Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1996-043-00 - Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1996-043-00 - Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement
Project Number:
1996-043-00
Title:
Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement
Summary:
The Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation and Enhancement (JCAPE) project is a small-scale supplementation initiative integrated with a monitoring and evaluation program that is designed to increase survival of a weak but recoverable spawning aggregate of summer Chinook salmon. The goal of this project is to prevent the extirpation of the ESA-listed Johnson Creek summer Chinook. The project was ESA permitted through 2010 to rear up to 110,000 Chinook salmon smolts with direct releases into Johnson Creek. Permit reauthorization is currently being conducted through the HGMP process with NOAA Fisheries. The release target under the reauthorization is for 150,000 smolts annually. The supplementation program (Operations and Maintenance, O&M) utilizes portable, low capital facilities for trapping and holding adult salmon used as broodstock. Egg incubation and juvenile rearing occurs in existing McCall Fish Hatchery facilities Smolts produced from the program are directly released into Johnson Creek. Annual releases of artificially reared progeny from 100% wild origin adults was initiated in 2000. Smolt releases represent the only ongoing spring/summer Chinook salmon artificial propagation program in the Salmon River subbasin specifically designated as “supplementation.”

The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) program quantifies 38 regionally standardized performance measures to evaluate the supplementation program. These standard performance measures help inform decisions on Abundance, Survival-Productivity, Distribution, Genetic, Life History, and Habitat. The evaluation plan utilizes comparative performance tests at multiple life stages and involves treatment vs natural experiments and repeated measure designs (treatment vs reference). This program, initiated prior to the first releases of supplemented fish, has been collecting baseline life-history characteristic information, to examine survival of the wild fish in Johnson Creek and any potential effects that the supplementation program may have on the natural population.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1996
Ending FY:
2024
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Salmon 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
Supplementation
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Lamprey, Pacific
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Description: Page: 12 Figure 2: Johnson Creek Weir

Project(s): 1996-043-00

Document: P122885

Dimensions: 892 x 476

Description: Page: 32 Figure 8: Releasing Smolts into Johnson Creek, March 2011.

Project(s): 1996-043-00

Document: P122885

Dimensions: 850 x 569


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

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2022 - FY2024)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2022 Expense $1,550,033 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) SOY Transfers Over $1M 06/04/2021
FY2023 Expense $1,550,033 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY23 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2022

