FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 199700900

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
199700900 Narrative	Narrative
199700900 Response to the ISRP	Response
199700900 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
199700900 Powerpoint Presentation: 2003 Update	Powerpoint Presentation
Blue Mountain: Snake Hells Canyon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Blue Mountain: Snake Hells Canyon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Evaluate Potential Means of Rebuilding Sturgeon Populations in the Snake River Between Lower Granite and Hells Canyon Dams
Proposal ID	199700900
Organization	Nez Perce Tribe (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Michael A.Tuell
Mailing address	P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email	2088437145 / miket@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project	Jaime Pinkham
Review cycle	Blue Mountain
Province / Subbasin	Blue Mountain / Snake Hells Canyon
Short description	Evaluate the need for and identify potential measures to protect and restore white sturgeon between Hells Canyon and Lower Granite dams to obtain a sustainable annual harvest.
Target species	White Sturgeon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.659	-117.4304	Snake River: Lower Granite Dam, WA
		45N14'35"
45.8532	-116.7863	Salmon River: Mouth of Salmon River, ID
45.4558	-115.9015	Salmon River: Confluence of Vinegar Creek and Salmon River, ID
46.4247	-117.0318	Clearwater River: Mouth of Clearwater River (Lewiston), ID
46.4778	-116.256	Clearwater River: Orofino, ID

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
1996	Upper Snake River Biological Risk Assessment Team (BRAT)
1997	Nez Perce Tribe White Sturgeon Multi-Year Research Plan
1997	Annual Report
1998	Annual Report
1999	Draft white sturgeon population abundance estimate Lower Granite Dam to Hells Canyon Dam
1999	Verified white sturgeon spawning attempts in Snake and Salmon Rivers- recovered white sturgeon eggs
1999	Annual Report
2000	Described age and growth of Hells Canyon white sturgeon population
2000	Radio-tagged first gravid female white sturgeon
2000	Hosted white sturgeon research coordination meeting in Clarkston, WA

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
8605000	White Sturgeon Mitigation And Restoration In The Columbia And Snake Rivers	Complementary work to restore white sturgeon outside the bounds of this project. Information exchange on means of data collection, analytical methods and other technical issues. Information crucial to comparing health of the project's population with var
9902200	Assessing Genetic Variation Among Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Populations	Information exchanged used to track gene flow from other populations and identify the genetic health of the population.
8806400	Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies and Conservation Aquaculture	Complementary work to restore white sturgeon isolated outside the bounds of this project. Information exchange on means of data collection. Information on population characteristics indicative of a white sturgeon population in danger.
8806500	Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery Investigations	Complementary work to restore white sturgeon isolated outside the bounds of this project. Information exchange on means of data collection. Information on population characteristics indicative of a white sturgeon population in danger.
9903200	Oxbow/Hells Canyon Reservoirs Consumptive Sturgeon Fishery	Study to test feasibility of providing a sturgeon fishery to offset loss of production due to hydro-system. Information exchange on means of data collection, analytical methods and other technical issues.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Determine the status and characteristics (reproductive and early life history of the Snake River white sturgeon population between Hells Canyon and Lower Granite Dams, including the major tributaries (Clearwater and Salmon Rivers).	a. Identify spawning behavoir and movements of gravid females and mature males before, during, and after spawning. Identify spawning locations.	1999-2002	$46,750
1	b. Verify spawning activities, timing, and locations.	1999-2002	$41,250
1	c. Determine distribution/movements of fish, abundance of various age classes of white sturgeon per reach throughout the system and determine life history characteristics to be used in modeling population dynamics.	1999-2002	$55,000
2. Determine habitat used for spawning and rearing of white sturgeon in the Snake River between Lower Granite and Hells Canyon dams, including major tributaries (Clearwater and Salmon Rivers).	a. Describe environmental conditions at locations where sub-adult and adult fish are captured in conjunction with task 1.a and 1.c.	1997-2002	$41,250
3. Coordination with fisheries co-managers and funding entities and dissemination of information.	a. Attendance of regional white sturgeon technical / management meetings.	1996-2017	$8,250
3	b. Data compilation and report writing.	1996-2003	$49,500
4. Develop an adaptive management plan.	a. Fully assess the risks associated with mitigative actions using information collected.	2002-2003	$48,510
4	b. Make recommendations for implementation of mitigative action(s).	2003	$0
4	c. Develop an implementation, evaluation and monitoring plan.	2003	$0
5. Restore population to provide an annual sustainable harvest of 5 kg/ha/yr.	a. Implementation of mitigative action(s).	2004-2014	$0
5	b. Evaluate and monitor effectiveness of action(s) by quantifying changes in population.	2014-2017	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Coordination with fisheries co-managers and funding entities and disseminaion of information.	1996	2003	$0
2. Develop an adaptive management plan.	2002	2003	$0
3. Restore population to provide an annual sustainable harvest of 5 kg/ha/yr.	2004	2014	$0

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$275,000	$500,000	$500,000	$500,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 3.5	$151,869
Fringe		$51,364
Supplies		$25,937
Travel		$3,576
Indirect		$48,644
Capital		$6,000
Subcontractor		$3,120
		$290,510

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$290,510
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$290,510
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-9)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. This proposal requests continued funding for an assessment of white sturgeon from Lower Granite Dam to Hells Canyon Dam in the Snake River, and to assess the feasibility of achieving a fishery objective of a sustained 5 kg/ha/yr for the NPT. The proposal needs significant remedial work. The ISRP briefing included data from past work, giving helpful overview of sturgeon studies in the Hell's Canyon area over the last several decades. It also provided a sense of the collaboration among appropriate entities to conduct this study. The presenter described a plan over the next 3 years to wrap up Phase II of the study, which in turn leads to an adaptive management plan (including performing new risk analysis) to develop a revised recovery plan and specific implementation actions. Apparently a data collection effort has existed within the project since 1997; the findings should be summarized in the project history section.

