? Yes -Comment:
This project is important and should continue. We recommend funding at a reduced rate in order to meet other management priorities within this sub region. The reduction would occur by reducing Objective 2 by approximately 10%. We would like to see an umbrella for all of the sockeye projects in this area.Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Complete Section 4, measurable biological objectives and milestones.A good proposal, but how does the progress reported relate to time-referenced accomplishments and objectives? What has been accomplished in 8 years?
This is a proven technique in Canada.
Concerned about cost-effectiveness because of passage barriers caused by hydro projects.
Comment:
Fund. The additional information provided by the project sponsor addressed the ISRP's concerns. Involvement of the TOC in oversight of the various sockeye projects helps ensure integration of the various projects and provides a venue for examination of risks associated with the overall program.Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $455,756 | $455,756 | $455,756 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website