Pending Budget Decision?  Yes


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2023   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Capital Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
429 REL 20 SOW Fishpro, Inc. 1996-043-02 RELIMINARY DESIGN-JOHNSON CREEK ART PROP ENHANCEMENT History $84,913 1/1/2001 - 12/31/2003
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
456 REL 5 SOW Concannon, Kathleen A T/O25296 W/E SERVICES:JOHNSON CREEK ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION History $848 4/1/2000 - 9/30/2000
58 REL 5 SOW Concannon, Kathleen A PROJECT COORDINATION FOR JOHNSON CREEK ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION History $40,000 10/1/2000 - 1/30/2003
4393 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 JOHNSON CR ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION ENHANCEMENT O&M Closed $3,153,092 4/9/2001 - 12/31/2005
4972 SOW Fishpro, Inc. JOHNSON CREEK ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION BA FOR NEPA History $78,650 10/1/2001 - 9/29/2003
7610 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) CULTURAL SURVEY'S FOR JCAPE Closed $2,485 11/5/2001 - 9/30/2003
16450 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 JOHNSON CR ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION & ENHANCEMENT - M&E Closed $854,317 1/1/2004 - 12/31/2005
25506 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996 043 00 JCAPE O & M Closed $365,929 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006
25637 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996 043 00 JOHNSON CR ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION ENHANCEMENT, M&E Closed $490,767 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006
BPA-005568 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - JCAPE Active $29,343 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
30652 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996 043 00 JCAPE O & M Closed $381,859 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
30546 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996 043 00 JOHNSON CR ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION ENHANCEMENT, M&E Closed $533,137 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
BPA-003719 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Johnson Creek Artificial Propa Active $32,147 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
36086 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 199604300 EXP JCAPE O/M Closed $415,770 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
35880 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 199604300 EXP JCAPE M/E Closed $525,842 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
BPA-004304 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Active $9,450 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
40388 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 199604300 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $581,362 1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009
39846 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 199604300 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $410,049 1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009
BPA-004956 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - JCAPE Active $9,450 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
45239 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 199604300 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $569,583 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010
45240 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 199604300 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $425,992 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010
BPA-005683 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - JCAPE Active $11,250 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
50462 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $426,811 1/1/2011 - 12/31/2011
50463 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $762,524 1/1/2011 - 12/31/2011
BPA-006310 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - JCAPE Active $59,636 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
55541 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $688,607 1/1/2012 - 12/31/2012
55542 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $426,517 1/1/2012 - 12/31/2012
BPA-007051 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - JCAPE Active $10,151 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
60453 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $710,799 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2013
60273 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $427,195 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2013
BPA-007647 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - JCAPE Active $20,204 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
63318 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $486,079 1/1/2014 - 12/31/2014
63431 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $777,564 1/1/2014 - 12/31/2014
BPA-008391 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - JCAPE Active $24,082 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
67412 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $974,563 1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015
67392 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $480,545 1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015
71135 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $482,827 1/1/2016 - 12/31/2016
71017 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $952,101 1/1/2016 - 12/31/2016
BPA-009529 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - JCAPE Active $9,526 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
74742 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $998,573 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017
74743 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $504,638 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017
BPA-010057 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - JCAPE Active $18,673 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
74017 REL 13 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $501,324 1/1/2018 - 12/31/2018
74017 REL 10 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $1,033,057 1/1/2018 - 12/31/2018
BPA-010770 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - JCAPE Active $35,633 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
74017 REL 31 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $490,753 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019
74017 REL 30 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $1,022,981 1/1/2019 - 2/29/2020
BPA-011703 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - JCAPE Active $14,740 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
74017 REL 59 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Closed $472,165 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020
74017 REL 53 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $1,023,028 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020
BPA-012072 Bonneville Power Administration FY21 PIT Tags Active $25,530 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
74017 REL 74 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Issued $504,238 1/1/2021 - 12/31/2021
74017 REL 75 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $1,020,265 1/1/2021 - 12/31/2021
BPA-012918 Bonneville Power Administration FY22 PIT tags Active $16,251 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
74017 REL 93 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Issued $504,238 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2022
74017 REL 94 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Closed $1,029,544 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2022
BPA-013311 Bonneville Power Administration FY23 PIT Tags Active $16,251 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
84044 REL 2 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Issued $504,238 1/1/2023 - 12/31/2023
84044 REL 3 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Issued $1,029,544 1/1/2023 - 12/31/2023



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):58
Completed:49
On time:49
Status Reports
Completed:141
On time:103
Avg Days Late:0

                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
4393 25506, 30652, 36086, 39846, 45240, 50462, 55542, 60273, 63318, 67392, 71135, 74743, 74017 REL 13, 74017 REL 31, 74017 REL 59, 74017 REL 74, 74017 REL 93, 84044 REL 2 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE O&M Nez Perce Tribe 04/09/2001 12/31/2023 Issued 71 227 23 0 1 251 99.60% 0
16450 25637, 30546, 35880, 40388, 45239, 50463, 55541, 60453, 63431, 67412, 71017, 74742, 74017 REL 10, 74017 REL 30, 74017 REL 53, 74017 REL 75, 74017 REL 94, 84044 REL 3 1996-043-00 EXP JCAPE M&E Nez Perce Tribe 01/01/2004 12/31/2023 Issued 70 291 20 0 16 327 95.11% 0
BPA-5568 PIT Tags - JCAPE Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2006 09/30/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-3719 PIT Tags - Johnson Creek Artificial Propa Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2007 09/30/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-4304 PIT Tags - Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2008 09/30/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-4956 PIT Tags - JCAPE Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2009 09/30/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-5683 PIT Tags - JCAPE Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2010 09/30/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-6310 PIT Tags - JCAPE Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2011 09/30/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-7051 PIT Tags - JCAPE Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2012 09/30/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-7647 PIT Tags - JCAPE Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2013 09/30/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-8391 PIT Tags - JCAPE Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2014 09/30/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-9529 PIT Tags - JCAPE Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2016 09/30/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-10057 PIT Tags - JCAPE Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2017 09/30/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-10770 PIT Tags - JCAPE Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2018 09/30/2019 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-11703 PIT Tags - JCAPE Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2019 09/30/2020 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-12072 FY21 PIT Tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2020 09/30/2021 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-12918 FY22 PIT tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2021 09/30/2022 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-13311 FY23 PIT Tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2022 09/30/2023 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 141 518 43 0 17 578 97.06% 0


