FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 32001

Additional documents

TitleType
32001 Narrative Narrative
32001 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
32001 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEvaluate the Feasibility Artificial Production Facility DVIR
Proposal ID32001
OrganizationShoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (SPT - DVIR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameGuy Dodson Sr.
Mailing addressBox 219 Owyhee, NV 89832
Phone / email2087593246 / DVIRFG98@aol.com
Manager authorizing this projectGuy Dodson Sr.
Review cycleMiddle Snake
Province / SubbasinMiddle Snake / Owyhee
Short descriptionTo provide a sustenance fishery for the Tribal of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (DVIR). This will be accomplished through the Feasibility, Construction, and Operation of an Artifical Production Facility.
Target speciesrainbow trout, redband trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
NW corner DVIR
SW corner DVIR
NE corner DVIR
SE corner DVIR
41.79 -115.95 Owyhee River
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
New Project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
8815601 Duck Valley Resident Fish Stocking Provide fish for these reservoirs
9501506 Lake Billy Shaw Reservoir Operations and Maintenance Provide fish for this reservoir

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Develop new resident fisheries focusing on native fish within the DVIR to provide 170,000lbs of resident fish annually for harvest by Tribal and non-tribal members to mitigate inpart for loss of anadromous fishing opportunities a. Conduct site feasibility studies. Identify potential sites for development. Collect environmental and cultural information needed to assess site suitability; develop engineering designs; compile NEPA documentation 1 $250,000 Yes
b. Develop engineering designs and costs with BOR, BPA, and other appropriate agencies, as well as specific biological requirements. (Master Plan Development) 1 $0 Yes
c. Compile required environmental documentation (permits) pursuant to NEPA. Assess potential environmental impacts due to proposed fishery following NEPA guidelines. 1 $15,000
d. Complete Cultural Resources survey with Tribal Cultural Resources Dept. 1 $15,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Develop engineering designs and costs with BOR, BPA, and other appropriate agencies, as well as specific biological requirements. (Master Plan) 4 4 $200,000
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2004
$200,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Construction of facility according to final designs a. Construct facility 1 $0 Yes
2. Implement developed plans in outyears after construction (HGMP, Production plan, Fish health, M&E) a. Implement Monitoring and Evaluation Plan ongoing $0
b. Implement production plans (HGMP, Fish Health, Production) ongoing $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Phase construction of new fishery facility in accordance with site feasibility and design studies. 2005 2005 $1,700,000
2. Implement developed plans in outyears after construction (HGMP, Production plan, Fish health, M&E) 6 7 $48,000
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$1,700,000$22,000$26,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Develop plans to implement after construction of facility a. Develop fish management plan for three reservoirs to help relieve fishing pressure on streams containing native fish. In coordination with IDFG, NDOW, BLM, BOR, and other scientists in the region ongoing $20,000
b. Develop monitoring and evaluation plan with scientists in the region and coordinating agencies. ongoing $0
c. Until results of genetics work on DVIR, rear and release only sterile fish in closed reservoirs on DVIR. ongoing $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. In cooperation with DVIR genetics project, implement native fish restoration, native fish brood stock, and rearing of native and/or sterile salmonids for outplanting in closed reservoir systems. Contingent upon acceptance of Feasibiltiy study. 4 7 $425,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$30,000$125,000$150,000$150,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Develop Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Production Facility a. Develop HGMP's for implementation upon completion of construction, in accordance with CBFWA, APAC, NWPPC, and other scientists in the region. Upon acceptance of Feasibility Study 1 $0
b. Develop fish health protocol with coordinating scientists, fish health experts, and regional agencies. 1 $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Develop Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Production Facility (update and revise as needed) 4 7 $120,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 1 Hatchery Biologist to oversee Feasibility study, and begin developing Management Plans $32,000
Fringe @17% of salary $5,440
Travel For travel to BPA, NWPPC related meetings $5,000
Indirect @24% of budget $12,586
NEPA Cutural Resource surveys, Associated NEPA costs $10,000
Subcontractor Consultant to conduct feasiblity study $234,974
$300,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$300,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$300,000
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Reason for change in estimated budget

NA

Reason for change in scope

NA

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes Land for faciltiy $800,000 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. This proposal is for the feasibility, design, construction, and implementation of an artificial production facility in the DVIR to produce rainbow trout, or possibly native redband trout, for stocking into three DVIR put-grow-and-take fisheries. The proposal arises in part out of the termination of the SBT-SPT Joint Culture Facility, which did not pass the 3-Step Review process due largely to concerns about the effects of stocking non-native fish onto native trout populations, inadequate background assessments of native fish abundance and distributions, and inadequate monitoring and evaluation plans.

The proposal justifies the project on the grounds of measures in the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program, stocking needs for the three DVIR reservoirs, and a perceived need to relieve fishing pressure on native stream-dwelling redband trout in the DVIR streams. The status of redband trout (i.e., distribution and abundance) on the DVIR is not presently known. Indeed, the presence of redband trout on the DVIR has yet to be demonstrated; it is in fact the purpose behind Project 200007900. That project plans to inventory trout in DVIR streams, and to collect tissue samples from observed trout specimens to determine if redband trout populations exist on the DVIR that are not hybridized with rainbow trout as a result of the widespread indiscriminate stocking of rainbow trout through much of the west during the 20th century.

If Project 200007900 identifies redband trout as present on the DVIR in numbers sufficient for brood stock collection, this project proposes to construct a state-of-the-art artificial production facility that could serve as a model for other similar facilities used in native fish programs. The difficulties of bringing native wild trout into medium- to large-scale aquaculture are enormous and technically challenging, as the rearing conditions and diets developed for semi-domesticated stocks of rainbow trout are often not adequate for wild redband or cutthroat trout. The proposal does not adequately address these potential difficulties. If redband trout are not present on the DVIR, then the facility would be devoted to growing rainbow trout for stocking into the three DVIR reservoirs, and presumably would not need to be as state-of-the-art.

As noted in the ISRP Final 3-Step review of the now-terminated Joint Culture Facility, it is premature to consider an artificial production facility for the DVIR until the results of the stock and genetic inventory project are known (Project 200007900). These results would provide direction about the scale and sophistication of the production facility, as well as insights as to whether the facility is needed at all. As noted above, a more modest facility may meet the proposal objectives if production focuses on rainbow trout, rather than redband trout.

A cost-benefit analysis should be employed to shed additional insight into the need and justification for the facility and proposed program. Program needs may be met as economically through annual purchase of needed fish. Current annual expenses to produce rainbow trout for stocking two DVIR reservoirs are cited at $130K; with the stocking of Lake Billy Shaw, the third reservoir, those costs would likely approach $200K annually. Construction costs (estimated at roughly $2 million) and projected annual operations and maintenance costs (projected at $200K/yr) should be weighed against the estimated costs of purchasing rainbow trout for stocking over some timeframe (10, 20, 30 years). Numerous commercial aquaculture operations exist along the Snake River near Hagerman, Idaho, from which rainbow trout could likely be obtained.

Finally, most of the implementation steps outlined in the proposal call for RFPs rather than for direct involvement by DVIR staff. How will oversight be provided to ensure quality control and appropriate designs? What criteria will be used to evaluate potential subcontractors and to evaluate their proposals? After construction, will the facility and staff also be run by subcontractors or by DVIR staff?


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

CBFWA recommended that Objective 1 (Tasks a-d) be categorized as "High Priority." Although not included in the proposal, a cost benefit analysis will be performed. CBFWA suggests that Objective 1 be extended for a three-year period at a total cost of $450,000. CBFWA questions whether 170,000 lbs. of annual production is appropriate for the DVIR? In addition, CBFWA suggested that other options (e.g., net pen program, using shaker boxes, continued fish purchases, or developing a rearing facility) may be more cost effective. Regardless of how the fish are obtained, CBFWA recommends that monitoring and evaluation continue after stocking.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Do Not Fund. The response does not adequately addresses ISRP concerns. The response pins its technical assertions on opinions of un-named experts who speculate that raising redbands in culture will be no more difficult than cutthroat trout or other salmon. The response also suggests that unspecified advances in technology and understanding will make redband culture more feasible in a few years (when DVIR would be ready to undertake redband culture) than it currently is. The response fails to provide adequate details on planning, risk assessment, and technical details on fish culture that raise questions about the planning and technical development process for this project.

As noted in the ISRP Final 3-Step review of the now-terminated Joint Culture Facility, it is premature to consider an artificial production facility for the DVIR until an inventory of stock status and genetic status is completed for resident salmonids in DVIR streams and watersheds. These results would provide direction about the scale and sophistication of the production facility, as well as insights as to whether the facility is needed at all.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: