FY 2000 proposal 199703000
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 |
---|---|
199703000 Narrative | Narrative |
199703000 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Monitor Listed Stock Adult Chinook Salmon Escapement |
Proposal ID | 199703000 |
Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Dave Faurot |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 1942 McCall, ID 83638 |
Phone / email | 2086345290 / davef@nezperce.org |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
Short description | Monitor adult salmon escapement over time, with a passive temporary facility using underwater time-lapse video technology. This would allow comparison to redd count survey data and evaluation of recovery actions on unsupplemented chinook populations. |
Target species | Snake River spring and summer chinook 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 |
---|---|
1997 | Install, operate and maintain the Secesh River fish counting station on a daily basis to ensure safe and accurate operation of the facility. |
1997 | Implement the monitoring and evaluation plan for the Secesh River fish counting station to ensure that adult salmon do not reject the structure and that fish passage is not impeded. |
1997 | Determine the timing of adult spawner migration into the Secesh River. |
1997 | Determine the adult salmon escapement into the Secesh River. |
1998 | Install, operate and maintain fish counting stations on the Secesh River and Lake Creek on a daily basis to ensure safe and accurate operation of the facility. |
1998 | Implement the monitoring and evaluation plan for the Secesh River and Lake Creek fish counting stations to ensure that adult salmon do not reject the structure and that fish passage is not impeded. |
1998 | Yes - Fish passage did not appear to be impeded, nor was spawning displaced downstream. |
1998 | Determine the adult salmon escapement into the Secesh River and Lake Creek. |
1998 | Compare the fish counting station escapement number with intensive and index redd count technique numbers. |
1998 | Investigate the use of underwater video in taking morphometric measurements of adult salmon migrating into the Secesh River and Lake Creek. |
1998 | Determine if and estimate the number of hatchery strays. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
8909802 | Idaho Salmon Supplementation | Use the Secesh River and Lake Creek as control streams for supplementation evaluations, and to compare to adult escapement via redd counts. |
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 | Project Leader,Admin support- Department Aides, Permanent and Seasonal technicians (shared with ISS) | $74,000 |
Fringe | Annual and sick leave, holiday pay, insurance, health | $18,540 |
Supplies | Telephone, utilities, office supplies | $6,500 |
Operating | Video tapes, field supplies, field provisions, rent | $12,500 |
Capital | Laser sizer, variable speed playback recorder, solar panel equipment | $10,000 |
Travel | Plane fare, per diem, vehicle lease, maintenance and mileage | $6,000 |
Indirect | $26,582 | |
Subcontractor | $9,000 | |
$163,122 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $163,122 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $163,122 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
N/A | $0 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Extreme high or low spring runoff could affect the dates of installation of the fish counting stations.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund. The emphasis should be on research and development and peer-reviewed publication of results. Major review recommended in one or two years to evaluate the benefits of the technology and the applicability to other systems.Comments: This is a well-designed and well-written proposal. The proposal describes a clear programmatic need and involves new technology on a control unsupplemented stream. It also ground-truths the new technology against long-standing methodology of surveyed redd counts. Additionally, the history of the project documents a collaboration amongst co-managers and an adaptive management approach to solving the problems that plagued the 1997 initial field season. This technology would be particularly valuable if it can be shown to be functional during peak runoff conditions. Review of the project and its results in a year or two would be useful in order to determine whether to discontinue the approach or to implement it on a larger scale.
Some reviewers had misgivings about the proposed technology development. Their comments are summarized as follows. Development of a technique that gets a better count of salmon adults than redd counts usually get may be desirable but getting counts is not the only purpose of redd surveys, which will probably have to continue anyway for various other purposes. Statistical design for comparing video results with redd counts is not described. The proposal fails to include the very important aspect of comparing the cost of this method with that of multiple-count redd surveys. Lengths of streams and numbers of spawners are not described, nor are other stream characteristics.
Despite generalized assertions, there was no evidence presented in the proposal that accurate fish counts were made in 1997-98. The opinion that the monitoring facility will not influence fish passage is unsubstantiated and probably wrong. Chinook salmon are known to be very shy of structures resembling the proposed device. The proposal says (p. 12) that "the fish counting station did not appear to impede fish movement or displace spawning downstream in 1997 and 1998." But did they really look at this situation? By what method? Where is the evidence of no influence? A much different situation has been found for chinook (and maybe other fishes) at other barrier-like facilities. The reliability of the proposed technique appears low. The proposal indicates that the equipment does not work well. Especially in view of high susceptibility to flood washout, disruption by turbidity events, and inevitable equipment malfunction, how could this fragile, high-tech, failure-prone method be better than redd counts? Redd counts are simple and reliable, usually don't require fancy, expensive equipment (unless a helicopter is needed), and don't disturb the fish much. The video technique is complex, unreliable, expensive, and could be highly disruptive of fish migration.
The technology transfer section of the proposal fails to mention the publications that have arisen from this project thus far. No doubt others should come out of the work. They should be explicitly recognized, and represent a more important technology transfer to the general scientific community than does the cited annual report, which at least in part is required contractually to fulfill BPA contracting needs, and may be a poor vehicle for technology transfer to the general fisheries community. The proposed budget seems appropriate to the project. Once the technology is developed, the costs would be expected to stabilize at a much lower level.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes -Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? Yes - Poorly written objectives-vague
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes - Questionable
Resource Criteria 4: 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. This reduction could occur by dropping Objective 3h.Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 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: |
$401,789 | $401,789 | $401,789 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website