FY 2000 proposal 199604300
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 |
|---|---|
| 199604300 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199604300 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project |
| Proposal ID | 199604300 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | John S. Gebhards/ Jason L.Vogel |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 1942 McCall, ID 83638 |
| Phone / email | 2086345290 / johng@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Implement and monitor supplementation program to recover native summer chinook salmon in Johnson Creek. Construct facilities for adult collection and holding, NATURE's concept rearing, and smolt acclimation. |
| Target species | Summer Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1997 | Development of the Johnson Creek Summer Chinook Salmon Supplementation Program |
| 1997 | Collected baseline information on environmental conditions on Johnson Creek |
| 1998 | Initiated preliminary design analysis |
| 1998 | Collected baseline information on environmental conditions on Johnson Creek |
| 1998 | Determined abundance and selected life history characteristics/patterns of juvenile summer chinook salmon. |
| 1998 | Determined abundance and spawning distribution/success of upstream migrant adult summer chinook salmon. |
| 1998 | Operation of the adult weir (July through September) resulted in the capture of 114 adult summer chinook. There were 54 adults utilized as broodstock. |
| 1998 | Monitor and evaluate operation of adult collection and holding facility for adverse impacts to summer chinook salmon. |
| 1998 | Prepared quarterly reports and presented results |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8909800 | Idaho Salmon Supplementation (IDFG) | Long Term Supplementation Evaluation. Will utilize 9604300 production and evaluation data in a system-wide evaluation. |
| 8909802 | Salmon Supplementation Studies in ID (NPT) | Long Term Supplementation Evaluation. Will utilize 9604300 production and evaluation data in a system-wide evaluation. |
| 9703800 | Listed Stock Gamete Preservation (NPT) | Long Term Gamete Preservation |
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 | Suppl. 165,640 + M&E 110,771 (6 permanent and 6 seasonal staff). | $276,411 |
| Fringe | Suppl. 36,918 + M&E 23,569 (24.0% for Full-time employees 14.0% for Temporary employees). | $60,487 |
| Supplies | Suppl. 17,150 + M&E 11,580 | $28,730 |
| Operating | Suppl. 48,321 + M&E 16,852 | $65,173 |
| Capital | Suppl. 1,910,000 | $1,929,733 |
| NEPA | Suppl. 15,000 | $15,000 |
| Construction | Suppl. 142,500 | $142,500 |
| PIT tags | 18,000 | $52,200 |
| Travel | Suppl. 43,726 + M&E 25,430 (Includes vehicles, per diem, airfare, etc.) | $69,156 |
| Indirect | Suppl. 66,812 + M&E 43,098 (22.9% of everything except subcontractor and PIT Tags). | $109,910 |
| Other | Suppl. + M&E | $0 |
| Subcontractor | Suppl. 16,200 + M&E 34,500 | $50,700 |
| $2,800,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $2,800,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $2,800,000 |
| 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: We assume that improvements in mainstem passage and flows will allow for increased smolt-to-adult survival. Without this, our efforts will be negated. Availability of salmon in 2000 may change the focus of the project to a captive broodstock program.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until clear scientific evidence is provided that this project is a high priority in the Salmon River drainage.Comments: This was a very difficult proposal to evaluate. It was difficult to assess the priority of spending nearly $3 million to initiate artificial propagation – this is a major policy issue, not really a scientific or technical one. Are there potential significant biological benefits in creating a new facility versus continuing to use the existing facilities at McCall? The proposal does not convince the reviewers that this is the best location for this activity relative to other locations in the Salmon River basin. It may be, but this is not described in enough detail. The authors cite a letter from NMFS toward this point, but do not describe the contents. Why is this a priority area? This is the same criticism the ISRP had of this proposal last year. Funded work in the past has been collecting baseline life history information on Johnson Creek chinook (to examine survival of wild fish) but no results are presented. The authors propose to use the NATURE's concepts in rearing and releasing smolts, but failed in the proposal to describe or reference the NATURE's program. Visible implant tags are proposed for large-scale use in the study in spite of recent studies in Montana (N. Amer. J. Fish Mgt 16 [4]) that indicate substantial tag loss associated with this technique. The proposal needs better expressed goals and a timeline.
Nevertheless, reviewers found many positive things in the proposal. The proposal was very well written. The proposal makes clear from the outset that the project is an emergency effort to prevent extirpation of an ESA-listed stock, then sets forth a logical plan. The array of objectives is thorough (indeed, exceptionally large) and for the most part well stated. Most of the methods are thoroughly presented. There are a few vague points, such as (p. 20, lines 2-3) the method for calculating parr (abundance?) and survival estimates is not described. But the quality of the proposal and the qualifications of project personnel leave little doubt that they have a proper method in mind. It is highly commendable that the authors included discussions of risks. This is one of the only proposals that covered this requirement.
The budget warrants further scrutiny. Personnel and travel budgets look excessive. It concerns reviewers that the fish hatchery, the associated investigative project, or the two combined should need such extensive support personnel as an office manager, a program manager, and a contract administrator.
Comment:
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? Yes -Comment:
Capital Funding source ($2,800,00). This project is moving through the NPPC step process. Brood stock has been collected and smolts will released in the spring of 2000.Comment:
Fund. The ISRP's concerns regarding priority of the project in the Salmon River subbasin was adequately addressed. The responses adequately identified and addressed each ISRP comment.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: |
| $923,887 | $923,887 | $923,887 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website