The proposal does not identify how to mitigate for lost production but includes funding in "out years," which is presumably for mitigation. The reviewers continue to believe that this is necessary work but are increasingly concerned about how the work is being conducted and whether appropriate data are being collected for the future assessment and risk analysis.

For example:

The proposal refers to a mark-recapture program with 95% confidence bounds but refers to estimating the population "throughout the study area, in individual reaches, and for various size/age classes." The marking and sampling requirements to achieve 95% CI on each of these strata would be very different, but no design or tagging description is included. ISRP cannot assess the mark-recapture program in the absence of a design, and were not provided any historical results.
Floy anchor tags are suggested for assessing the retention of PIT tags but retention of external Floy tags would seem less likely than the injected PIT tags. Why were Floy tags selected and what have the results been?
The proposal describes the boundary between NPT work and the project conducted by IPC, and comments on a formal data sharing agreement. This is obviously necessary but it does not comment on whether comparable methods are being used. This is likely but should be confirmed due to the need to pool data for the analyses.
The proposal acknowledges the difficulty of aging fish older than 20 years. Is there a strategy developed on how to determine these errors ... for example, could oxytetracyclene be injected to provide bands on otoliths or bony tissue?
At what size/age do smaller sturgeon recruit to the sampling gear? How are these smaller fish being assessed in this project? Is there a concern for the recruitment of sturgeon from areas above Hells Canyon or are these fish marked discretely?

How does flow fluctuation effect sturgeon production? The project should attempt to relate demographic parameters to flow fluctuations; data on that have apparently been collected.

Objectives 5 & 6 require an assessment method or model in order to assess risk and examine mitigation needs. Such an analytical tool is not referred to in the proposal. Is support needed to develop this model and who is responsible for this assessment? When is this assessment due or needed?

Concerning the budget, are tasks 1a and 1b actually different? They have separate budgets but seem the same in the text. Further, Section 9f states that Objective 1 is complete, so why is there a budget for continued work? Is FY 2002 the final year?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

The development of a management plan will follow the completion of field activities in 2002. Reviewers question whether the harvest value is correct.

The RFC suggests the timeframes in out years look long. In addition, a closer working relationship needs to be developed with IDFG, either by including a subcontract for their participation in analyzing and interpreting data or by a separate contract as in proposal 27015. The RFC expressed concerns that there may be opportunities for simultaneous work that are not mentioned. The harvest goal in the proposal is a NPT goal and is not shared by IDFG. A working group that monitors this project's progress should be formed (IDFG, ODFW, NPT, IPC). Or they may be able to cooperate with the IPC WSTAC.

The BRAT Review identified catch and release fishing in the Hells Canyon reach as one of the major potential limiting factors for sturgeon here. Future proposals should clarify why this is not being investigated. USGS has put forth proposals to investigate these fishery affects, and this is the reach that seems most appropriate for the investigation.

Food availability was also listed in the BRAT review as a potential limiting factor. Bioenergetics work to describe available resources compared to those needed for sturgeon production seems appropriate but is not being pursued. While comments from the ISRP are probably valid given they have no contact with the project proponents, the RFC has confidence in the described methods and analyses. The RFC indicated that progress by project personnel in completing reports, making population information available, etc., is unclear.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-12A)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable - adequate response. The project is conducting good basic biological research, however, reviewers are concerned that current efforts need to lead to an analytic, quantitative assessment rather than to a qualitative assessment. The project would benefit by external advice on experimental design and analysis while the project is still in a formative stage.

A Management Plan for Implementation will be developed by 2003. Before implementation of the plan, it should be reviewed by the BRT (Biological Risk Assessment Team) or another independent review group, if the BRT cannot provide an independent assessment.

Other specific concerns are:

The sponsor's response with respect to confidence intervals on marking and sampling was not adequate.
The project team does not deal adequately with problems of aging errors and partial recruitment

The assessment of flow impacts on sturgeon populations is not yet well defined. Researchers would be relating demographic parameters to flow patterns within the Snake.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Recommend.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Fund

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

05 would be a phase in year for the project. Would represent a SCOPE CHANGE stemming from the BRAT.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

An additional $140,406 is currently in BPA contracting and is expected to be obligated for 2003 (total 2003 obligated: $164,285). In addition, $86,500 has been earmarked for potential subcontracts awaiting project recommendation (due at the end of summer 2003). Note: 2005 represents a transition or phased year.

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$284,350	$0	$0

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website