Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Adult Spring/Summer Chinook Outplanting--Snake River Basin -- Nez Perce Tribe |
| Proposal ID | 200106000 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe, Department Fisheries Resource Management under Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (83-350-00), and
Monitoring and Evaluation (Project No. 83-350-3) (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | R. Ed Larson, Production Director, DFRM |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088437320 / edl@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jaime A. Pinkham, Program Manager, DFRM |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Action Plan |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / |
| Short description | Provide a rapid response to the tremendously large 2001 spring and summer chinook hatchery return to the Snake River Basin that is biologically beneficial, logistically implementable and is consistent with co-manager agreements |
| Target species | Spring and summer chinook salmon, ESA and non-listed |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 46.3717 |
-116.1697 |
Lolo Creek |
| 46.1401 |
-115.5987 |
Upper and Lower Selway River |
| 46.086 |
-115.5171 |
OHara Creek |
| 46.0456 |
-115.2954 |
Meadow Creek (Lower Selway River) |
| 46.5048 |
-114.6783 |
Colt Killed Creek |
| 45.8284 |
-115.6148 |
Newsome Creek |
| 45.8298 |
-115.9313 |
Mill Creek |
| 46.1458 |
-115.9798 |
South Fork Clearwater River |
| 45.11 |
-115.62 |
South Fork Salmon River |
| 45.0148 |
-115.7131 |
East Fork South Fork Salmon River |
| 44.27 |
-114.74 |
Upper Salmon River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Objective 1: Adult Collection, transport, & release (conducted under NPTH O&M contract). |
Task 1 - 6 see part 2. |
6 |
$78,000 |
|
| Objective 2: Adult outplant monitoring (conducted by subcontract under NPTH M&E contract). |
Task 1 - 5, see part 2. |
4 |
$50,000 |
Yes |
| Objective 3: Harvest monitoring (conducted under NPTH M&E contract). |
Task 1 - 3, see part 2 |
6 |
$67,267 |
|
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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: Includes 7 O&M and 10 M&E persons |
$72,569 |
| Fringe |
Includes both O&M and M&E personnel |
$17,352 |
| Supplies |
M&E supplies for office and field |
$2,000 |
| Travel |
M&E personnel only |
$3,420 |
| Indirect |
Includes O&M plus M&E at 20.9% |
$19,926 |
| Capital |
Five 500 gallon adult transport tanks for use on trucks already owned by the project |
$30,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Analytical and writing consultants to compile and report data collected from outplants |
$50,000 |
| $195,267 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $195,267 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $195,267 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Idaho Dept. Fish & Game |
Clearwater, Rapid River, and McCall hatchery staffs, facilities, and back-up transport equipment |
$60,000 |
in-kind |
| U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service |
Dworshak, and Kooskia, hatchery staffs, facilities, and back-up transport equipment. |
$60,000 |
in-kind |
| U.S. Army Corps Engineers |
Fish transport equipment and facility operations |
$60,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - inadequate proposal
Date:
Jun 21, 2001
Comment:
Not Fundable. Inadequate proposal. The proposal is to place many adults on the spawning grounds and, hopefully, achieve some of the results described in the proposal, particularly with respect to future genetic and abundance input into subsequent year classes. The proposal describes the expected benefits of the out planting actions with general, but quite vague, statements. It is not possible to evaluate the proposal from a scientific or technical merit, as the goals, objectives, and tasks (p. 8, proposal narrative) contain insufficient detail for such review.
The proposal does not provide an adequate description of the pros and cons of its proposed actions. For example no information is provided on specific actions other than a list of participating hatcheries and satellite facilities and a list of target rivers. Given the tremendous concern and scrutiny that has been applied to stock specific actions in the upper basin, such as captive brood or supplementation, and the carefully measured processes that have been used to evaluate and determine actions there, large-scale actions such as proposed in this proposal have as much potential to do damage as good.
In the proposal, we are unable to determine which stocks will be collected and into what locations they will be transplanted. We are unable to determine whether stocks will be transferred within or among basins. Hatchery principles have undergone significant scrutiny and refinement over the last decade and stock transfers, except under very specific circumstances (which do not include excessive hatchery returning adults), have been universally recommended against.
We understand the immediacy of the proposed project and its associated actions. However, we are concerned that the enthusiasm for the larger-than-expected run and any actions taken in association with it not jeopardize the technical rigor of existing longer-standing management actions and research programs. If the proposal is funded in some fashion, we recommend in the strongest terms possible that monitoring and evaluation protocols be expanded or put in place so that the basin can adaptively learn from the actions taken.
The record run of chinook that is causing this problem raises some interesting questions. With the greatest run in recorded history (70 years), one might conclude that all available habitats will be seeded with eggs and fry. The proposal here suggests that the problem is too many fish to the hatcheries and not enough to the streams, therefore, the need to out plant (or is it?). Does this mean that out planting in the past has not been successful and the only success is with fish released from hatcheries? What is the justification for out planting these fish? If out planted, they could cause disruption of the abundant (?) naturally spawning component of the population.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jul 12, 2001
Comment:
Pending
Recommendation:
Do not fund
Date:
Aug 3, 2001
Comment:
Not fundable, the response did not address the ISRP concerns from the ISRP's initial Action Plan review. Those concerns are repeated below:
The proposal is to place many adults on the spawning grounds and, hopefully, achieve some of the results described in the proposal, particularly with respect to future genetic and abundance input into subsequent year classes. The proposal describes the expected benefits of the out planting actions with general, but quite vague, statements. It is not possible to evaluate the proposal from a scientific or technical merit, as the goals, objectives, and tasks (p. 8, proposal narrative) contain insufficient detail for such review.
The proposal does not provide an adequate description of the pros and cons of its proposed actions. For example no information is provided on specific actions other than a list of participating hatcheries and satellite facilities and a list of target rivers. Given the tremendous concern and scrutiny that has been applied to stock specific actions in the upper basin, such as captive brood or supplementation, and the carefully measured processes that have been used to evaluate and determine actions there, large-scale actions such as proposed in this proposal have as much potential to do damage as good.
In the proposal, we are unable to determine which stocks will be collected and into what locations they will be transplanted. We are unable to determine whether stocks will be transferred within or among basins. Hatchery principles have undergone significant scrutiny and refinement over the last decade and stock transfers, except under very specific circumstances (which do not include excessive hatchery returning adults), have been universally recommended against.
We understand the immediacy of the proposed project and its associated actions. However, we are concerned that the enthusiasm for the larger-than-expected run and any actions taken in association with it not jeopardize the technical rigor of existing longer-standing management actions and research programs. If the proposal is funded in some fashion, we recommend in the strongest terms possible that monitoring and evaluation protocols be expanded or put in place so that the basin can adaptively learn from the actions taken.
The record run of chinook that is causing this problem raises some interesting questions. With the greatest run in recorded history (70 years), one might conclude that all available habitats will be seeded with eggs and fry. The proposal here suggests that the problem is too many fish to the hatcheries and not enough to the streams, therefore, the need to out plant the excess returning adults. Does this mean that out planting in the past has not been successful and the only success is with fish released from hatcheries? What is the justification for out planting these fish? If out planted, they could cause disruption of the abundant (?) naturally spawning component of the population.