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: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1996-043-00-NPCC-20230310
Project: 1996-043-00 - Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to take the review remarks into consideration in project documentation. This project supports hatchery mitigation authorized under the Northwest Power Act (Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program) for the Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement program. See Policy Issue I.b. and II.b.

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-043-00-ISRP-20230324
Project: 1996-043-00 - Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: None
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1996-043-00-NPCC-20110125
Project: 1996-043-00 - Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1996-043-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with condition through 2016: Implementation subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4. Any expanded production work would need to undergo Step review and successful ISS experiment.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—Subject to regional hatchery effects evalutaion process
Council Condition #2 Qualifications: The ISRP believes that natural-origin abundance trends in Johnson Creek as a response to a supplementation treatment must be interpreted by reference to an unsupplemented reference location. The Sesech River is proposed by the proponent. These analyses need to be included in future proposals and any Three-Step review for expanded production. The proposed expansion of the Johnson Creek project and facilities needs to be reviewed through the Council’s Three-Step process. Additionally, the expansion of the fish releases will require review and consultation with NOAA Fisheries for the Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP).

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-043-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1996-043-00 - Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1996-043-00
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:
We judge the overall implementation of the project to be adequate, but the Yes (Qualified) rating does not represent ISRP endorsement of the interpretations of data and results.

Qualification 1: The ISRP believes that natural-origin abundance trends in Johnson Creek as a response to a supplementation treatment must be interpreted by reference to an unsupplemented reference location. The Sesech River is proposed by the proponent. These analyses need to be included in future proposals and any Three-Step review for expanded production.

Qualification 2: The proposed expansion of the Johnson Creek project and facilities needs to be reviewed through the Council’s Three-Step process. Additionally, the expansion of the fish releases will require review and consultation with NOAA Fisheries for the Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP).

Summary: The ISRP appreciated the proponent's constructive approach to the response. The proponents gave a clear and articulate response that continues to advance a positive dialog regarding the Johnson Creek project. Probably the most important issue, the proposed expansion, was deferred to the Three-Step process, and that seems most appropriate. Other ISRP concerns that were well addressed include the egg-to-smolt differential survival for wild versus hatchery fish and possible mini-jacking.

With respect to the pending Three-Step review, the ISRP believes that consideration of expansion needs to explicitly treat both demographic and genetic elements of conservation. The proponent is principally arguing for expansion based on retention of genetic diversity. Any formal plan needs to demonstrate how expansion can achieve the intended goals for genetic diversity, and for abundance and productivity. Expansion has the potential to decrease natural adult abundance by removing adults for hatchery production, and the potential to increase density dependent effects on juvenile survival and life-history/behavior by addition of juveniles beyond the stream’s carrying capacity.

The explanation of the updated replacement rates for natural and hatchery adults is not entirely satisfactory. It is clear that the updated numbers reflect an expanded geographic scale. It is less clear how the current numbers are estimated. It appears to the ISRP that this must be due to hatchery-origin adults returning in larger numbers than reported previously, and spawning below the capture weir. The types of data (weir, redd counts, carcass surveys) that are used to arrive at the updated evaluation and the actual numbers, expansion, and derivation are not transparent.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

The proponents need to provide additional clarification on the following points. The points are further elaborated in the Summary and specific comments below. 1. The proponents need to demonstrate that the expansion is needed to address the perceived problem. The increase is discussed indirectly in the Problem Statement but needs to be more clearly and directly justified. The proponents need to convincingly describe the problem and what they believe are the potential causes. There appears to have been a boost in returning adult numbers in recent years associated with the Johnson Creek supplementation effort. Recent increases in adult returns beg the question of why an expansion of the program is justified. 2. A response is needed to clarify how abundance and productivity of spring/summer Chinook is to be assessed in the Johnson Creek supplementation program, and discuss the potential for coordination with the hatchery effects proposal to bring this project into full compliance with the AHSWG recommendations. The ISRP understands that the Sesech River will serve as a reference site to evaluate JCAPE, but the methodology is not presented, and results to date are not presented. 3. There appears to be a change in numbers reported that requires clarification. There is a very important difference in the data reported here, and that reported in the 2007-2009 proposal and the ISRP requests a clarification. In the 2007-2009 proposal the replacement rate for supplementation fish was lower than for natural-origin adults for 1998 and 2000 (6.99 versus 6.95 for 1998 and 4.46 v. 2.88 for 2000). In Table 4 these replacement rates are now 6.78 versus 7.06 for natural and supplementation in 1998 and 2.81 versus 3.5 for natural and supplementation females in 2000. How did these estimates change in the interval since the earlier reporting? 4. Another issue involves the (poor) survival of wild juveniles in the Upper Salmon and their habitat use. The proposal indicates eyed egg to smolt survival for the JCAPE has averaged 97.4%, which they contrast with high mortality (74.8%) from the egg to smolt stage within the Salmon River (Kiefer and Lockhart 1997). It would seem that evaluation of the causes of those patterns would perhaps pinpoint the causes of poor wild juvenile survival. The proposal’s DELV-14 is to “Determine status and trends of Chinook salmon habitat in the South Fork Salmon River Subbasin” by implementing the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) sampling framework, a statistically based and spatially explicit sampling design to quantify status and trends in stream and riparian habitats. Such monitoring is well designed but could be more valuable if in addition it was designed to test specific hypotheses regarding juvenile habitat use and survival, and contrasting patterns for wild vs. JCAPE fish. 5. Another issue pertains to possible minijacks, the abundance of which is being seen (i.e., by proposal 200203100) to be problematic in several ways in supplemented Chinook populations. Granted, calculation of female:female ratios somewhat obviates some concern, but the proposal includes no discussion of minijacking. Summary Comments: The proposal was in general well written, and the Executive Summary does a good job giving basic history, accomplishments, and logic. This proposal is for an expansion of both facilities and scale of the Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement. Consequently, a more thorough review of the proposal is likely warranted through the Three-Step Process. In the meantime, the proponents need to respond to several items. The main thrust of the proposal is to increase smolt production of JCAPE from the current 100,000 smolts (produced by 80 NOR adults) to 300,000 smolts, which would require 240 NOR adults for broodstock. Given the preliminary result presented in the proposal it is hard to see why the increase is justified. The increase is discussed indirectly in the Problem Statement, but needs to be more clearly and directly justified. The increased production objective also drives the hatchery facility expansion. Without a more clearly justified explanation for the proposed increase in production, it isn’t possible to support the proposed expansion of the facilities. During the presentation, the ISRP asked for additional information on the justification for tripling the smolt releases and the hatchery facility expansion? Jason Vogel said the tripling is to diminish the genetic risk – that a broodstock sampling of 80 NOR fish was not adequate to represent the entire run. If this is true and modeling could help identify whether it is adequate or what sample size might be more representative, additional NOR fish could be brought into the broodstock sample without the necessity of increasing the number of smolts released (and therefore having to increase the facility size). The proponents note that the justification for the increases (broodstock, smolts, and facilities) come from M&E findings that are detailed in the JCAPE HGMP to be submitted to NOAA Fisheries. This information needs to be in the proposal and in the response to the ISRP. Other concerns include: 1. There does not appear to be a restriction on supplementation fish on the spawning grounds. At the present time the returns of hatchery-origin salmon are not so large as to create a population largely influenced by hatchery production, especially since all brood fish are natural-origin. If hatchery returns should increase substantially this balance could shift, and there does not appear to be a decision framework or experimental design to evaluate the consequences. 2. How does abundance of natural-origin adult Chinook salmon in Johnson Creek compare with Secesh River, the designated reference location? The essential measure of supplementation is the abundance of natural-origin adults (females) in a supplemented stream in comparison with a reference location, and the productivity in the supplemented population in contrast with an unsupplemented reference site. How these evaluations are going to be conducted and preliminary analyses need to be incorporated into the proposal. Full comments: Some of the comments below are highlighted above. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The principal linkage for this project to regional programs, based on the proposal, is to Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit; the Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan developed by the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Tribes. The proposal identifies elements of the 2008 BiOp that recognizes the actions in Johnson Creek, and considers Johnson Creek to be an important component of the South Fork Salmon spring Chinook Major Population Group. No specific reference is provided to the Council Research Plan or to the recent Anadromous Salmon Monitoring Strategy. Problem Statement/Technical Background: The explanation of where the project is taking place and the status of the spring/summer Chinook population is adequate. The technical background is incomplete. The stated purpose of the supplementation in Johnson Creek is to reduce the extinction risk (extirpation risk) for this spawning aggregate. The discussion of this topic does not quantify either the extinction (extirpation) risk, the anticipated reduction in risk owing to the project, or provide a sufficient method for evaluating any benefit. As elaborated on elsewhere in the review, and emphasized in the ISAB supplementation report (ISAB 2003-3) and ISAB and ISRP memo on supplementation monitoring (ISRP/ISAB 2005-15), the essential metrics of interest are the abundance of natural-origin adults returning to Johnson Creek and the productivity (female to female replacement rate) of natural-origin adults resulting from supplementation. While there are many interesting metrics being collected, there is not an analytical framework presented in the proposal to address these essential uncertainties. The project should have clear objectives for performance of the fish in the hatchery, performance of both hatchery and natural fish in the wild, and measures of benefit (abundance of NORs) and deleterious risk (productivity of NORs spawning in the wild). The monitoring that takes place (weir counts, redd counts, juvenile (parr, smolt)) provides valuable information on an important population of spring/summer Chinook. Objectives: Obj-1. Maintain and enhance natural production in the Johnson Creek summer Chinook population: The ISRP does not believe that productivity of the Johnson Creek spawning aggregate can be increased by hatchery smolt releases. The proponent states that they assume this objective will be attained by having supplementation and natural productivity equal. This may increase abundance, but is unlikely to increase productivity. The concern with supplementation is that the increased abundance owing to supplementation will be at the cost of natural spawning productivity. Obj-2 Maintain life-history characteristics in Johnson Creek summer Chinook salmon. The comparison needs to be between natural-origin juvenile and adults in Johnson Creek with an unsupplemented reference location, not a comparison of supplementation and natural fish within Johnson Creek. As the accomplishments demonstrate, there are a variety of life-history difference between natural and hatchery fish in Johnson Creek, and these have been demonstrated in a number of spring/summer Chinook supplementation programs (Grande Ronde, Tucannon, Imnaha). The important uncertainty is the extent to which natural fish life-histories are being altered by interbreeding with the supplementation fish, and whether there is a productivity decline as a consequence. Obj-5 Operate the hatchery program to achieve optimal production effectiveness while meeting priority management objectives for natural production. Description: The desired outcome...if hatchery smolt-to-adult return rate is equal to JCAPE criteria (0.65 and 0.87). It is not clear to the ISRP what the JCAPE criteria are. What do the 0.65 and 0.87 refer to? It would be useful to include the JCAPE criteria in the problem statement. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management The history, accomplishments, and results are generally adequate. The proponents include a substantial summary of data collected from the project. One element that is missing is a summary of the numbers of hatchery-origin and natural-origin adults (by sex) that were passed above the weir for spawning. It may be possible to summarize this from Table 8, but a simple table would be useful. There is a very important difference in the data reported here, and that reported in the 2007-09 proposal and the ISRP requests a clarification. In the 2007-09 proposal the replacement rate for supplementation fish was lower than for natural-origin adults for 1998 and 2000 (6.99 versus 6.95 for 1998 and 4.46 vs. 2.88 for 2000). In Table 4 these replacement rates are now 6.78 versus 7.06 for natural and supplementation in 1998 and 2.81 versus 3.5 for natural- and supplementation females in 2000. How did these estimates change in the interval since the earlier reporting? The observation that hatchery spawning yields an increase in adult fish is not surprising. This common observation is the primary reason supplementation is contemplated as strategy to improve the status of ESA listed species. When this is realized in a supplementation system it is not evidence of success of supplementation. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for supplementation to provide a benefit. The report in 2007 that supplementation fish had a lower replacement rate than natural-spawning female was evidence that a fundamental condition for supplementation was not being achieved. Supplementation cannot provide a benefit if the fish taken into the hatchery produce fewer adults than fish left in the stream. The corollary, that if supplementation fish produce more adult progeny than natural spawning fish, then supplementation is beneficial is not true. The measure of benefit is whether natural spawning by a mix of supplementation and natural adults produces more adult progeny than the natural adults alone would have. This is a challenging evaluation. It requires comparing the production from the supplemented system to a reference unsupplemented population. This essential evaluation does not appear in the proposal accomplishments. Perhaps the most significant finding is that hatchery broodstock do reproduce in the wild successfully, at a rate that is 7.25 times that of their natural counterparts. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The principal linkage for this project to regional programs, based on the proposal, is to Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit; the Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan developed by the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Tribes. The proposal identifies elements of the 2008 BiOp that recognizes the actions in Johnson Creek, and considers Johnson Creek to be an important component of the South Fork Salmon spring Chinook Major Population Group. No specific reference is provided to the Council Research Plan or to the recent Anadromous Salmon Monitoring Strategy. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The project is part of the DFRM database management program. This looks strong, but is difficult to evaluate from this prospective. Also, the plan for five-year review looks commendable. The hatchery expansion or new construction needs the Council’s Three-Step Review.

Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (11/15/2010)

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-043-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1996-043-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1996-043-00
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: ( 50.6 50.7 51.1 51.3 62.5 63.1 64.2 )
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( 62.1 71.3)
Proponent Response:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1996-043-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1996-043-00 - Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Fund at current production level (100,000 fish). Address ISRP concerns regarding monitoring results during contracting, also see Programmatc Issue: supplementation m&e.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-043-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1996-043-00 - Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
Final Round ISRP Comment:
For the response loop, the project sponsor submitted a letter from BPA that listed BPA's existing ESA implementation commitments and an estimation of new work anticipated to be a priority in addressing limiting factors for ESA-listed fish. The Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project is listed in a table attached to the letter. The BPA letter does not address the scientific issues raised by the ISRP in its review. The ISRP recommendation of "Fundable in part" from the preliminary review stands.

The Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project is Fundable in Part for one year (FY07) with subsequent annual funding contingent upon reporting of monitoring results and evidence of adaptive management decisions justified by the results. Sponsors also need to analyze and report on extinction risk. The annual report should be reviewed by an independent team.

The ISRP's preliminary review comments (June 1, 2006) were:

This is a long and complex proposal that richly documents its history including numerous iterative reviews by the ISRP. Significant exchanges have occurred between the project sponsors and the ISRP since the late 1990s and the removal of Johnson Creek from the ISS control stream status.

The goal of the Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement project is to reduce the demographic risk of extirpation of the ESA listed Johnson Creek summer Chinook salmon and begin its recovery through supplementation while maintaining genetic diversity of the artificially propagated summer Chinook salmon population and the natural population. The sponsors hope to increase adult returns through increased juvenile survival and improved homing in order to preserve and recover the Johnson Creek salmon population. The ISRP has long been critical of this project for a variety of technical reasons. Most of these have been addressed through the above described iterative review exchanges.

A decision was made to initiate a supplementation program in Johnson Creek to increase the population size as it appeared to be at increasing demographic risk during the 1990s. Decision-makers must have concluded that removing Johnson Creek from the ISS study design would not compromise the objectives of the ISS. The current proposal redirects the Johnson Creek work to become an additional stand-alone assessment of supplementation. What is the reason for another stand-alone assessment?

The sponsors have provided an excellent summary of the results of their project to date. The proposal is well done. Proponents should be commended for reporting and making these data available. The next step is to make adaptive management decisions on the appropriateness and scale of further supplementation. This discussion is absent from the proposal.

The important data that the sponsors provide calls into question whether the supplementation program is providing any demographic benefit or whether it may be creating a demographic loss (page 24, Table 10). For both the 1998 and 2000 brood years, the female-to-female replacement rate was lower for supplementation than for natural spawning (6.99 vs. 6.95 for 1998, and 4.46 vs. 2.88 for 2000). In both these cases, more fish would have returned had the collected females been permitted to spawn in the wild than by bringing them into the hatchery.

With results to date, the ISRP does not currently see justification for supplementing Johnson Creek. Moreover, this project could result in harm to the wild population based on the data reported. What are the limits to broodstock mining? Continuing the project with adequate monitoring may only be valuable in better understanding the problems with supplementation.

The proponents provide appropriate evidence that the summer Chinook population in Johnson Creek has decreased over the past 50 years. The purpose of supplementing the population is to reduce a risk of extirpation of the population. What is needed to more fully justify the action is a quantitative assessment of the likelihood of extirpation within specific timeframes. This should be followed by a presentation of the level of demographic support from supplementation that would be required to reduce this risk; i.e., how much supplementation at specified performance levels would lead to a 10, 20, 30, 40% etc. reduction in the risk of extirpation? This provides a context for comparing the project to alternatives. If for example, the population has a 50% chance of extirpation in the next 25 years, will we only reduce that chance to 40% under the expected performance of the supplementation program? Finally, this type of analysis would logically lead to clear performance thresholds by which to judge the artificial production portion of the program.

While it is clear (p. 29) that natural origin adults are used for broodstock, it is not clear whether adults of hatchery origin are also used for brood stock purposes. This should be clarified. Supplementation in its strictest sense (RASP) would rely solely on natural origin adults.

This project has changed from what it was first intended to be. It is now viewed as a stand-alone assessment of supplementation rather than as a part of the ISS assessment program. It appears that several issues that were contentious in the recent past have been resolved. Benefits of the program are unknown at this point, but objectives seem vague in terms of reducing the risk of extirpation - by how much, in what timeframe. They also are vague with respect to adaptive management loops to modify, expand, or terminate the supplementation.

The monitoring indicates they are adding contrasts between supplemented and unsupplemented reference streams, but no detail for this contrast is provided. It is still unclear just how supplemented and unsupplemented "reference" streams will be compared. The reliance on contrasts of supplementation with natural fish within Johnson Creek are informative but not sufficient to evaluate demographic or fitness benefits or losses from supplementation. Evaluation for the project is dependent on suitable data from reference streams, but available streams are not free from stray fish from adjacent supplementation programs.

The sponsors have made information from the project available for independent review.

The identification and magnitude of adverse outcomes for non-focal species is unknown.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1996-043-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1996-043-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Small supplementation & extensive M&E program addressing particular stock; unclear how direct the link is to FCRPS only; other entities authorized/required to address supplementation issues (eg fishery managers); needs cost share or other remedy.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-043-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1996-043-00
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
Craig Rabe Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Jay Hesse Supervisor Nez Perce Tribe
Jason Vogel Interested Party Nez Perce Tribe
John Gebhards Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Rebecca Johnson Supervisor Nez Perce Tribe
Amy Mai Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Anthony Broncheau Interested Party Nez Perce Tribe
Eric McOmie Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Carolyn Sharp Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Martin Allen Project SME Bonneville Power Administration