FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 200302700
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 |
|---|---|
| 32003 Narrative | Narrative |
| 32003 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 32003 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Letter from S. McNary (BPA) to R. Orme (Nez Perce Tribe) Re: Final Funding Decision for project proposal 32003 | BPA Decision Letter |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | White Sturgeon put, grow, and take fishery feasibility assessment, Oxbow/Hells Canyon reservoirs. |
| Proposal ID | 200302700 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Rick Orme |
| Mailing address | PO 1942 McCall, ID 83638 |
| Phone / email | 2086345290 / Ricko@NezPerce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jamie Pinkham |
| Review cycle | Middle Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Snake Lower Middle |
| Short description | The goal of this proposed project is to determine the feasibility of a put, grow, and take white sturgeon fishery in Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs. |
| Target species | White Sturgeon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 43.6365 | -117.3288 | Oxbow Reservoir |
| 45.2358 | -116.7 | Hells Canyon Reservoir |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Conducted collaborative meetings with co-managers to determine the appropriate course of action in determining the feasibility of a put, grow, and take white sturgeon fishery in Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs. |
| 2000 | With co-managers, develped a research plan to address unceartaties limiting a feasibility assesment of a put, grow, and take white sturgeon fishery in Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199902200 | Assessing Genetic Variation Among Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Populations | Need genetic data to determine approprate source of sturgeon for stocking into Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 2003 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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Coordination and collaboration with regional co-managers. | 1.A Conduct annual coordination and collaboration meetings with co-managers and other interested agencies and organizations. | 3 | $15,455 | |
| 2. Obtain appropriate permitting and NEPA documentation. | 2.A Categorical exclusion. | .5 | $15,455 | |
| 2.B Biological assessment. | .5 | $15,455 | ||
| 2.C State live fish transportation permits. | .5 | $15,455 | ||
| 3. Acquire and stock juvenile white sturgeon into Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs. | 3.A Collect and stock juvenile white sturgeon. | .5 | $32,782 | |
| 3.B PIT tag, sonic tag, and mark (scute removal) collected fish. | .5 | $34,584 | ||
| 4. Quantify entrainment and estimate entrainment potential of stocked white sturgeon in Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs. | 4.A Monitor entrainment of stocked sonic tagged sturgeon using a stationary receiver in close proximity to the outlet of Hells Canyon Dam. | 2.5 | $32,784 | |
| 4.B Monitor seasonal habitats used by stocked sonic tagged white sturgeon to provide data regarding travel times, seasonal mean daily travel distance, and seasonal use of fore bay. | 2.5 | $32,784 | ||
| 5. Estimate growth, survival and monitor diet of juvenile sturgeon in Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs. | 5.A Sample stocked sturgeon bi-annually in Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs using standard set line techniques and through hook and line sampling techniques. | 2.5 | $32,784 | |
| 5.B Estimate growth, survival, condition factor, and catch rates of stocked sturgeon. | 2.5 | $32,784 | ||
| 5.C Collect diet data from a portion of sampled sturgeon using non-lethal techniques. | 2.5 | $32,784 | ||
| 6. Develop models to better define fishery potential, evaluate potential genetic risks, evaluate entrainment potential, evaluate benefits and risks, and help define critical information needs and sensitivity of parameters. | 6.A Develop population model to explore fishery potential over a range of potential stocking densities, measured survival rates, measured and estimated potential entrainment rates, and exploitation rates. | 1 | $0 | |
| 6.B Develop genetic risk model based on a range of stocking densities of cultured fish, measured survival rates, measured and estimated potential entrainment rates, and age of maturity. | 1 | $0 | ||
| 6.C Develop entrainment probability model based on seasonal annual flow and spill events, seasonal use of fore bay, and seasonal mean daily travel distance to asses potential loss rates from Hells Canyon Reservoir. | 2 | $0 | Yes | |
| 7. Limnological monitoring. | 7.A Record temperature and oxygen profiles monthly along the length of the reservoirs and relate to movements, habitats, and depths occupied by sonic tagged sturgeon. | 2.5 | $32,784 | |
| 8. Identify and prioritize appropriate long term sources of white sturgeon for the development of a put and take fishery. | 8.A Identify potential sources of wild and cultured fish, identifying genetic make up, acquisition and transport costs, and long term supply. | 3 | $15,455 | |
| 9. Data transfer. | 9.A Data transfer. | 3 | $15,455 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Coordination and collaboration with regional co-managers. | 2004 | 2005 | $41,000 |
| 4. Quantify entrainment and estimate entrainment potential of stocked white sturgeon in Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs. | 2004 | 2005 | $82,000 |
| 5. Estimate growth, survival and monitor diet of juvenile sturgeon in Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs. | 2004 | 2005 | $82,000 |
| 6. Develop models to better define fishery potential, evaluate potential genetic risks, evaluate entrainment potential, evaluate benefits and risks, and help define critical information needs and sensitivity of parameters. | 2004 | 2005 | $82,000 |
| 7. Limnological monitoring. | 2004 | 2005 | $41,000 |
| 8. Identify and prioritize appropriate long term sources of white sturgeon for the development of a put and take fishery. | 2004 | 2005 | $123,000 |
| 9. Data transfer. | 2004 | 2005 | $123,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $246,000 | $246,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2.5 | $89,600 |
| Fringe | $40,350 | |
| Supplies | $116,440 | |
| Travel | $5,060 | |
| Indirect | $52,550 | |
| Capital | $51,000 | |
| NEPA | included in objective 2. | $0 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 800 | $1,800 |
| $356,800 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $356,800 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $356,800 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. The project appears sound and is intended to gather data needed for Council's 3-Step process. Surveys of sturgeon in these reaches show only a handful of fish with no spawning activity (See ISRP 2000-7).Why is BPA funding being sought rather than having the project supported by Idaho Power, as the problems being addressed were caused by its facilities. How is this plan related to and how could it be integrated with the white sturgeon component of the forthcoming Idaho Power FERC relicensing Conservation Plan?
Comment:
Although CBFWA found the proposal to be technically sound, the proposal would benefit from the inclusion of additional information. For example, CBFWA suggests that the proposal needs further documentation of the sample sizes needed and analytical methods needed to determine survival and diet. To estimate survival, CBFWA suggests the release of a larger number of fish. In addition, although the number of radio tags to be implanted seems reasonable, CBFWA is unclear as to how the sample size was determined. CBFWA suggests that estimation of abundance is key to describing the survival of these fish and recommend that investigators describe what precision they are targeting, how many fish they will need to capture and how many fish they will need to examine for marks.CBFWA suggests that diet objectives need to either be modified to allow lethal sampling of the fish using an unbiased gear (gill nets not set lines) or eliminated from the proposal. CBFWA suggests that modified methods should include a description of sample size required and the methods that will be used to characterize the stomach contents (e.g., volume, weight, count, taxonomic order, preservation techniques, etc.). CBFWA applauds the proposed coordination with ODFW and IDFG.
Comment:
Fundable, high priority. The response addresses most of the ISRP's concerns. The NPT adequately makes a case for BPA support for the project, but failed to address why Idaho Power Company does not bear some of the financial responsibility for the proposed mitigation actions. NPT makes the case that development of the FCRPS has negatively impacted white sturgeon populations because the hydrosystem inundated critical habitats, disrupted juvenile and adult movements, fragmented populations, and impacted food resources. Surely construction of the three hydroelectric facilities in the Hells Canyon Complex (Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee dams) has had similar detrimental effects on white sturgeon populations in the Snake River. Therefore, it seems logical that Idaho Power Company should share the cost of the project, in spite of the FWP's support for off-site mitigation efforts. The proposal response fails to recognize and adequately discuss these issues.Comment:
Do not recommend. This project proposal was addressed in the Council's 1995 FWL Program. Section 10.4A.%. Substantive questions were raised at that time regarding the connection of this project to rate payer mitigation responsibilities. These connections have not yet been addressed.Comment:
Project Issue 7: New projects that were prioritized by the Middle Snake province group
The sponsors in the province have proposed four new projects to utilize the funds within the Council's province allocation that remains after the existing projects discussed above have been funded.
(d) NPT -- 32003 (White Sturgeon put, grow, and take fishery feasibility assessment, Oxbow/Hells Canyon reservoirs) (not funded in Fiscal Year 2003, $306,800 in Fiscal Year 2004 and $246,000 in Fiscal Year 2005).
This proposal was rated as "Fundable" by the ISRP and as "High Priority" by CBFWA. Bonneville rated the project as a "D", and points to comments it offered during the 1995 amendments to the Council's fish and wildlife program questioning Bonneville responsibility for this sort of project.
The proposal is offered as an off- site mitigation proposal. That is, the sponsor states that construction and operation of federal projects on the Columbia and Snake Rivers detrimentally impacted sturgeon populations diminishing tribal fishing opportunity. This proposal mitigates for those impacts by assessing the possibility of restoring harvest opportunity for sturgeon in an alternative area above Hell's Canyon.
Council Recommendation: The Council recommends funding the proposal. This proposal is related to an explicit fish and wildlife program measure 10.4A recommending a study for a sturgeon fishery off-site mitigation feasibility study in this area. The proposal is new, but it is related to a predecessor proposal that was withdrawn in light of ISRP concerns. As such, it does have a connection to past Bonneville investments in investigating such a project.
The Council notes that this is something of a "second try" by NPT for implementing program measure 10.4A. The first effort did not succeed because of scientific criticism, and questions as to whether or not the prior proposal stayed within sideboards established by the program language. The Council believes that this retooled proposal does conform to the sideboards established by the program measure 10.4(A) and the findings explaining the program language. Further, a Council staff memo to the Council (and provided to NPT) dated September 13, 2000 provides an explanation of the history and issues with the predecessor project. The currently proposed project was reviewed by Council staff against the issues within that memorandum, and this proposal is consistent with that guidance. Importantly, the ISRP review and rating of "Fundable" demonstrates that the scientific issues that were raised previously have been satisfied.
With regard to the Bonneville comments questioning if this sort of project is a "ratepayer responsibility", the Council response is that it has joined this issue before and reached its own conclusion that it is appropriate. That is, the simple fact that the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program included the measure that called for Bonneville to fund this sort of project, and did so over the objections of Bonneville at the time, demonstrates that the Council does believe that the project is appropriate for Bonneville funding. Further, the sponsor emphasizes that this is an "in-kind, off-site" mitigation project that is linked to federal projects below Hell's Canyon. The project sponsor has provided the staff with a comprehensive memorandum addressing the issue of Bonneville responsibility, focusing on these two points. That memorandum will not be duplicated here, but it is available for Council and Bonneville review, and will be considered part of the record for this recommendation.
Comment:
Phase 3 will be initiated upon resolution of identified issues. BPA will reengage with the Council regarding applicability of this project to the FCRPS mitigation responsibility prior to issuing a final decision.Comment:
Phase III.Comment: